Benazir Bhutto Is Dead - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mixedmedia · 12-27-2007, 05:50 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...rif/index.html

Don't really have that much to say about this right now. I'm very distraught about it at the moment.

Horrible, horrible news.

And, of course, the first question that pops into my head is: Islamists or Musharraf? Such a fucked up world we live in when one is just as likely as the other.

Baraka_Guru · 12-27-2007, 06:15 AM

I just heard. My condolences go out to the people of Pakistan. This is truly shocking, despite that dark place in my mind that had feared something like this would happen.

My heart and hopes go out to Pakistan; may democracy reign despite this setback.

I, too, am currently at a loss for words. The news just hit me five minutes ago.

highthief · 12-27-2007, 06:27 AM

I heard this live on the BBC - terrible, terrible news. She knew her life was in grave danger but went back to Pakistan to fight for the principles she believed in. Was it extremists that did it? Was it Musharref? Both? We might never know.

The_Jazz · 12-27-2007, 06:48 AM

Here's another story with some more details.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1811&ct=5

It looks like someone took shots at another candidate today. And that Bhuto was shot as well.

Grizzly details aside, I have a hard time seeing how much good will come for any side in this. Whether or not Musharrif (or any of his people) was behind this, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over him (see: Kennedy, Pope John Paul II). If the Islamists did it, I don't see what they can possibly hope to gain from it.

loquitur · 12-27-2007, 07:20 AM

It's the jihadi crazies on a suicide mission. I worry about Pakistan, a lot. Such potential, such waste..........

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 07:32 AM

This is a reminder to all to give thanks to whoever you give thanks to that you live in a part of the world where a 'vicious attack' in politics involves someones sex life or flip flop on gun control.

debaser · 12-27-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Benazir Bhutto killed in attack

Benazir Bhutto had been addressing rallies in many parts of Pakistan
Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then reportedly set off a bomb.

At least 15 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.

President Pervez Musharraf and his government called on people to remain calm so that the "nefarious designs of terrorists can be defeated."

Ms Bhutto had twice been the country's prime minister and had been campaigning ahead of elections due in January.

Nawaz Sharif, also a former prime minister and a political rival, told the BBC her death was a tragedy for "the entire nation".

"I can't tell you what the feelings of the people of Pakistan are today," he told BBC News 24 after returning from the hospital where she was brought.

It was the second suicide attack against Benazir Bhutto in recent months and comes amid a wave of bombings targeting security and government officials.

Ms Bhutto's death has plunged her party into confusion and raised questions about whether January elections will go ahead as planned, the BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says.

The PPP has the largest support of any party in the country.

Analysts note that Rawalpindi, the nerve centre of Pakistan's military, is seen as one of the country's most secure cities, making the attack even more embarrassing for the government of Gen Musharraf.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm

Is this not vapid enough to qualify for general discussion?

mixedmedia · 12-27-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm

Is this not vapid enough to qualify for general discussion?

What does it matter?

This was a political assassination.

And it is in the perfect spot for people to start speculating and ripping each other's heads off when the shock wears off and the inevitable political posturing begins.

Baraka_Guru · 12-27-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This is a reminder to all to give thanks to whoever you give thanks to that you live in a part of the world where a 'vicious attack' in politics involves someones sex life or flip flop on gun control.

I'm not sure the place you speak of exists. Wasn't JFK shot? Didn't someone fly a plane into the Pentagon? And I know you can't be talking about Canada.

Do you really think America is that safe? It can't get more vicious than sex scandals and debates on gun control?

But let's keep the focus on Pakistan. That's what this thread is about. It is true that it is more dangerous to oppose the government there, but it is oversimplistic to just pass this off as "oh, it's just that part of the world...." Remember, America wasn't always the cup of tea it is now.

Let's hope for real change in Pakistan.

roachboy · 12-27-2007, 09:01 AM

um....wow.
an early assessment/speculation as to who did this:

Quote:

Suspects in the Bhutto assassination

In the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, Mark Tran looks at the background to the crisis in Pakistan

Thursday December 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Who are the suspects?

Even before Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October after eight years of self-imposed exile, there had been open threats against her. A pro-Taliban militant leader, Baitullah Masood, said he would target her with suicide attacks. Masood, probably the most prominent militant leader in the north-western region bordering Afghanistan, has also been accused of carrying out attacks on Pakistani soldiers.

Bhutto's pro-western attitude would have made her a natural target for militant Islamists. Another militant commander, Haji Omar, said before her return: "She has an agreement with America. We will carry out attacks on Benazir Bhutto as we did on General Pervez Musharraf [the Pakistani president]." Authorities had warned Bhutto that extremists sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaida would target her.

Who else is in the frame?

After the October assassination attempt, Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who is in Dubai where the couple had been living in exile, accused members of the Pakistani security services, the ISI. "I blame government for these blasts," he said. "It is the work of the intelligence agencies."

Elements of the ISI sympathise with the Taliban and it was a possibility that "rogue elements" in the intelligence services were involved in the two attacks. The ISI became one of Pakistan's most powerful institutions under General Zia-ul-Haq, the man who launched an Islamisation campaign and who overthrew Bhutto's father and had him hung. After Gen Zia's death in a mysterious plane crash in 1988, the ISI actively campaigned against Bhutto when she entered politics.

Has there been other violence?

