There is nothing particularly innovative or original in what the general said. At the end of the day, Pakistan’s threat perception is not his prerogative. Given the fact that the US obviously has an agenda in the region that requires, vitally, the assistance of the Pakistani armed forces…no one would expect his contentions in regards to where the Pakistani military would be ‘best employed’ to be the most objective or impartial ones around.
He can talk all he wants, but to a Pakistani it would be as relevant as what Kayani might have to suggest about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the US military disposition in the world i.e. Iraq, South Korea, etc would be to an average American. This, mind you, does not mean that whatever the general said is without relevance or some factual merit; however the context and proportion of his comments has to potential to be misleading in many important ways. Many Indians, for example, will take it as a hearted endorsing of their country’s past and future behavior patterns in regards to Pakistan.
To me there is no doubt that terrorists operating in the domestic theatre, not India, are the immediate threat. However to suggest or imply that India should suddenly be rendered a non-factor in terms of Pakistan’s long security implications, the India that has undergone an unprecedented increase in military budget as well as arms imports, which are widely regarded to be Pakistan specific coupled with a new and undeniably Pakistan-oriented preemptive doctrine… would be absurd and foolish beyond addressing.