Its very hard to disagree with you because i respect you but let me give it a try. Kayani was discussing with a foreign diplomate that he was going to remove the democratically elected president who by the way he works for (disclaimer: I too would like to see Zardari leave but only through democratic means).
Kayani was interfering in politics in contravention of the oath he took when he became an officer in the Pakistan army. By removing zardari he was usurping the will of the pakistani people.
I am some what uneasy but appreciative of the role he played in the long march saga. But he again was indulging in politics by saying that he doesnt was nawaz in power. He had no right to say that again that is the will of the Pakistani people who they send in office of the PM.
My basic problem i guess is that i thought this was the first general who actually got it that Pakistan can only become a modern nation through democratically elected government not through military Junta's. But i guess he is just like all the others.
Kiyani was expressing his opinions in the face of a crises, and discussing with concerned world powers the options h could exercise to stabilize the country and save its Democratic process and government. Nawaz couldn't come to power since the PPP coalition had the majority in Parliament. For what its worth, Kiyani allegedly said he didn't like Zardari as President either, yet Zardari is still there.
While we would all prefer that the military not interference at all in the political process, when the politicians start acting like bratty dictators and threaten to plunge the country into anarchy and violence, it is the responsibility for any institution or individual with influence to try and defuse the crises, and in Pakistan that typically ends up being the COAS.
When the politicians mature and other civilian institutions such as the judiciary and law enforcement can function independently and provide checks and balances on the powers of the politicians, and stop these shenanigans and stop threatening to plunge the country into crises, the role of the military in defusing crises ends automatically.
For example, had we had an independent judiciary and law enforcement at the time of the Sharifs disqualification and dismissal of the Punjab government, those actions could have been challenged in court and the decisions enforced by law enforcement, removing the need for Army intervention. But so long as politicians continue to keep institutions weak and subservient to their whims, such crises will keep occurring and non-civillian centers of power will keep plashing their role.
Kiyani has so far only stepped in when there has been a crisis that has threatened to destabilize the country, and that is how it should be.