Hours before Bhutto's death, four people were killed and three wounded in a clash just outside Islamabad between pro-government supporters and backers of the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Last week, more than 50 people were killed when a suicide attacker detonated a bomb at a crowded mosque near the home of Pakistan's former interior minister on one of Islam's major holidays. Aftab Khan Sherpao, once a supporter of Bhutto, took a strong anti-militant line in office.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/S...232496,00.html

there's a significant gap separating the simplified political landscape in international reporting and what seems to have been unfolding on the ground in pakistan, so it's taking a while to get any sense of what this means, really.

except that it can't be good.

loquitur · 12-27-2007, 09:25 AM

dunno, roachboy..... isn't the use of suicide attackers a telling detail about who was involved?

highthief · 12-27-2007, 09:56 AM

I think it was some Taliban-type extremist but Musharraf and his buddies are also complicit in that Bhutto's people have been complaining about a lack of government security for months to no affect. Musharraf never had to get his hands dirty, knowing that eventually, a suicide bomber would take her out.

I feel very sad for Pakistan - that place is a powder keg waiting to explode. Unfortunately, the only thing that might keep it in check is Musharraf himself.

percy · 12-27-2007, 10:07 AM

A country with more terror tied to it than the middle east, more connections to mid east terror than any other country (except maybe Russia) and yet stupid Bush will probably blame so-called extremists from Iran rather than where the source of terror should have focused years ago, mainly on Pakistan and Afganistan.

roachboy · 12-27-2007, 10:14 AM

some international responses (so far)......
interesting range.

Quote:

Bush condemns Bhutto killing amid civil war fears

Hélène Mulholland and agencies
Thursday December 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The UN security council today called an emergency meeting amid warnings that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto could push Pakistan into civil war.

As Pakistan reeled from the death of its former prime minister and the leader of the Pakistan People's party (PPP), the UN's security council prepared to meet in New York to discuss the international security implications.

Bhutto was killed in a suicide bomb attack as she left a political rally in the city of Rawalpindi, prompting condemnation both at home and abroad.

A UN spokeswoman confirmed that a security council consultation would take place at noon in New York (5pm GMT) in connection with "threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts" as global leaders railed against the threat to Pakistan's democracy.

The US president, George Bush, called on the people of Pakistan to continue with the democratic process for which "she bravely gave her life".

"The US strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who try to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said this afternoon. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice. Mrs Bhutto served the nation twice as prime minister and she knew her return to Pakistan earlier this year put her life at risk. Yet she refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of the country.

"We stand with the people of Pakistan against the forces of terror and extremism. We urge them to honour Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life."

In India, which has fought three wars against Pakistan, the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said Bhutto was irreplaceable, and noted her efforts to improve relations between the two nuclear-armed countries.

"I was deeply shocked and horrified to hear of the heinous assassination," Singh said. "In her death, the subcontinent has lost an outstanding leader who worked for democracy and reconciliation in her country."

Bhutto's assassination "is not only bad for Pakistan," said former Indian foreign minister Natwar Singh, "it is bad for the entire region."

The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, said Bhutto had "risked everything" to win democracy in Pakistan.

"Benazir Bhutto was a woman with immense personal courage and bravery, knowing as she did the threats to her life and the previous assassination attempts," he said.

"Benazir Bhutto may have been killed by terrorists but the terrorists must not be allowed to kill democracy in Pakistan. We must resolve that terrorists do not win here, there or anywhere in the world."

The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, condemned the "cowardice" of her killers. He said: "She sacrificed her life for the sake of Pakistan and for the sake of this region."

In a letter to the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, the French president Nicolas Sarkozy called the attack an "odious act" and said "terrorism and violence have no place in the democratic debate and the combat of ideas and programs".

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, expressed shock and outrage, calling Bhutto's death an assault "on stability" in Pakistan.

"I strongly condemn this heinous crime and call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice as soon as possible," said Ban.

Russia echoed fears that the killing could trigger a wave of terror in the country.

"An act of terror is a bad sign," the deputy foreign minister, Alexander Losyukov, Russia's most senior Asia diplomat, told the Itar-Tass news agency. "We hereby offer our condolences. This will for certain trigger a wave of terrorism."

In Pakistan, commentators said the killing of Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan in October after eight years in exile, could spark unrest and would make the postponement of the upcoming elections almost certain.

"She has been martyred," said Rehman Malik, the PPP's security adviser.

Riaz Malik, of the opposition party Pakistan Movement for Justice (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), warned: "The impact will be that Pakistan is in more turmoil - it will be the start of civil war in Pakistan. There is a very real danger of civil war in Pakistan."

He said while suspicion was likely to fall on insurgent groups based in the northern tribal areas near the Afghan border, the killing was bound to increase dissatisfaction with the regime of the president, Pervez Musharraf.

"There will be a lot of fingers pointed at the government," he said.

The former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif sat with Bhutto's body in hospital before describing the death as "a tragedy for the entire nation". He told the BBC's News 24: "There has been a serious lapse in security. The government should have ensured the protection of Benazir Bhutto."

He denied his party stood to gain from Bhutto's death.

"This is a tragedy for her party and a tragedy for our party," he said. "Nobody stands to gain and nobody should be looking for any gain. It's a very serious situation for the country. We will have to take a serious look at the current situation in the coming days."

A PPP official said Bhutto's death had left "a black hole" in Pakistani politics. "It is not a question of political parties now," he said. "It is a question of Pakistan."

Hamid Khan, a spokesman from the Pakistan embassy in London, said it was too early to comment on whether there was a need to impose a state of emergency or reschedule the election to protect the public.

"It is too early to make any assumptions, but obviously this is a major development and the president and the government will be looking at every dimension," he said.

Khan sent his condolences to Bhutto's family. "It is extremely shocking and a very sad development which at a personal level for the Bhutto family is very tragic."

Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, said Bhutto had known the risks of her return to campaigning, but had been convinced that her country needed her.

"This is a time for restraint but also unity," said Miliband. "All those committed to a stable future for Pakistan will condemn without qualification all violence perpetrated against innocent people.

"In targeting Benazir Bhutto, extremist groups have in their sights all those committed to democratic processes in Pakistan. They cannot and must not succeed."

