The assassination today of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto shows again how Pakistan — our ally in the war on terrorism and a nuclear-armed country — is volatile and extremely dangerous. The 54-year-old Bhutto returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18, and she narrowly escaped an assassination attempt that very day. Though Bhutto had much popular support in Pakistan, she was hated by Islamic extremist for her support of the war on terror, and she was a fierce critic of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
Bhutto’s assassination raises new concerns about the stability of Pakistan. Meanwhile, American military official acknowledged earlier this week how our more than $5 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan has largely failed to bolster the Pakistani military effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Instead, Pakistan has spent much of the money to purchase weapon systems aimed at India.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Jail consultants straining patience
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
73 Comments
Interesting that she was shot in the neck AFTER the explosion. Makes me wonder … Musharrif’s security forces?
One way to win over Pakistan is to give aid to the poor of Pakistan – education, food, clothing and essentials.
Must bring honey and dates before one goes into an Islamic house.
Nobody would be surprised to find Mushariff behind this. The election is just a couple weeks away and, in a clean election, he would lose. So just kill the opposition, declare martial law, and have a sham election where you come out the winner.
One way to win over Pakistan is to give aid to the poor of Pakistan – education, food, clothing and essentials.
Must bring honey and dates before one goes into an Islamic house.
Posted by: Kansas | December 27, 2007 at 11:24 AM
______________________________________
Don’t think that is working out so well…
______________________________________
” how our more than $5 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan has largely failed to bolster the Pakistani military effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Instead, Pakistan has spent much of the money to purchase weapon systems aimed at India.”
I would hold off on blaming Musharraf, politically its a stupid move you create a matyer, you create instability and sympathy for the opposition that well now probably do better in the coming election
Maybe this is just the disaster The US could use as leverage to get Musharraf to allow US troops on a very small scale, Special Forces,Anti terrorism units in to hunt and kill terrorist specifally OBL. Musharraf could take a hard line against terrorism and extremism himself as I beilive that their have been attempts on his life.
Perhaps Mushariff could shift blame away from himself by cracking down on fundamentalists. However they are among his largest supporters since he let’s them do what they want so he can focus on a military buildup against India and cracking down on liberals who want to restore a Democratic government.
According to Musharraf, he played footsie with the Taliban to try to get them to turn against bin Laden’s people (naturally, I’m paraphrasing). If that’s true, doesn’t look like it worked.
If Musharraf killed Bhutto and framed the fundamentalists. . .hmmm. That’s too convenient.
Who was in the grassy knoll?
Musharrif should have learned from the US experience that supporting the Taliban will come back and bite you.
Interesting that she was shot in the neck AFTER the explosion. Makes me wonder … Musharrif’s security forces?
Posted by: Ben | December 27, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Where did you get this Ben? I can’t find that story.
It is not really surprising under the Bush administration that 5 billion to Pakistan wasn’t earmarked for specific purposes. Just as in Iraq money to rebuild was used by Al Qaida to buy weapons. You give matireals and food not cash. The Bush Presidency of the last 4 years is the worst ofmy lifetime. I cringe when I thinkthat I voted for him.
Whoops, just found it on FoxNews.
And the world thinks Americans are violent.
A destablized Pakistan is the worst thing that could happen. Whose interests would that serve? Al Qaeda’s and noone else.
In addition to removing an advocate for democracy, the assassination has the added benefit of painting Musharraf as the potentially guilty party. A nearly perfect terroristic strike.
We need to do whatever we can to prop up Musharraf — only because whoever replaces him could be much worse. Even John Edwards recognizes this problem.
Of course, our support of Musharraf cannot be seen by anyone in Pakistan, because that would be his undoing. Such an interesting Alice in Wonderland problem…
“”She was inside the vehicle and was coming out from the gate after addressing the rally when some of the youths started chanting slogans in her favour. Then I saw a smiling Bhutto emerging from the vehicle’s roof and responding to their slogans,” he said.”
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/288947
Had she not been in the sun roof…
“We need to do whatever we can to prop up Musharraf”
I don’t know that propping up a dictator is the way to go. That just builds more pressure to an explosion.
Maybe we need to be supporting democratization. Isn’t that what we always claim to be doing?
Maybe we need to be supporting democratization. Isn’t that what we always claim to be doing?
Posted by: Ben | December 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Maybe we should let them sort out their own affairs?
Problem is Sol; we are already in way too deep. Ever since we (a) helped establish the Taliban in Afghanistan and (b) helped nuclearize the subcontinent I don’t know that we can extricate ourselves.
