Khuaja Asif unveiled Ex COAS Gen. Raheel appointed as chief of Islamic military alliance. Any authenticity? If it is true then should Raheel sharif go for it? Is not it going to be an alliance agaist selective terrorists?

News is authentic, but it is going to be a big blunder on part of gen. Raheel and the present government. We never learnt lessons from history, first it was gen zia who jumped into afghanistan to fight soviet union just to please america, second time it was gen musharraf who for no logical reasons decided to become part of so called war on terror, now it gen raheel again indulging the country in saudi led alliance which is killing muslims along with usa in middle east, iraq. It will badly damage the neutral stand which Pakistan took during yemen crisis. So again Pakistanis should be ready to pay huge price for this decision.

A famous quote 'People only see what they want to see' can illustrate this whole discussion, i have an asnwer for you, you alleged 3 Generals, you pointed:

Gen. Zia for his Sovient-Us proxy war
Gen. Musharraf on igniting war on terror
Gen. Raheel on joining Islamic Alliances

1- ZIA's Legacy:

These all steps were taken on the need of the specific time, in 1970's zia enabled the aid inflow through playing trump card i.e. proxy war, Pakistan became a mainstream for the world and proven its potential in war games but after his ASSASSINATION the whole game was change i.e. policies that can sanitize the dirty arms played in war zone (Militants).And it took decades to obliterate non-state actors(i.e. Achievements of Zarb e Azab) .

2- Gen. Musharraf's Regime:

In his book 'In the line of fire: A memoir' clearly stated that american threat was on-door step of 'Throwing back to stone-age' if the pool of war is not joined by Pakistan. 2nd threat was a green signal from US to India/Israel to attack our Nuclear Plants or declaring Pakistan a TERRORIST state, if the step of joining the war were not taken, Pakistan could be another Iraq-Syria-Afghanistan-Libya-Egypt like state. (Do you really think we can mess with US? Lol not even close), So it is clear that contemporary efforts/policies were speechless that today seems as a blunder

3- General Raheel Sharif's Era:

And finally another legend, General Raheel Sharif was offered by Saudia to head Islamic Military Alliance, didn't you see how he transformed national security to another level that was believe to be near impossible to restart and grasp. World has witnessed his achievements that even NATO was failed to eradicate terrorism as confessed by Obama. I accept that joining such pool can surely have some diplomatic loss/concerns but let him strike another goal and wait for the results that today seems Impossible.

We didn't learnt lessons(Govt's perspective) but our Prestigious Army did.

Source/Reference: Forbes. com, 09 Jan 2017, Pakistan Beats India Again.

Here you go, an evidence that can well relate to my above said 'Musharraf' Heading.

Back in 2001, Pakistan leveraged its proximity to Afghanistan to extract a big benefit from America: a write off for a big part of its foreign debt--the spark of Pakistan's fifteen-year bull market.

America needed Pakistan as an ally in its war against Afghanistan. And Pakistan's leadership offered to do just that in exchange for the US brokering debt relief for their large external debt - 60 percent of the country’s GDP, with debt serving counting for 30 percent of exports.

To Ambber, senior Member
How can you say that it was Musharaf who jumped into the war on terror for no logical reasons? Please ENLIGHTEN me. What other option, if any, did we have? Would you have preferred, had Bush bombed us to stone age?
"Do not come between the dragon and its wrath", said Shakespeare.

The fundamental issue with PAK joining the saudi led bloc is that it is meant to control Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah(in Lebanon), and certainly Yemen where HOuthis are in power on the ground and for 20 months Saudis have been committing war crimes.
Not just that Iran is our immediate neighbour, PAK also has around 20 percent Shia population, how would they think of it is a serious thing.
Besides, Should PAK play a role, that must be of a mediator between Iran and KSA so that the bloodletting and terrorism may somehow be rooted out of the ME and all the Muslim states, to any possible ambit.

There are many variables, need to be taken into account. As far as Mush was concerned he lied on many fronts in his book, 'In the Line of Fire'. Richard Armitage as quoted by Daniel. S. Markey in his book, 'No Exit from Pakistan' states, ' There was no such thing as sending back to stone age. It was a lie by Mush.'