The Tory leader, David Cameron, said Pakistan had lost "one of its bravest daughters".

"Those responsible have not only murdered a courageous leader but have put at risk hopes for the country's return to democracy," he said.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, said Bhutto's death was a "hammer blow" against the dream of pluralism and tolerance in modern day Pakistan. "In the light of her brutal assassination, the need for the full restoration of democracy in Pakistan in now paramount," he said

Munib Anwar, a member of the Pakistan Lawyers' Action Committee, said Bhutto's death was a tragedy. "The hopes for a democratic Pakistan have been dashed today. She was the one great hope for Pakistan. Where are we now? I do not have any hope for the future."

Anwar said the "American-supported military government" was partly responsible for her death. "They brought these terrorists into Pakistan," he said. "The military and their American masters have to take some of the blame for this."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/S...232499,00.html

Strange Famous · 12-27-2007, 10:31 AM

Will probably signal a return to martial law and state of emergency.

She was, broadly, an ally of the army, so I would guess it is the Islamist extremists who killed her, but I'm sure both sides will be cooking up their conspiracy theories.

The elections probably cannot and should not go ahead now. The country needs a strongman to maintain security and peace, not more division right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I think it was some Taliban-type extremist but Musharraf and his buddies are also complicit in that Bhutto's people have been complaining about a lack of government security for months to no affect. Musharraf never had to get his hands dirty, knowing that eventually, a suicide bomber would take her out.

I feel very sad for Pakistan - that place is a powder keg waiting to explode. Unfortunately, the only thing that might keep it in check is Musharraf himself.

I agree, Musharraf may not be an ideal of democracy or good governence, but I see him as the only man strong enough, or in a strong enough position, to stop the country descending into virtual civil war.

roachboy · 12-27-2007, 10:45 AM

which means that it's difficult NOT to see the government as involved to one extent or another in this assassination...if it is musharaf-as-authoritarian-leader who alone is capable of staving off civil war that emerges from this---then it is musharaf who benefits from it, no?

my initial thought this morning when i read about this was of the assassination of malcolm x. but perhaps this is not relevant--i would hope it isn't.

if my speculative take on things is correct, this is a very very dangerous game.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2007, 10:50 AM

Yes, he may have something to gain from this. But my personal opinion is that isnt the way he fights.

The key confrontation in Pakistan is between the army and the extremists... and she was a popular force against the extremists.

I understand that both sides could gain, or lose terribly, from this crime and that both sides are more than capable of murder. But when the peace of the state is threatened so gravely, the risk for the army and the existing power is huge.

Plan9 · 12-27-2007, 11:01 AM

Ugh, what a violent world.

host · 12-27-2007, 11:16 AM

In the "fight" against al-Qaeda, I have not read of any "set backs" in the process of the consolidation of power of the leadership in Pakistan, or in the US, since 9/11. Is it just a splendid coincidence that randomly favors these leaders?

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...rss_topstories
December 18, 2007

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif lost his appeal against the rejection of his nomination for next month's parliamentary elections, an official said Tuesday, eliminating a key opposition leader from the crucial vote.

Sharif's party leads the All Parties Democratic Movement, which is comprised of 33 parties and political groups.

The Election Commission rejected Sharif's appeal Monday, commission spokesman Kanwar Dilshad said. Dilshad declined to give details, confirming only a report in the Urdu-language Jang daily Tuesday that Sharif was out of the elections.

Sharif, who has been campaigning for his Pakistan Muslim League-N party, has been demanding that President Pervez Musharraf restore Supreme Court judges he sacked during a 42-day state of emergency that he lifted over the weekend.

Sharif's party initially called for a boycott of the vote but decided against it after failing to muster support from other opposition groups for a united action.

The party described the appeal's rejection as a politically motivated decision.

"This also shows that they are still afraid of his popularity and cannot face him," said party spokesman Ahsan Iqbal. "This is also shows that there is no level playing field in these elections."

Other candidates objected to Sharif's nomination, citing charges against him relating to the 1999 coup by Musharraf that ousted Sharif's government and his alleged involvement in a corruption case.

The chief election commissioner also rejected a separate appeal by Sharif's brother, Shahbaz Sharif, against rejection of his nomination for the January 8 balloting.

Since his ouster, Nawaz Sharif has lived in exile in Saudi Arabia and Britain. Like Benazir Bhutto, another two-time former prime minister, he has returned home to be involved in the elections.

Addressing thousands of supporters during an election campaign stop in Hyderabad on Monday, Bhutto sharply criticized Musharraf's rule as a "dark era of dictatorship." She warned that a rigged vote could push the country into "anarchy."

"If the militancy spreads and if, God forbid, the country disintegrates, it would become another Afghanistan," Bhutto said.

Musharraf said curbing militancy was the chief reason he imposed a state of emergency on November 3, though he used it to crack down on dissent and purge the judiciary in his favor.

Musharraf has promised that the elections will be free and transparent, and has said allegations of rigging were an attempt by the opposition to create an excuse in case they fare poorly at the ballot box.

Also Monday, a bomber killed nine Pakistani soldiers as they strolled back to barracks after a game of soccer, the army said, the latest in a string of suicide blasts spreading fear ahead of crucial elections.

The suicide bomber struck near an army base in Kohat, about 80 miles west of Islamabad. Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, an army spokesman, said nine troops were killed and four others wounded.

It was the sixth suicide bombing in the past two weeks. At least 32 people have died -- 20 soldiers and police, and 12 civilians. One of the attacks was carried out by a woman, a first in Pakistan.

