@floydian
i liked the argument.all u said is neither right nor wrong altogether.i define his virtues n vices like this:
VIRTUES:
a- he improved country's image abroad.people began to see pakistan in multiple apects other than kashmir context or as most dangerous state alone...
b- lessons from his rule are so bitter that never,i believe,its going to be that simple for any army man to try his luck in politics this way,neither people will be that easily duped n hence world might see a historical important event in Pakistan running on the trejectory of democracy for few decdes if not foreverw/o intrruptions(this is the way i believe he strengthened the democracy not otherwise)...
c- he set a trend of thinking out of the box by suggesting a new course for settling kashmir issue
d- he was an effective speaker
VICES:
a- his achievements,political n economical,were temporary.
b- he left country in no better conditions than ever n hence he is no different from any other rulers of pakistan.
e- he thought unconventionally for the external matters but in the internal matters played every dirty politics to maintain his rule.
f- never before army's image deterriorated to this extent just because:
1-he culdn't maintained the image of a statesman n was generally dubbed as american stooge
2-war on terrorism became war on countrymen
3-induction of army officers in civil department
e- his efforts on various other fronts such as in eradicating extremism were ostentatious n thus dishonest
i agree no one is perfect so was he.but his saving grace could have been stronger had he not left the country in hands of political parties surviving due to family names ,rather than producing some brave,honest politicians!
REgards,n Keep smiling
