plz answer the questions in simple?
no need to show your intellect to doge the ever happening facts?
Really.. then let me bring in the facts.
Ayub Khan was outlined as a failed officer by the Quaid. Yet he used manipulation in cohesion with whatever elements he could find to bring himself into power(as outlined by him in his own book). So the first sinner was a dictator.
Ayub's favorite guy for quite a while was none other than ZA Bhutto.. who later would take power.
Ayub reneged against every principle he so called stood for when he handed over power to his orgy loving subordinate Yahya khan instead of a civillian political caretaker government.
Yahya left quietly due to Bhuttos popular support among the masses. The same Bhutto who gave you the nuclear program..
Bhutto selected Zia because the man was a deceiving shrew who would keep his head down all the time when in reality he was simply taking his opportunity...
All your Sharifs, the Taliban,Blasphemy laws.. people who shoot little girls.. are thanks to Zia.. Who while lying to the whole country about holding elections within a year... kept power for over a decade and made millions in corruption within the armed forces that were the talk of scandals in the daily papers.
Then comes the Bhuttos and the Nawazs.. while the Army actually played its correct role.. With both massive corruption and projects like the Motorway being initiated..along with the Atomic bomb blast decision. Come Musharaaf who was yessiring to Nawaz Sharif as late as May 99 in front of yours truly during a reception in PC Bhurban for Nelson Mandela..appointed to uphold the constitution.. instead deposes "ameel-ul-tikkas" Mian sb.. takes over.. tried reform and then finds himself holding referendums since he likes power too.
So then the appointers of these saviors were deceived as they had deceived their saviors and so forth.
So the answer to your question should then be phrased as Pakistani Army Chiefs have all been opportunists who find no problem in betraying their benefactors when the time was right for them to take over... But there is proof to the contrary in Gen Karamat.. who was also present in a political crises but acted according to his professional boundaries..
Why do you not make a pithy quip about that?
But that would be too complex for the extremely simple.. and rather dumb question you pose based on the idea that somehow the politicians should have been smarter not to appoint these men if they are usurpers of power.
Even when these feudal dynasties have repeatedly demonstrated little different characteristics from the dictators they so vehemently opposed... So if I refuse to be a simpleton and give you an intellectual answer.. please come to that level to listen to it rather than dragging me down below.