No one has claimed responsibility, <h3>but officials blame militants linked to the Taliban and al-Qaida who have expanded their influence in areas near the Afghan border....</h3>

It is as if the US and Pakistani regimes and "al-Qaeda" are working together, as they all grow stronger at the same time....strange, isn't it?

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm not sure the place you speak of exists. Wasn't JFK shot? Didn't someone fly a plane into the Pentagon? And I know you can't be talking about Canada.

Do you really think America is that safe? It can't get more vicious than sex scandals and debates on gun control?

By comparison, at this time and for pretty much the last 100+ years, yes.

Lone nut jobs are always a possibility. Thats a bit different than this situation.

Baraka_Guru · 12-27-2007, 12:27 PM

Yes, Ustwo, you are right to a great degree; it is just that your comment seemed a bit too sentimental in light of the situation. If we were to carry this further, we'd end up comparing the current safety of Pakistani neighbourhoods to our own. I don't see the point in comparing at any level.

Though you are right that we should be grateful that we don't have to go through what Pakistan is currently going through. I just don't see your reason for drawing a comparison of Western "politics" to this event. Maybe you'd care to elaborate.

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Though you are right that we should be grateful that we don't have to go through what Pakistan is currently going through. I just don't see your reason for drawing a comparison of Western "politics" to this event. Maybe you'd care to elaborate.

Because while we have make up conspiracies and several seem to see 'Evil Bushco' behind every event, there are places where such deadly conspiracies are real.

Very few of us can really comment on this beyond a 'that sucks' level. We are so far removed from the daily politics of the area that all we can do is parrot what others say that happens to fit our view. While I personally think it was just Islamic nutjobs, it maybe have been a state organized hit with state agents convincing the nutjobs to do it undercover, or it may have been something completely different. Its a culture removed from mine, points of view alien to mine, and not something I could feel any confidence in talking about.

Still it wouldn't be hard to imagine such levels of violence happening here under the right set of circumstances, but when complaining about our government, its good to keep a sense of prospective.

Willravel · 12-27-2007, 12:58 PM

This is complete and total bullshit. That whole country should be ashamed. Why is it that only good people seem to be assassinated?

fastom · 12-27-2007, 01:02 PM

I wouldn't count "Evil Bushco" out of this one...
from a link on the MSNBC homepage...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/?gt1=10645

"Unlikely ally
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf turned Pakistan from pariah to partner after the 9/11 attacks. A look at the leader that won U.S. trust against many odds."

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 01:03 PM

The_Jazz · 12-27-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Very few of us can really comment on this beyond a 'that sucks' level. We are so far removed from the daily politics of the area that all we can do is parrot what others say that happens to fit our view.

Ustwo, just when I'm about to write you off as someone unwilling to actually say anything that matters in Tilted Politics beyond the occassional drive-by post, you come up with something profound.

Please take this as the compliment I intend it to be. This is probably the most insiteful post in Politics this week, not that there haven't been others. I wish we would see more of this from you.

As this information has processed in my thick skull today, I've realized that we'll never know the truth here. This is only news in the US now because of our continued involvement there with the War on Terror/Afganistan/pursuit of bin Laden. If this were to have happened in 1998, for instance, it probably would not have cracked the front page of any major newspaper. As it is, it will be above the fold, if not the lead story. That's neither right nor wrong, just an observation of what is and isn't deemed newsworthy.

Pakistan is a subduction zone, both geologically and politically. The waves of the West crash against the Islamist rocks there, and India threatens constantly.

host · 12-27-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is complete and total bullshit. That whole country should be ashamed. Why is it that only good people seem to be assassinated?

Because she committed the same crime they are committing here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

"Speaking truth to power."

Baraka_Guru · 12-27-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Very few of us can really comment on this beyond a 'that sucks' level. We are so far removed from the daily politics of the area that all we can do is parrot what others say that happens to fit our view. While I personally think it was just Islamic nutjobs, it maybe have been a state organized hit with state agents convincing the nutjobs to do it undercover, or it may have been something completely different. Its a culture removed from mine, points of view alien to mine, and not something I could feel any confidence in talking about.

Still it wouldn't be hard to imagine such levels of violence happening here under the right set of circumstances, but when complaining about our government, its good to keep a sense of prospective.

The_Jazz is right, and this is along the lines of what I had hoped to see underneath your a-little-too-pithy statement above in #6.

But perhaps to tie this all in, it would be interesting to discuss what we can expect (or hope) our respective governments to do in response to this event.

fastom · 12-27-2007, 04:34 PM

What i would expect? Nothing, lip service maybe. The "Evil Bushco" (if Ustwo hasn't copyrighted that) has their ally in power without opposition now.

It's a terrible blow for democracy but who seems to care about that any more?

Aladdin Sane · 12-27-2007, 04:53 PM

Isn't it clear?
Of course the Dumbest Evil Genius in the History of Fascism did it! Along with his dastardly sidekick Darth Cheney.

roachboy · 12-27-2007, 04:57 PM

i would be really surprised if the bush people had anything to do with this assassination, personally, simply because it ruined their approach to pakistan entirely.
boom-----gone. nothing left of it.
what to do now? uh....

o yeah: pakistan has nukes.

hiredgun · 12-27-2007, 05:06 PM

Wow. Okay.

Benazir Bhutto is not, and was not, a democrat in any true sense of the word. Let's get that out of the way. She is the head of a dynastic party whose sole purpose has been to empower and enrich the members of a single Pakistani family. Do not allow any gullible journalist to tell you otherwise. She is well-educated and well-spoken, but nothing should endear her to you that is not also true of Musharraf. The general, it can at least be said, is not a kleptocrat. That should not read as an endorsement of him, only an exclamation point on the sorry, sorry state of Pakistani affairs.

As for responsibility, here are my thoughts.

