Actually, you still are not getting the difference. There is a difference between an active duty General of the Armed Forces being President and the military answering to a civilian leader. The concept is that the military will always answer to a civilian so that there is never a military dictorship.



>>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...
>
>I forgot about his origins - his ascension into power happened while I didn't have a dime to pay attention, and I couldn't possibly assume that such a close ally in the War On Terror would in fact be a military dictator. Well, well, what do I know.
>
>So civilian-president-becoming-commander-in-chief is OK, but a commander-in-chief-becoming-president is not... alright, makes sense in a way. The path to the position is sort of different :).
>
>But then why didn't general (or universal or whatever) Musharraf go back to his old job and leave the latest gig?