It's not the same at all. Our constitution prohibits an active duty military person from being President at the same time. It is in essence civilian control of the military intended to prevent a military dictorship. No military officer will ever have more power than a civilian. (The success of that has lately been questioned) Also, Musharraf was never elected by the people into office. He was a military officer who assumed power (did I miss an election somewhere in history where he won? That is entirely possible as Pakistan has not been so much in our news (relevancy) until 9/11). Granted he has made alot of progress towards democracy, but it was still in effect a military dictatorship. He was an active General of the Army while serving as President. Wait a minute, did I write anywhere that I gave an opinion on the right or wrongness of it? Is there invisible ink in my message somewhere that only you can read? :o) In which case quiting smoking has done wonders for you Dragan :o) My initial post was meant to denote surprise that Musharraf actually will retire from the military and allow elections to commence...



>>Had to be some political pressure for that one...
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21993955/
>
>What's wrong with being the prez and the C-in-C at the same time? Even GW2B is one. Somehow following the example of the US is now wrong? Tsk, tsk...