Musharraf and his closest inner circle (particularly Gen. Kiani) were not involved. Nothing in Musharraf's past indicates that he would stoop to killing off a rival. It is also completely unclear that he will gain from this turn of events, and it would have been ludicrous of him to think so.

It is my increasing belief that Al Qaeda - by which I mean that group of people we used to refer to as Al Qaeda prime, the remnants of the organization that was largely pulverized in Afghanistan, and not the sordid and sorry franchises it has spawned the world round - played a direct role in the attack. I don't take much stock in the one report that AQ has already confessed to a local journalist - it is uncorroborated, and the confession remains fiercely contested amongst the radical community, which ordinarily takes pride in these things. However, AQ explicitly declared war on the Pakistani state earlier this summer (a fact that, astonishingly, seems have received scant attention in mainstream news coverage). They have poured increasing resources into propaganda in this area, translating more of their material into Urdu and releasing more videos directly attacking the pillars and institutions of the state itself. I read this as their attempt to take what they know is a state that is both weak and somewhat sympathetic to their aims, and to tear it apart at the seams in order to make room for a new Afghanistan - a safe haven.

I don't believe they will succeed in toppling the state - Pakistan has a tendency to remain hyper-stable even in times of great stress, partially because there are truly so few meaningful political players, all of whom know one another and trade off through the revolving doors of power. AQ does not need to topple the state - so long as whatever new leadership configuration emerges is convinced that it is better off leaving the Islamists well enough alone in the NWFP and tribal areas, they will have scored a major coup.

It is entirely possible that AQ-connected elements pulled this off alone, but I find it a little improbable. It is more likely that some element of the Pakistani establishment was involved. This could be someone in government - particularly in ISI, and perhaps even the army, from within whose ranks assassination attempts have come before. It could also be an outside force not represented by the current opposition configuration - Shaan Akbar of the Insider Brief suggested that he had inside information that the Chaudhry family of Gujarat was involved. I have no access to Mr. Akbar's contacts, so I have no idea. But Mr. Akbar was on Fox News earlier today describing ZA Bhutto as 'the JFK of Pakistan', so he seems to be a dolt (hint: JFK's country did not hang him.)

It's been a long freaking day.

mixedmedia · 12-27-2007, 05:23 PM

Pakistan has gotten spotty news coverage in the US for the better part of a year while this situation has been evolving. Which is puzzling to me, being that a radical Pakistan is a much more viable threat to US security than a 'nuclear Iran.'

And, in fact, I would bet good money that a radical Pakistan would result in us finding an ally in Iran. It's too ridiculous not to be true.

roachboy · 12-27-2007, 05:28 PM

nice post, hg.
thanks very much.

what do you make of this take on the situation (pre-assassination) from le monde diplomatique?

Quote:

Collapse at the centre

By Ignacio Ramonet

Pakistan is the latest country affected by spreading instability because of the war on terrorism after 9/11. More than four years after the capture of Baghdad, the geopolitical outlook is bleak. The military impasse has been followed by diplomatic disasters. The terrorist threat is undiminished despite the declared objective of the United States. None of the conflicts – Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia – have been resolved. There are 165,000 US troops in Iraq but prospects remain uncertain. Daily life for the civilian population is still hell. And there is trouble in the north, on the border between Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey, with the threat of a clash between two US allies.

US intervention has rescued its worst enemy, Iran, from two dangerous rivals: the Ba’athist regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. (A country can seldom have done its principal enemy such favours.) Iran is now free to concentrate on its nuclear programme. The US and Israel threaten to bomb its nuclear installations, adding to the chaos in the region and driving oil prices up.

Nato forces are on the defensive in Afghanistan. The US, with more than 15,000 men in the field, is asking its allies to send more troops. The Taliban have regained the initiative, suicide attacks are up, there is a record poppy harvest and opium exports are booming. Reconstruction is slow and democratic institutions are weak. The provinces, controlled by warlords, are distancing themselves further from the Kabul government. According to diplomatic sources, President Hamid Karzai would not last 10 days if the West pulled out (1).

In this unstable geopolitical situation, Pakistan, one of President George Bush’s strongest allies in the region, threatens to collapse. On 3 November General Pervez Musharraf announced a state of emergency in Islamabad, a serious admission of weakness that alarmed the US. The general, who came to power after a coup in 1999, was hastily recruited by the US in 2001 in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, just when he was (as he said himself) under threat of seeing his country pulverised in a massive nuclear attack. The Bush administration saw no contradiction in joining forces with a dictator in one country to bring democracy to another.

In return for his support, Musharraf got international recognition and $11bn to equip his army and police force. Pakistan, with a population of 167 million, is the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons and the capability to fire long-range missiles up to 2,500km. It is of enormous strategic importance, located close to the crises in Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East.

The great fear in the US and elsewhere is that Islamists in Pakistan will join forces with the Taliban, take control of the country and get their hands on nuclear weapons. Musharraf is hated by the judiciary. He has muzzled the media and blamed the crisis on opposition parties. His unpopularity means he is the weak link in the political system. The aim of US diplomacy is to replace him in the short or medium term. Not with either of the two main opposition leaders, Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto, who would serve at best to give a democratic gloss, but with another strong man, perhaps General Ashfaq Kyani – someone the US has on a tight rein.

http://mondediplo.com/2007/12/01pakistan

i;m still putting information together to try to make sense of this...which is perhaps a Project rather than a project....and i can kind of line up ramonet's viewpoint with that of the guardian writer i pasted abov (no. 10)--any help you can give would be appreciated.

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 05:34 PM

Thank you hiredgun, think I learned more there than I would have in a week of following the normal media here.

hiredgun · 12-27-2007, 06:07 PM

As far as the US goes, there are two main policy objectives: the first and most important one is to keep the Islamic Bomb out of Islamist hands. This is followed closely by maintaining Pakistani support in the GWOT, which is indispensable both in Afghanistan (where we are now losing) and as leverage against Iran (dear god, let's hope we don't start down that road).

