PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf's relationship with the Army is both close and not clear. Like any close relationship, it defies definition. Former ISI chief Lt Gen (retd) Hameed Gul is one of those who has reacted to this and requested that President Musharraf follow through and accept the consequences of his retirement from the Army. The primary consequence is having a date fixed for his vacation of Army House, which General Gul has mentioned in his reaction to General Musharraf's address at the Azad Kashmir Regiment's regimental darbar. General Hameed Gul has said that it is incumbent on present COAS Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to give General Musharraf the date when he must vacate the Army House. Presumably, General Musharraf would move over to the Presidency in Islamabad, and would let General Kayani, with family, move into Army House. General Gul's statement has highlighted an irregularity that has been silently condoned since General Musharraf bowed to foreign pressure and retired, just before being elected President for a second term by the Parliament which has been replaced by the February 18 election. Though supposedly retired, by continuing to occupy Army House, General Musharraf goes on giving the impression that he still has some relationship, greater than that of an ex-COAS, with the Army, which is still to be counted as bolstering his rule in the face of the popular mandate against him. Supposedly, Army House has been secured against the terrorist threat against General Musharraf, and this would have to be done all over again if he and his family were to make the move. However, first of all this explanation does not wash. Second, it is as easily done as the original exercise. Third, it would give the now-empty Presidency an occupant. It is not only General Kayani who is responsible; he could be seen as having a personal stake in the matter. The intervention of the minister responsible could play a very effective role in this affair, which is both important symbolically, and which involves families.