You know if you look at the Middle East and all the borders that were forced upon them… Transpose the current hot spots… You know if we just kept our damn fingers (and England’s too) out of their pies…
Whoops, forgot this part…
“we (a) helped establish the Taliban in Afghanistan and”
When will we learn to mind our own damn business?
Ben, while you are correct that the U.S. needs to seek democratization in Pakistan, and I suspect pressure from the U.S. was what caused Musharraf to take the steps others have cited, given what happened there today, Steven Davis likely is correct insofar as the short term situation.
Pakistan has nukes. There are forces working to overthrow his government, not necessarily by the ballot box, that would like to obtain possession of the nukes which might well be used as a “trump card” to force withdrawal of the NATO forces from Afghanistan, e.g. At present, Musharraf is the devil we know, and while we all might wish he would do more, he seems at this point slightly on “our side”. As Steven also posted, whoever might replace Musharraf could be much worse, both as to bringing democracy to Pakistan, as well as to the stability of the country (which admittedly isn’t too stable at the present).
So, while holding my nose as I do so, I’m agreeing with Steven’s observation that the U.S. needs to do whatever it can to prop Musharraf up, without the same being overt. This does not solve the issues surrounding Pakistan in the long run, but as I see this a Hobson’s choice, propping up the dictator is, to me, the lesser of all the evils inherent in the options currently open to the U.S.
Sol, the U.S. saw the actions of the former USSR in invading and occupying Afghanistan as a threat worthy of response. Whether that was appropriate in the context of history is something I’m not smart enough to judge; things are what they are now, however, due, in large part to the response made at the time. The Taliban, IIRC, was an outgrowth of the forces supported by the U.S. who were fighting the USSR’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan; once the USSR withdrew, they were in a position to fill the vacuum, which led to the welcoming (IMHO) of OBL and his camps, which then led to the events of 9/11, and so on and so on.
Should the U.S. have sat back and allowed the USSR to control Afghanistan (although it is doubtful from what I recall of the history of foreign forces in that place this would have ever been successful)?
VT – valid points. Not sure I agree but have to admit I’m not really sure I don’t. My what a mess we have helped create.
VT,
I see the mess that it has caused. The rise of OBL who now looms as our enemy. We facilitated that.
Had we not intervened, would 9/11 have happened? Would OBL be a significant figure in the ME? Had Russia been successful, would Afghanistan’s neighbors stood up against them?
There are too many unknowns for me to even guess. What is evident though, are the ramifications of our actions. As I see them, we were clearly wrong and we are paying for that now. What pisses me off is that we continue to make the same mistakes.
When someone repeats the same action over and over and expects a different result… isn’t there a name for that?
Sol, there is a name for that; I believe it is insanity.
There are too many unknowns for me to guess what might have happened, too. It seemed to me “back then” that the U.S. should be cautious, and not become involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan, but should try to strengthen ties with surrounding countries as a buffer against the USSR. That was then, when I was more certain that I knew everything; upon reflection, it may well have been better to keep our hands off, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
One thing that I believed back then, and continue to believe today, was/is until the Israeli/Palestinian issue is solved, we are going to see more and more of these asymetric conflicts, which will work to destabilize the world. It just seems to me that unless and until that particular issue can be resolved (I hasten to add I’ve not the foggiest on how it might be accomplished), our security as a nation will continue to be at risk from those who see us (the U.S.) as the great evil.
Sol, while i agree that we should let countries sort out their own probelms I would say its in the US interests to keep track and help keep secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
VT,
I still think I know everything :-)
I just think that by ‘being friends’ and not throwing money, political leverage and or manipulating governments, that we may become just that, friendly with other countries. And maybe that might lead (with the removal of American forces from foreign soil) to the US not being seen as a great evil.
We need to maintain friendships most assuredly. It just seems to me when we decide we know best and force that onto other peoples it gets us into pretty tight jams. If we were just trade partners, maybe we wouldn’t get ‘stuck’ so much.
Being as we spend so much and rely so heavily on oil maybe that alone would grant us some clout without having to be so involved in their politics.
Tom,
Keep an eye on? Most assuredly. But I think we can do that in a hands off manner. Our intelligence community and those of interested parties in the area (read Israel) should be able to keep us up to speed.
From the link; Bhutto was shot in the neck, which killed her; two shots were fired, and then the bomb went off.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.bhutto/index.html
Shot and blown up?
Wow they really wanted to make sure of her.
