Forgive me, but I will highlight your post as an example of Pakistan's messianic complex. Put simply, every single leader in any nation has their drawbacks: nobody is perfect, and everybody is worthy of critiscm. Ayub did some great things, but he was not perfect. The same goes for Musharraf - you cannot discount the man's entire analysis due to one flaw you perceive within it. And I'll get some stick here, but this goes for Jinnah too: the man was as flawed as anybody.
You (as in, the objective "you" and not your person directly) cannot ridicule the masses as inferiors, while making intellectual blunders yourself.
I have another Pakistani complex in mind, quick conclusions based on insufficient information. The issue with merits and demerits of a person have LITTLE do with a persons "personal" flaws. It has to do with capability. We take Machiavelli as an example of brilliant ideas for subterfuge regardless of the morality behind it, Why? because for all his mistakes, there is little doubting the capability Machiavelli had as a political and diplomatic advisor. Hence you would take his word as having some weight in credibility. When there is little proof for credibility, the word itself dies down in its level.
Hence your messianic complex conclusion would have been more apt on me if Musharraf had still been generally capable much as Jinnah was. The proof is in the pudding, Musharraf was a bad strategist, a bad analyst.. and a mediocre officer at best. His only call to fame was his commando background, which made him foolhardy.. not hardly a fool.