The Patriots - the PPP renegades who discovered a messiah in Gen Pervez Musharraf and on account of that revelation bolted from their party - were, after all, not whistling in the dark.
When in the national interest they asked of the general not to take off his uniform, innocent Pakistanis wondered whether they were doing this on their own or there was more to this trick than met the eye.
With Gen Musharraf's statement to the BBC that he's yet to make up his mind about leaving his army post by the end of the year, innocence stands disabused. Students of Pakistani history, on the other hand, would not be surprised.
For the president's turnaround, casting doubts on a public pledge he'd made only a few months ago, is in full accord with the pattern of Pakistani governance these past 50 years.
The surprising thing would have been just the opposite: Musharraf knocking the Patriots on the head, upbraiding them for talking nonsense, and saying that as promised, he would take off his uniform before the year was out.
The truly shocking thing would have been that, sending shock waves across the country and running counter to everything we know of our past, not this theoretical about-turn which flint-hearted cynics and serious students of history fully expected.
When was the last time a Pakistani ruler said something and the national interest did not make him change his mind? Of Gen Musharraf his acolytes said that here at last was a man totally without ambition. Of course, he is still without ambition. It's only the national interest compelling him to cling to power.
Still, he is miles behind General Ziaul Haq who remains the supreme exemplar of the national interest. Zia promised to hold elections in ninety days: the longest ninety days in history because elections promised for the autumn of 1977 were held eventually in the spring of 1985.
Gen Musharraf can take heart from that example. Zia ruled for eleven and a half years. Musharraf has been at the top for only four and a half, which makes him a relative greenhorn by Ziaul Haq standards or indeed those set by another illustrious predecessor, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, who was great helmsman for eleven years.
In the BBC interview Musharraf said he's "cheesed off" with the MMA, the Mullah-Mullah Alliance, for going back on its promises. Who's the pot, who the kettle? In any event, instead of being cheesed off, the president should be grateful. The Mullahs, willy-nilly, are furnishing him with an excuse to rethink the national interest.
Both sides deserve each other, the generals and the Mullahs. The standards of morality guiding the MMA are beyond the grasp of mere mortals. The Mullahs were first against the Legal Framework Order, Gen Musharraf's hatchet job on the Constitution. Then for it, helping sanctify it through the 17th constitutional amendment.
Their justification was that they were helping break a national impasse. Who's playing games with whom? GHQ's war games against the people of Pakistan have been the staple of our politics. Now we must contend with clerical games as well.
Only the very naive will take the democratic protestations of the Mullahs seriously. Their concern is not so much with the Constitution, or generally accepted notions of democracy, as with long-term prospects of coming to power.
Most of them, especially those from the Jamaat-i-Islami, have been adept at dancing to military tunes. Following the 2002 elections they have tasted real power for the first time, something they are not about to forgo in a hurry.
Their long-term dream is to be the Tayyip Erdogans of Pakistani politics: Islamist parties coming to power through the ballot box. If to achieve that goal they must cross a sea of false promises, it's a small price to pay.
In the same BBC interview the president was asked about the possibility of becoming a field marshal. He said he was not a person who liked doing things for himself, a proclamation of self-denial which almost pushes the president into saintly company.
His modesty forbids him to become field marshal. In his concern for the country, however, he doesn't mind being president through procedures unknown to the Constitution.
Musharraf's first promise was stability. The politicians had ruined the country. He would heal old wounds and gift the nation something called "real democracy". Four and a half years into the new Jerusalem, the promised kingdom of his first endeavours, we learn that stability is the function of not any institution but a single article of clothing, the army chief's uniform.
Says something for the potency of our republic: teetering forever on the brink of ruin and destruction and saved from perdition by just one man and his miraculous armour.
The government's accredited megaphone, Info Minister Rashid Ahmed, says that the president will abide by the 17th Amendment which forbids the holding of two offices after Dec 31. He's said this authoritatively.
Only problem is one of credibility. In a nation of 140 million people, can one individual be found who'll put faith in what this particular info minister says? Lips meant to be disbelieved: that's the problem we face here.
Throughout recorded history Punjab has come into its own only twice: first under the great Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and, since 1947, as the main pillar and strength of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Otherwise it has been the stamping ground of invading armies, ruled either from Kabul or Delhi.
A common thread unites these two epochs of Punjab's ascendancy: the primacy of the army in national life. The Khalsa army was the life and soul of Ranjit Singh's kingdom. Our modern army is the central facet of our republic, casting a shadow over everything else and the moving force behind national decisions.
So why blame Musharraf for being a realist? He is what he is because of his army position. Deprive him of that and whatever else happens, much of his authority dissipates.
Bangladesh, our offspring, the child of Pakistani folly, has managed to move from outright militarism to a form of democracy, Khalida Zia and Hasina Wajid alternating in power through the mediation of the ballot box. Bangladesh may have other sorrows but at least in this instance it has moved ahead of us. We remain stuck with Ranjit Singh's legacy, unable to break the gridlock of military domination.
For now this gridlock is only strengthened by our American connection. The Bush White House has forged a powerful relationship with Gen Musharraf personally. Each needs the other but for different reasons.
The Pakistan army is doing important service for the Americans on the Afghan border while support from the Bush administration bolsters Musharraf's standing and self-confidence.
Nothing is likely to affect this equation between now and November 2 when the US presidential election takes place. If the American people prove their dumbness once again and re-elect Bush, that's another matter.
But if showing some sense, and punishing Bush for hubris and the mess made in Iraq, they boot him out and choose John Kerry instead, then it's not too far-fetched to expect a slight shift in emphasis.
Until the US is finished with its business in Afghanistan, Pakistan will remain an important staging post in US calculations. But whereas the Bush administration equates Pakistan with Musharraf and a handful of generals, a Kerry White House could be tempted to look at broader options. That's when Pakistan's exiles should be planning their return to the country.
Until November then, Pakistani politics is likely to be on hold. After that, who knows?
Tailpiece: Javed Hashmi's trial in Adiala Jail and sentencing on charges of 'sedition', another blot on our face.