Democracy in Pakistan no longer seems to me a policy objective, if it ever was. To the extent that it factors into our calculus, it is no longer about underlying realities and is more about maintaining a coherent stance that bridges the explicit goals of 'democracy promotion' and the 'war on terror'.

Ramonet implies that the US has some sort of plan for Pakistan. Unfortunately, he ignores the possibility that our policy is simply confused. It's not entirely our fault - we have strikingly contradictory interests in the country, and to balance them is not easy. It's quite likely that policymakers are looking to Kiani as a saving grace. He will not diverge significantly from Musharraf's policies, but he has a fresh face that is not tarnished by years of semi-competent rule and postponed electoral promises. But I think the American hope was that if Musharraf and the civilians could not learn to play nice, Musharraf could quietly step out of the picture, leaving the civilians in nominal control of a state that would still be run with the consent of a strong army. This is actually a pretty good characterization of what previous periods of civilian rule looked like, including in the 90's when Sharif and Bhutto took turns as PM.

By the by, I think Ramonet is a little unfair to Musharraf, or at least incomplete. For example, Musharraf opened up avenues for privately-held and free media that were completely unknown in Pakistan before him. That he became so frustrated with the opposition that he clamped down on the media and the judiciary is deeply regrettable and a major mistake. The tide has not turned back in his favor since the declaration of emergency.

The deepest problem with Musharraf's rule hasn't been bad intentions - unlike many de facto despots, I think his intentions were actually good, for the most part, and his ideas about eventual democracy sincere. It is that he failed to devolve any power to real Pakistani institutions. When institutions that grew powerful under his watch (the courts) threatened to oppose him, he lashed out and shut them down rather than trust them to shepherd Pakistan safely into the future. I think it is transparent to all by now that the emergency was expressly and solely declared because Musharraf was afraid to death that the courts would rule his election to the Presidency invalid (the technical cause being that, according to the SCoP, a presidential candidate cannot run while in uniform; Musharraf only doffed the uniform after safely elected). Musharraf sees himself as the savior of Pakistan, the only one who can keep the country's various interests (bearded religious fools, venal politicians, self-interested capitalists) from tearing the country apart. But the result of his autocratic rule has been that now that the very top of the establishment is threatened, no one is quite sure what can take its place if it falls. No strong institutions exist, only powerful individuals and powerful and conflicting interests.

The only real institution is the army, and that is not likely to change. That is why I do not worry that Pakistan will crumble. I do worry about what Faustian compromise might be struck with those responsible for Bhutto's death, and I worry still more about what kind of reactions that festering Islamism might eventually provoke from an outside power.

hiredgun · 12-28-2007, 03:49 AM

FWIW, the Pak government is finally going with this line:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAWN Newspaper

Pakistan points finger at Al-Qaeda for Bhutto death: spokesman ISLAMABAD, Dec 28 (AFP): The interior ministry said Friday there was “every possibility” the Islamic extremist Al-Qaeda network was behind the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. “Benazir has been on the hit-list of Al-Qaeda,” interior ministry spokesman Brigadier Javed Cheema told AFP. “Now there is every possibility that Al-Qaeda is behind this tragic attack to undermine the security of Pakistan.” (First Posted @ 15:00 PST; Updated @ 15:10 PST)

Notwithstanding my own belief that AQ was involved, one would expect the Pak state to offer this explanation of events anyway, as this is the interpretation whose logical conclusion is the rallying of the population around its leadership and the abandonment or curtailment (for the time being) of oppositional politics.

True or not, I don't think the explanation will be wholly bought, and so for the moment Pakistan will lurch on, a half-crippled body waiting off-balance for the next crisis to knock it off its feet.

mixedmedia · 12-28-2007, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

FWIW, the Pak government is finally going with this line:

Notwithstanding my own belief that AQ was involved, one would expect the Pak state to offer this explanation of events anyway, as this is the interpretation whose logical conclusion is the rallying of the population around its leadership and the abandonment or curtailment (for the time being) of oppositional politics.

True or not, I don't think the explanation will be wholly bought, and so for the moment Pakistan will lurch on, a half-crippled body waiting off-balance for the next crisis to knock it off its feet.

Well, let's just hope there is a body in Pakistan who can waylay such an event. I fear it would bode very badly for temperance in the region...and elsewhere.

And thank you for your posts on this thread.

dlish · 12-28-2007, 04:35 AM

such horrid event. i heard this news as it was breaking yesterday afternoon.

and though this operation (the use of the word operation is intended) looks like the doing of islamists, i cannot fathom that other parties were not involved. if not intricately, im sure many would have wanted to see a threat go. musharraf included. maybe he didnt have a hand in it directly. but if the islamists were going to take her out, i dont think he would have tried to stop it. why would he? it would work into his hands.

i can only see pakistan going in one direction if the west does notget involved.. a dizzie-ing spiral into oblivion. its either back to military and emergency rule.. or total chaos and anarchy from the void that the lack of government would leave..

take a choice

Bill O'Rights · 12-28-2007, 04:55 AM

Yes. Thank you, hiredgun. I feel as though I just got an education. Excellent insight.

