If this perception that your refer to is about a military coup, then i must say that most of the indicators so far negate such an eventuality in the near future. This is my reading of the situation. There is a difference in ground reality and what is being reported.
I also dont believe a military coup is expected. America will never allow it in the present circumstances. But there are more than one way to assume power. This is what I said in my original post...
My personal view, this is all a prelude to implement a sort of military rule that has a puppet front of a civilian democracy so that it stays palatable for the Western sources of funds and arms..
This is a question of why. And you have answered it yourself. It's not an issue of legitimacy. It's a fall out of prolonged military rules which weren't legitimate either.
But that still doesnt legitimize it. Its not for the military in a democracy to point out corruption and inefficiency in the govt. I persoanlly think that Army has become the easy fallback for most Pakistanis since it absolves them of the responsibility of choice. One may bash the existing govt of Pakistan as much as they want, but at the end of it, they have been selected by the people themselves. And indirectly the blame falls on the people for selecting bad leaders. Hence Army seems the escape hatch since Army just assumes power without the citizens having any say in it. If it works, good.. If not, well they can always say that they didnt have a choice..
Yes we can only speculate but you really think Western powers care about democracy? Historically, all coups in Pakistan have had the support of the west especially USA. Circumstances also backed such scenarios where they were more comfortable in dealing with one man.
No country cares 2 hoots about another country if it does not conform to its national interests. But those are not always openly clear. So a little bit of testing the waters is always in order. After all, appearances matter a lot.
USA cant be seen to be openly backing a dictatorship at this time with everything else going on in its backyard.
On the other hand, a dictatorship in Pakistan may give it a bigger leeway to expand its war in KP since then it wont be attacking a democracy.
Kayani knows this.. What he may need to find out is the location of the threashold..
---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------
What is being missed in your argument is the crux of the issue. Corruption means less money is available for things that have to be funded. I.E. national security etc. When there is excessive corruption or perception of such, its that much harder to acquire funding for any development (civilian or military). The issue for the armed forces is that the economy is being driven to the ground whereas it was in decent form under the previous administration.
When the Army sees the impact of this on national security, then it speaks out. Due to this, one can argue that all of what is being shared with the government is within the purview of the military's role within the ambit of national security. The idea of NSC is the same, since NSC is not convened regularly, the armed forces have no choice but to voice their concerns to the political leadership directly.
Ensuring money is available for military needs is not the mandate of the armed foces but for the ministry of defence in Pakistan. Constitutionally Army has no role to make policy decisions/comments around National security. Only implement the national security policy as formulated by the GoP. At least till the time Musharraf's recommendation of giving army a constitutional authority in Pakistan.
This is inaccurate. Kiyani won't be bothering with power. He will do his part and move on at the end of his current tenure. Plenty of opportunities have already passed him. As to your claim about money will follow, where is your proof that the previous Army chief siphoned money? Please do not put up baseless aspersions.
I dont know the man, so I can not comment on his motives, but the actions point in the direction of assuming powers greater than the ones granted to him by the constitution of Pakistan.
Also nowhere I am implying siphoning of money. All I am saying is that once you have power, getting money is no problem..So a bid at power is more fruitful than a bid at money..
---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------
Sir, bhains kae agay been bajanay sae koie ferk nahien pertaa.
By sitting over the border, they have no idea of the issues being faced by the Pakistanis and how it affects our day to day happenings.
All they need is to somehow, from somewhere, from whatever place, bash Pakistan.
What you said, has been repeated by other members too, it won't make any difference.
This is a pretty unconstructive way of killing a discussion. Have I been derogatory of Pakistan or its people anywhere in my posts in this thread? Or have I bashed anything about Pakistan except a probable attempt (which may or may not be correct) to upsurp democracy.
I said it in my initial posts that if the issue is too sensitive, then do let me know and I will back off from commenting further. I still stand by it..