I emphasize “they” since clearly there has to be more than a few people involved here.
“Sharif said his party will boycott Pakistan’s January 8 parliamentary elections in the wake of the assassination.”
Implications?
“President Pervez Musharraf said the killers were the same extremists that Pakistan is fighting a war against,”
Accusations w/o investigation?Implications?
“Police warned citizens to stay home as they expected rioting to break out in city streets in reaction to the death.”
Same as or close to martial law again?
Implications?
This all seems to lead to Musharraf retaining power. Am I just being a conspiracy theorist?
Sol, that is certainly one conclusion (Musharraf staying in power) that might be drawn from the cited events/statements. It doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion that Musharraf or his minions had anything to do with it, however.
The accusation of extremists being responsible so early on, without the possibility of any investigation, does give one pause, however. It may well be true; but not enough is known yet to make such a seemingly definitive statement, IMO.
I think the upshot is that we don’t know who did it (yet?).
The worst possible news would be if it WAS Musharraf. That would leave us in a no-win situation.
Not that it doesn’t ALREADY suck. . .
Wasn’t trying to make a conclusion, just assembling some of the puzzle pieces. It is my understanding that Musharraf’s ‘blind eye’ toward the fundamentalists is partly responsible for him remaining in power. I am assuming that these fundamentalists are the same terrorists to which Musharraf is pointing. So is this lip service?
I for one don’t feel that it is our place to get involved. We should pay close attention, but I think we have proven that we don’t understand the ME culture and are very lacking in understanding their governments.
Just another lit cigarette flicked at the open barrels of gas. If we stay too close, we too will get burned.
Rage, yes, notwithstanding President Bush using the term “murderous extremists” in a statement; later in the link, his spokesman cautioned that the identity of the perpetrators was not yet determined, although he seemed to indicate reports that al Qaeda had claimed responsibility.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/27/us.pakistan.ap/index.html
Having allowed Bin-laden to take up refuge in Pakistan, why should we be suppised when he starts to de-stabilize that country. He has his eyes on the prize, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. In the meantime, bush twiddles his thumbs, and hopes the shit doesn’t hit the fan until after his term.
After intervening might we have then styed a while and stabalized the situation in Afghanastan instead of allowing it to descend into chaos. Meanwhile … here we go again …
Ben, it seems to me that you are correct that the U.S. should have stayed a while in Afghanistan in sufficient force to stabilize it. Now, as I recall Secretary Gates’ recent statement, he is indicating the need for more NATO troops in the country to resist the upsurge in Taliban and (I believe) al Qaeda activity.
I notice in the news they’re trying very hard to hang this on AQ. When they do something like this, don’t they usually rush to take credit for it?
I doubt if we’ll ever know definitively who’s responsible, and I don’t want to run to judgment, but it’s always suspicious when a specific person or party profits from such a thing.
The next few days will be very interesting.
XXX – it’s similar to our rush to blame the assasinations in Lebanon on Syria. No evidence but who needs evidence!?
XXX, yes it seems there is a rush to hang this on AQ, although there have been no reported claims of responsibility. The BBC “analysts” indicate (per its website) “Islamist fundamentalists”.
I am surprised it hasnt happen more often here..many kooks around
The middle east used to be more advanced than western soceity, a thousand years a go or so, they used to be on the cutting edge of medicine and mathmatics, and architicture. I think when you mix opium, marijuana, extreme religious views, supress your women, lack of sex, and you live in desolate desert, everybody is bound to go nuts, and society will go down the drain, and in their case, parts of the middle east are still living in the 1600’s.
According to a fresh interview on NPR. Bhutto was driving away from the rally, opened the moon roof to stand and wave at the crowd. She was shot while standing up waving, fell back into the car. The explosion was detonated a moments later.
This from a reporter who spoke to and assistant of Bhutto’s who was in the vehicle with her.
I think this means civil war in Pakistan. And I think it will happen fairly soon.
Popular leader assassinated, less popular leader is forced to tighten grip. The very act of tightening his grip to get hold of things aggravates them….
And off it goes. And if India gets the urge to take advantage of the chaos and move on Kashmir…
This is one nutty ass crap of a world we live in. We people, as a human species must have too much time to think and reflect on things, we’re too damn smart for our own good. You don’t see animals in the wild acting insane. Mother nature must have been smoking crack to come up with something like us. You don’t see animals pondering what the point of life is, only people would think of something that asinine.
But, aren’t we all created in the image of God?
If I’m created in the image of God, I don’t think I want to meet him.