12-27-2007, 05:50 AM	#1 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Benazir Bhutto Is Dead http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...rif/index.html Don't really have that much to say about this right now. I'm very distraught about it at the moment. Horrible, horrible news. And, of course, the first question that pops into my head is: Islamists or Musharraf? Such a fucked up world we live in when one is just as likely as the other. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-27-2007, 06:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I just heard. My condolences go out to the people of Pakistan. This is truly shocking, despite that dark place in my mind that had feared something like this would happen. My heart and hopes go out to Pakistan; may democracy reign despite this setback. I, too, am currently at a loss for words. The news just hit me five minutes ago. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-27-2007, 06:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I heard this live on the BBC - terrible, terrible news. She knew her life was in grave danger but went back to Pakistan to fight for the principles she believed in. Was it extremists that did it? Was it Musharref? Both? We might never know. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

12-27-2007, 06:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Here's another story with some more details. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1811&ct=5 It looks like someone took shots at another candidate today. And that Bhuto was shot as well. Grizzly details aside, I have a hard time seeing how much good will come for any side in this. Whether or not Musharrif (or any of his people) was behind this, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over him (see: Kennedy, Pope John Paul II). If the Islamists did it, I don't see what they can possibly hope to gain from it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-27-2007, 07:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This is a reminder to all to give thanks to whoever you give thanks to that you live in a part of the world where a 'vicious attack' in politics involves someones sex life or flip flop on gun control. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-27-2007, 07:20 AM	#5 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	It's the jihadi crazies on a suicide mission. I worry about Pakistan, a lot. Such potential, such waste..........

12-27-2007, 09:25 AM	#11 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	dunno, roachboy..... isn't the use of suicide attackers a telling detail about who was involved?

12-27-2007, 09:56 AM	#12 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I think it was some Taliban-type extremist but Musharraf and his buddies are also complicit in that Bhutto's people have been complaining about a lack of government security for months to no affect. Musharraf never had to get his hands dirty, knowing that eventually, a suicide bomber would take her out. I feel very sad for Pakistan - that place is a powder keg waiting to explode. Unfortunately, the only thing that might keep it in check is Musharraf himself. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

12-27-2007, 10:07 AM	#13 (permalink)
percy Addict	A country with more terror tied to it than the middle east, more connections to mid east terror than any other country (except maybe Russia) and yet stupid Bush will probably blame so-called extremists from Iran rather than where the source of terror should have focused years ago, mainly on Pakistan and Afganistan.

12-27-2007, 10:45 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	which means that it's difficult NOT to see the government as involved to one extent or another in this assassination...if it is musharaf-as-authoritarian-leader who alone is capable of staving off civil war that emerges from this---then it is musharaf who benefits from it, no? my initial thought this morning when i read about this was of the assassination of malcolm x. but perhaps this is not relevant--i would hope it isn't. if my speculative take on things is correct, this is a very very dangerous game. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-27-2007, 10:50 AM	#17 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Yes, he may have something to gain from this. But my personal opinion is that isnt the way he fights. The key confrontation in Pakistan is between the army and the extremists... and she was a popular force against the extremists. I understand that both sides could gain, or lose terribly, from this crime and that both sides are more than capable of murder. But when the peace of the state is threatened so gravely, the risk for the army and the existing power is huge. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2007, 11:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Ugh, what a violent world. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

12-27-2007, 12:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yes, Ustwo, you are right to a great degree; it is just that your comment seemed a bit too sentimental in light of the situation. If we were to carry this further, we'd end up comparing the current safety of Pakistani neighbourhoods to our own. I don't see the point in comparing at any level. Though you are right that we should be grateful that we don't have to go through what Pakistan is currently going through. I just don't see your reason for drawing a comparison of Western "politics" to this event. Maybe you'd care to elaborate. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-27-2007, 12:58 PM	#23 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is complete and total bullshit. That whole country should be ashamed. Why is it that only good people seem to be assassinated?

12-27-2007, 01:02 PM	#24 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	I wouldn't count "Evil Bushco" out of this one... from a link on the MSNBC homepage... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/?gt1=10645 "Unlikely ally Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf turned Pakistan from pariah to partner after the 9/11 attacks. A look at the leader that won U.S. trust against many odds."

12-27-2007, 01:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	__________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-27-2007, 04:34 PM	#29 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	What i would expect? Nothing, lip service maybe. The "Evil Bushco" (if Ustwo hasn't copyrighted that) has their ally in power without opposition now. It's a terrible blow for democracy but who seems to care about that any more?

12-27-2007, 04:53 PM	#30 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Isn't it clear? Of course the Dumbest Evil Genius in the History of Fascism did it! Along with his dastardly sidekick Darth Cheney. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