Moreover, Abdus Sattar in 'Foreign Policy' claim that Mush decided to join the alliance on WoT even before the US officially requested. Further, 10 corps commanders out of 14 were against joining the alliance. And the ISI chief wasn't influenced by Mush's doctrine. Why Mush did that? He was a usurper and that was an excellent chance to stay in power.

Well, bro its all about the inner screams of school of thoughts that express someone when he writes, however, essence of your above mentioned critics is kinda impunity of Gen. Musharraf, hoax and lies for the greed of power.

Rather than considering the then deputy secretary's counter statement, i would love to draw your attention on other related statements and communiqué like "you are with us or against us" this could be the soft version of bombing/throwing back to stone age, what was going in UN-Official communication, who knows? Our General knows better than a desktop warriors(Like Me). Finally, we ended up with some crunch of Mighty Dollar Inflows that boosted economic condition for that time. I accept the consequences that accelerated to another level today but a common phenomenon is: A risk can be minimized, cannot be removed..
Risk today is, we are still vulnerable.

Can you please tell PRECISELY what contemporary steps/measures were most suitable instead of alliance? And how to counter such aggression?

Btw, It took around 1 min to recognize the word 'Mush'(Confusing it with Bush) . Lol

Well, bro its all about the inner screams of school of thoughts that express someone when he writes, however, essence of your above mentioned critics is kinda impunity of Gen. Musharraf, hoax and lies for the greed of power.

Rather than considering the then deputy secretary's counter statement, i would love to draw your attention on other related statements and communiqué like "you are with us or against us" this could be the soft version of bombing/throwing back to stone age, what was going in UN-Official communication, who knows? Our General knows better than a desktop warriors(Like Me). Finally, we ended up with some crunch of Mighty Dollar Inflows that boosted economic condition for that time. I accept the consequences that accelerated to another level today but a common phenomenon is: A risk can be minimized, cannot be removed..
Risk today is, we are still vulnerable.

Can you please tell PRECISELY what contemporary steps/measures were most suitable instead of alliance? And how to counter such aggression?

Btw, It took around 1 min to recognize the word 'Mush'(Confusing it with Bush) . Lol

What could have been done post 9/11 rather than becoming Front Line State?

The precise answer to that question is staying neutral then; as advised by the then ISI Chief and 10 Corps Commanders. "You are either with us or not" doesn't mean that the US would have started bombing Pakistan. The International System has norms and the US wasn't a sole player. There are five others, the UNSC.

On foreign aid and US assistance: Since 50s till 2016; US has provided Pakistan in total, dollars 70 billion (Figure estimated by Abdus Sattar, Pakistan former Foreign Secretary). However, the Pakistani Cost of War only in WoT is dollars 120 billion. Cost of life; 40 thousand. Society has become more extremist overall. Suicide bombings within Pakistan rose to more than 350, there was only 1 pre 9/11. (Source: SATP)

On Keyboard Warriors: The concept of Warfare from antiquity is well defined. War isn't planned by generals; they fight. Policies are made by Strategists like; Thucidydes; Sun Tzu; Chankya; Machiaveli; Mackinder.
Post Nukes, the dynamics have changed. The concept of Balance of Power isn't valid anymore; it's rather balance of terror. The so called legend, General Raheel has just recently accepted at World Economic Forum that how important is winning the Cyber Warfare. Ideas shape the course of any violent movement. When it becomes ideology, terrorism is employed as a mean.

Wars aren't fought by armies now rather proxies.

Do you still think that in age of Nukes there's any chance of Conventional War?

We all follow some school of thought so do I, however, no school of thought teaches to distort facts. They remain same. Whatever school of thought, simply put, Army has no role in politics. If they would play they will fail like they always failed.

Pakistan lost 65 War; a dictator was in power. Pakistan lost its Eastern Wing, a dictator was ruling. Pakistan lost Siachen a dictator was ruling. And lastly, Pakistan is witnessing a worst kind of extremism, terrorism, sectarian clashes; a dictator was responsible for that as well.