For those not concerned by Nuclear Proliferation in Iran, does the Pakistan situation bother you at all?
Bhutto sorta made herself an easy target didn’t she?
She didn’t learn anything from JFK about riding in an open car.
Those who fail to learn history…
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/bhutto.photographer/#cnnSTCText
She was a dead woman walking the second she went back there. I don’t know why she went because death was almost certain.
“”"For those not concerned by Nuclear Proliferation in Iran, does the Pakistan situation bother you at all?”"”
Not especially. They only have them because their arch rivals India has them.
So you don’t think fanatics in Pakaistan could sell a nuke to Al Queda?
Take the nuke via cargo ship and sail up from South America nestled among the drug boats floating north to the US?
One Nuke would bring a lot of money to the table for some fanatical cause that needs a lot of money.
This is a stern reminder of the type of world we live in outside our borders.
“I think by far the most likely (suspect) is the al-Qaida organization, which has been trying to kill Bhutto for the better part of the decade,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council.
“If it’s not them, it’s certainly one of the groups that are sympathetic with them,” Riedel said. “They all work together and share a common antipathy to Bhutto because she’s a woman, an advocate of secularism, a supporter of democracy and everything they stand against.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17660659
Given the above, it does seem to me that Musharraf does share some blame in Bhotto’s death in that he 1) failed to thoroughly investigate the first assassination attempt, 2) failed to respond to her request for enhanced security, and 3) declined her request for police escort.
Forgot what the name of the writer that addressed this, but more or less said that Bhutto would never live long enough to be elected.
Might have been a BBC writer, don’t remember.
“Given the above, it does seem to me that Musharraf does share some blame in Bhotto’s death in that he 1) failed to thoroughly investigate the first assassination attempt, 2) failed to respond to her request for enhanced security, and 3) declined her request for police escort.”
Isn’t that like saying the president would be responsible if he received a memo saying “Al-Quida determined to attack America”, and not taking any increased measures to prevent it? What bushies would call ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’.
‘For those not concerned by Nuclear Proliferation in Iran, does the Pakistan situation bother you at all?’
Considering Al-Quida has bases in Pakistan, those of you worried about Iran someday getting nukes are barking up the wrong tree.
A few weeks before an election he was gonna lose to Bhutto and Musharraf ISN’T complicit in her assassination?
Damn that is a heavy one to disprove. Certainly he failed at the very least to provide her adequate security.
I blame bush and that will not surprise anyone.
If there was a nation that should have been worrisome to US security in the wake of 911? Well we KNOW now it was not Iraq. bush just made it a big mess.
But Pakistan had nukes. And we relaxed sanctions on them so they would help us get bin Laden who ends up IN…
PAKISTAN!
If it wasn’t so foreboding it would be comic.
On a side note, I’d say those who ridiculed Senator Obama for his remarks as to Pakistan aint singing any tune as to this anytime soon.
What to do?
Well the balance of our military is tied up in Iraq and elsewhere.
How convenient.
A whole region is plunged into unrest for the forseeable future.
Most call that a problem. But of course to some, it is an opportunity.
Damn I hate being right all the time.
Pakistan is screwed up. The US has been backing them up since 9/11/2001. We are spending far too much on backward nations and not enough on our own. In the mean time, the rest of the world is resenting the USA and the US dollar value is declining while we continue spending way too much money on foreign fighting and conversion to democracy. In the mean time, Europe is getting stronger and stronger. It won’t be long and the USA will no longer be a super power.
Europe is getting stronger and stronger. It won’t be long and the USA will no longer be a super power.
Posted by: Roland | December 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Europe is still made up of distinct governments and varying cultures.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up for the European Union being nothing more than a brokerage pivot point for Economics and possibly some treaties.
World Power? Heck, Europeans can’t even agree on which or whose wine to drink at meals.
The “Surge” in Iraq is working. It is working so well that the Sunni leaders are turning in the Al-Queda terrorists.
This is what real torture is:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/12/21/torture_and_the_democrats
Pakistan borders Afganistan. We can get all the equipment we need into Pakistan, at any time that we need to move.
This gives the Pakistani government cover to demolish the Al-Queda network, on the Afgan border.
Problem is, there are certainly spies in the Pakistan government.
That is how OBL escaped, when the Clinton State Department warned Pakistan before Clinton’s strike.—-Watch India.India will not let the Pakistani Nukes fall into radical Moslem hands.
Pakistan is 97% Moslem. Pakistan is 77% Sunni Moslem and 20% Shiite Moslem.