12-27-2007, 04:57 PM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i would be really surprised if the bush people had anything to do with this assassination, personally, simply because it ruined their approach to pakistan entirely. boom-----gone. nothing left of it. what to do now? uh.... o yeah: pakistan has nukes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-27-2007, 05:06 PM	#32 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Wow. Okay. Benazir Bhutto is not, and was not, a democrat in any true sense of the word. Let's get that out of the way. She is the head of a dynastic party whose sole purpose has been to empower and enrich the members of a single Pakistani family. Do not allow any gullible journalist to tell you otherwise. She is well-educated and well-spoken, but nothing should endear her to you that is not also true of Musharraf. The general, it can at least be said, is not a kleptocrat. That should not read as an endorsement of him, only an exclamation point on the sorry, sorry state of Pakistani affairs. As for responsibility, here are my thoughts. Musharraf and his closest inner circle (particularly Gen. Kiani) were not involved. Nothing in Musharraf's past indicates that he would stoop to killing off a rival. It is also completely unclear that he will gain from this turn of events, and it would have been ludicrous of him to think so. It is my increasing belief that Al Qaeda - by which I mean that group of people we used to refer to as Al Qaeda prime, the remnants of the organization that was largely pulverized in Afghanistan, and not the sordid and sorry franchises it has spawned the world round - played a direct role in the attack. I don't take much stock in the one report that AQ has already confessed to a local journalist - it is uncorroborated, and the confession remains fiercely contested amongst the radical community, which ordinarily takes pride in these things. However, AQ explicitly declared war on the Pakistani state earlier this summer (a fact that, astonishingly, seems have received scant attention in mainstream news coverage). They have poured increasing resources into propaganda in this area, translating more of their material into Urdu and releasing more videos directly attacking the pillars and institutions of the state itself. I read this as their attempt to take what they know is a state that is both weak and somewhat sympathetic to their aims, and to tear it apart at the seams in order to make room for a new Afghanistan - a safe haven. I don't believe they will succeed in toppling the state - Pakistan has a tendency to remain hyper-stable even in times of great stress, partially because there are truly so few meaningful political players, all of whom know one another and trade off through the revolving doors of power. AQ does not need to topple the state - so long as whatever new leadership configuration emerges is convinced that it is better off leaving the Islamists well enough alone in the NWFP and tribal areas, they will have scored a major coup. It is entirely possible that AQ-connected elements pulled this off alone, but I find it a little improbable. It is more likely that some element of the Pakistani establishment was involved. This could be someone in government - particularly in ISI, and perhaps even the army, from within whose ranks assassination attempts have come before. It could also be an outside force not represented by the current opposition configuration - Shaan Akbar of the Insider Brief suggested that he had inside information that the Chaudhry family of Gujarat was involved. I have no access to Mr. Akbar's contacts, so I have no idea. But Mr. Akbar was on Fox News earlier today describing ZA Bhutto as 'the JFK of Pakistan', so he seems to be a dolt (hint: JFK's country did not hang him.) It's been a long freaking day.

12-27-2007, 05:23 PM	#33 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Pakistan has gotten spotty news coverage in the US for the better part of a year while this situation has been evolving. Which is puzzling to me, being that a radical Pakistan is a much more viable threat to US security than a 'nuclear Iran.' And, in fact, I would bet good money that a radical Pakistan would result in us finding an ally in Iran. It's too ridiculous not to be true. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-27-2007, 05:34 PM	#35 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Thank you hiredgun, think I learned more there than I would have in a week of following the normal media here. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-27-2007, 06:07 PM	#36 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	As far as the US goes, there are two main policy objectives: the first and most important one is to keep the Islamic Bomb out of Islamist hands. This is followed closely by maintaining Pakistani support in the GWOT, which is indispensable both in Afghanistan (where we are now losing) and as leverage against Iran (dear god, let's hope we don't start down that road). Democracy in Pakistan no longer seems to me a policy objective, if it ever was. To the extent that it factors into our calculus, it is no longer about underlying realities and is more about maintaining a coherent stance that bridges the explicit goals of 'democracy promotion' and the 'war on terror'. Ramonet implies that the US has some sort of plan for Pakistan. Unfortunately, he ignores the possibility that our policy is simply confused. It's not entirely our fault - we have strikingly contradictory interests in the country, and to balance them is not easy. It's quite likely that policymakers are looking to Kiani as a saving grace. He will not diverge significantly from Musharraf's policies, but he has a fresh face that is not tarnished by years of semi-competent rule and postponed electoral promises. But I think the American hope was that if Musharraf and the civilians could not learn to play nice, Musharraf could quietly step out of the picture, leaving the civilians in nominal control of a state that would still be run with the consent of a strong army. This is actually a pretty good characterization of what previous periods of civilian rule looked like, including in the 90's when Sharif and Bhutto took turns as PM. By the by, I think Ramonet is a little unfair to Musharraf, or at least incomplete. For example, Musharraf opened up avenues for privately-held and free media that were completely unknown in Pakistan before him. That he became so frustrated with the opposition that he clamped down on the media and the judiciary is deeply regrettable and a major mistake. The tide has not turned back in his favor since the declaration of emergency. The deepest problem with Musharraf's rule hasn't been bad intentions - unlike many de facto despots, I think his intentions were actually good, for the most part, and his ideas about eventual democracy sincere. It is that he failed to devolve any power to real Pakistani institutions. When institutions that grew powerful under his watch (the courts) threatened to oppose him, he lashed out and shut them down rather than trust them to shepherd Pakistan safely into the future. I think it is transparent to all by now that the emergency was expressly and solely declared because Musharraf was afraid to death that the courts would rule his election to the Presidency invalid (the technical cause being that, according to the SCoP, a presidential candidate cannot run while in uniform; Musharraf only doffed the uniform after safely elected). Musharraf sees himself as the savior of Pakistan, the only one who can keep the country's various interests (bearded religious fools, venal politicians, self-interested capitalists) from tearing the country apart. But the result of his autocratic rule has been that now that the very top of the establishment is threatened, no one is quite sure what can take its place if it falls. No strong institutions exist, only powerful individuals and powerful and conflicting interests. The only real institution is the army, and that is not likely to change. That is why I do not worry that Pakistan will crumble. I do worry about what Faustian compromise might be struck with those responsible for Bhutto's death, and I worry still more about what kind of reactions that festering Islamism might eventually provoke from an outside power.

12-28-2007, 04:35 AM	#39 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	such horrid event. i heard this news as it was breaking yesterday afternoon. and though this operation (the use of the word operation is intended) looks like the doing of islamists, i cannot fathom that other parties were not involved. if not intricately, im sure many would have wanted to see a threat go. musharraf included. maybe he didnt have a hand in it directly. but if the islamists were going to take her out, i dont think he would have tried to stop it. why would he? it would work into his hands. i can only see pakistan going in one direction if the west does notget involved.. a dizzie-ing spiral into oblivion. its either back to military and emergency rule.. or total chaos and anarchy from the void that the lack of government would leave.. take a choice __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

12-28-2007, 04:55 AM	#40 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Yes. Thank you, hiredgun. I feel as though I just got an education. Excellent insight. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.