I am of the same mind as long as the state of country you have narrated in this piece of writing. But, frankly speaking, some of your recommendations may be termed as day dreaming.

1. Placing ISI under civilian Government.

No Government is competent enough to carry out this almost unattainable task because they seriously lack political and constitutional skills. Current Government tried and even issued a notification, but had to countermand it the same evening. It appears as they tried to fence in a monkey in bird’s cage. Today, our nation is not only plagued by what you stated, but also by the corruption, nepotism, inefficient leadership, exploitation of national exchequer by avaricious echelons and lack of will to find a course of action against all odds. Placing ISI under civilian government would mean a colossal loss to this institution as well.

2. Revisiting terms to wrestle war against terrorism

So far as an extensive debate over counter-strategy for war against terrorism is concerned, it must be carried out in parliament with all driving forces in picture, but there remains a slightest chance of coming to an agreeable course of policy because our government is significantly dictated by the US. Today’s visit of Hillary Clinton is epiphany of another dictation.

3. Concerns regarding sovereignty

I would not make any comments on this point, but would direct you to May 2, operation Geronimo and then to (ironically) swift response of our government machinery Is this how a nation protects its sovereignty?

Leaving all other variance of opinion on other recommendations, I would come to differ at your baseline. How far is our civilian government competent to take strategic and security decisions? Do they have decision power? Could you please name some of the effective and practicable policies formulated by parliament or concerned ministries to eradicate socio-economic evils even?

Regards

__________________
"The calmer I appear, the more dangerous I am."