Is there truly a “Pakistani Nationalism” that any leader can draw upon, or will the fate of Pakistan be determined by its neighbors?
http://kids.mapzones.com/world/pakistan/pakistan.jpg
Or, worse, will the future of Pakistan be determined by OBL and Al Queda?
“Or, worse, will the future of Pakistan be determined by OBL and Al Queda?”Posted by: econ101 | December 27, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Very doubtful, if we play our cards correctly. As I posted way upstream, supporting Musharraf is the only way we can tend to the short term interests of our country.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser
JR–
Check out the link above.
Benazir Bhutto sent Wolf Blitzer an e-mail in October asking him to read it if she were killed–she claimed that if she were assissinated, it would be Musharraf who was behind it.
Thats crazy capn
Wolf Blitzer read it on the air.
Tell him it’s crazy.
I know some of you don’t like Newsmax, but hey, anyones guess right now, huh?:http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Nuclear_al-Qaida_/2007/12/27/60075.html
Me?I think Musharraf should use this event as an excuse to crack down hard on Al Queda and other radicals.
He would have much popular support for that effort.
The problem, as noted in my link, is that spies are everywhere, in the Pakistani government.
I should ad that I think Bhuto was trying to force the hand of Musharraf.He will HAVE to take sides now.He can prove himself to the Bhuto crowd, or at least a large number of them, by going after Al Queda hard.
Not unlike Iraq, Pakistan is an artificial nation, carved by westerners out of an old oppressive Empire.
In the 21st Century we’ll face continued challenges of dealing with the residue of 19th Century empires. It ain’t gonna be pretty. Tribes, factions, sects, and nationalists will fight for power and the ramifications will be dire.
Back in the 1970s, a geographer put forth a proposal to re-draw state borders in the United States. His logic was the exisiting borders were of a different time and different considerations. Rivers offered natural boundries in the 18th Century. The square states out west fit the technologies of the 19th Century.
But in the 20th Century, the realities of mass media and financial and agricultural and manufacturing interests and population dispersal complicated efficient government.
For example, Kansas City Missouri and Kansas City Kansas have far more in common than Kansas City Missouri and, say, Cape Gerardo Missouri. Wichita and Tulsa Amarillo and Oklahoma City comprise a region with common economic concerns and resources, far different than, say Goodland and Pittsburg Kansas.
If, somehow, we could redraw state lines in America based on commonalities of region and population centers, Mobile and New Orleans and Houston (for example) would be part of a single state based on petroleum and seaside economies. Omaha, Kansas City, and De Moines would be a thriving agricultural and transportation giant. Most of New England would be a single state. Georgia, Flordia, and the Carolinas could comprise a state with commonalities rather than the current patchwork of local biases. Denver and Salt Lake City and Wyoming and Montana would comprise a state that could deal with the unique economic resources of mountains and high plains. Western Pennsylvania and most of Ohio and Indiana and Illinois could combine their strengths rather than battle one another for economic advantages. San Francisco has far much more in common with Seattle and Oregon than with San Diego.
It’s never gonna happen, of course. Too many state-oriented power structures exist and the Missourians who’d be forced to live with and vote with Kansans would probably turn into a North American Iraq of factional fighting.
But maybe, just perhaps, the United States of America should back off from the hot spots on the planet and let the people of regions such as Asia, the Middle East, and Africa figure it out for themselves. Instead of trying to impose democracy at the point of a gun — the NeoCon model — perhaps we should let the European model work by example. The French and the Germans and the Hungarians and the Czechs and Scandinavians most certainly have their historical differences, but they’re slowly realizing they have more in common than not.
Would that the rest of the world might figure that out.
Interesting link, especially with the released intercept. The U.S. seems to think the Taliban was responsible, from other things I’ve read today, Pakistan trying to hang the deal on al Qaeda. Then there is the issue of the conflicting cause of death from the same Pakistani government office…
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/bhutto.dhs.alqaeda/index.html
An explanation of 3 causes of death in 36 hours; “want to deny Bhutto a martyr’s death”.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/bhutto.death/index.html
The current leadership of Pakistan will have to side with terrorists or destroy the terrorists.(Even if the terrorists had nothing to do with this. I tend to think of Al Queda and the Taliban as frequently the same people, and I do think they were responsible.)Bhutto’s followers will not be completely convinced, but the current administration has to do something, fast.The largest problem is the infiltration of spies within the government.
Apparently, there were gunshots AND an explosion:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article628825.ece