I, too, am skeptical on General Kayani’s statements regarding the distancing between the military and the government. It’s interesting, because when President Musharraf became the head of the military under Nawaz Sharif’s tenure, he was also seen in the same way that Gen. Kayani is now: namely, as someone who could be Pakistan’s savior and would stay out of politics. We should take everything that public officials in Pakistan say with a grain of salt.

You’re absolutely right about looking at the General’s lack of interference in the elections in the manner in a different light. If he already has decided that President Musharraf is bound to be sidelined, the military’s distance is more strategic than a straight abdication from the political scene. It’s hard to tell right now what strategic direction the Army will take, given the chaos that pervades Pakistani politics right now!

Point well-taken. The Western media did not portray Kayani’s move as “routine.” Typically, I rely on more than one source and look for local media outlets, but I didn’t do my due diligence on that NY Times article. Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the great work over at the Iraq blog. In my opinion, it is the most important blog FPA has running.

I wonder what you’re thoughts are on General Kayani’s statements about staying out of political affairs. I’ve been highly skeptical about such statements given Pakistan’s history, but he seems to be following his word. Conversely, if Kayani had already decided Musharaff too weak of a player and detrimental to Pakistan’s security apparatus going forward, one could view the lack of military interference in the Parliamentary elections in a different manner. Your thoughts?

A great posting all in all, and very timely.