Turns out a professional political blogger really ought to check the newspaper before putting up posts about ice girls because even during the holidays big stuff can happen like Benazir Bhutto being assassinated in part of a larger attack that seems to have killed over a dozen people. As usual when there's a big breaking story like this abroad, there's probably not a ton I can usefully say about this in the short term but, clearly, it's a big deal that seems to bode ill for stability in Pakistan and the world in general.
« Ice Girls | Main | Early Pakistan Punditry »
Bhutto Assassinated
27 Dec 2007 09:42 am
Comments (40)
Thanks Reality Man, we all needed someone to synthesize and contextualize this breaking event.
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
Fuck. Fuck fuck.
I think there is a danger of imputing this event with more signifigance than it really has. Even if Bhutto "won" the election, do you really think Musharraf would have given up real power? Is it REALLY a suprise that she was assassinated? It is impossible to predict the future, but Democratic elections in unstable areas of the Islamic world have tended to exacerbate, not ameliorate, tensions (I have in mind the 1992 elections in Algeria which, despite all the press Yugoslavia got, led to the worst civil war in the Mediterranean basin since the Spanish Civil War and the recent elections on the West Bank that led to the installation of Hamas in power).
While a tragedy, I think the implications will tend to be exaggerated.
Not to sound callous, but this isn't terribly surprising news. Having said that, I can only guess at what the aftereffects of this assasination will be. That will depend on who claims credit (and who's actually responsible). I sincerely doubt Musharraf was behind this, but that doesn't mean he won't get the blame. If the guilt lies with Islamic militants, then they may well have overplayed their hand as the backlash against them outside of their geographic base would be huge.
Time will tell.
Perhaps this is being imputed with lots of siginificance because, unlike Algeria, Pakistan has the bomb.
Just another indication of how much al Qaeda hates freedom. What's next from the anti-democracy Islamofascists? Overthrowing the elected government in a military coup? Targeting the independence of the judiciary? Ruling by decree? Regardless, I sense Iran's hand in all this.
"Turns out a professional political blogger really ought to check the newspaper before putting up posts about ice girls because even during the holidays big stuff can happen."
Matthew, with all due respect, the story is not about you.
Who's responsible, you ask? Follow the money-not! Rather, follow the democracy. The usual-suspect extremists are the one group that suffers most from the expansion of democratic principles, which BB was promoting.
Exiting their proverbial cave means having to cope with democracy's visions, including dealing with the bitter realities of reason. And then their little extremist, retrograde views might collapse.
Perish the thought.
On December 5, the Jamestown Foundation held a conference on Al Qaeda - the keynote/lunch address was given by Pakistani journalist and writer, Ahmed Rashid, and was very interesting:
Ahmed Rashid: “The Crucial Nexus: Pakistan, Afghanistan & the Tribal Areas”
It's about an hour long, but well worth listening to, even more so with today's events.
Just as a counterpoint to my original post, does anyone remember that the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massood was part of the 9/11 plot?
The usual-suspect extremists are the one group that suffers most from the expansion of democratic principles, which BB was promoting.
Well, since she had to re-promote democratic principles after fleeing the country due to Musharraf overthrowing the elected government by force, you make a pretty fair case that he's responsible (though I think "extremist" is not quite the right term). But I still don't buy it, since he had so much more to gain by further backroom deals with her to put a clownface of legitimacy on his continued authoritarian rule.
I don't mean to be a dick, but that's probably the best thing that could happen for the PPP.
Hey Tristero, without any pretense of respect, it's not your blog.
This was as predictable as it is horrible. I was amazed that she stuck around after the first suicide attack and then her arrest. This is just depressing.
yo, it is obviously unfortunate that BB was assassinated today and that fact that it was reasonably foreseeable does not take away from the destabilizing effect of her assassination.
Forgive me for speaking ill of the dead but let's not kid ourselves. She was a symbol of democracy insofar as head of the PPP, she could've become the democratically elected Prez. But any allusions to Mandela are off as the PPP is more akin to a 60's era Chicago Daley organization than the ANC.
Nice to see Tristero is annoying and self-righteous on other people's blogs, too.
Another big day for the man who was going to be caught dead or alive in 2001. I remember him! I remember, a couple of trillion dollars ago, that the was the enemy. And then he was soooo neutralized, except when his name could be trotted out to scare the Bush core - those weird hyper-aggressive, hyper-paniced wargamers. Because who cares that he was allowed to escape from Tora Bora. It was a slamdunk. It was costless. The threat that could be spun out of it, and the total lack of media interest in actually accusing the Bush administration of either intent or criminal negligence, was an unbeatable combo that won the 2002 and 2004 election. Bhutto is just one more collateral casualty in that dirty, disgusting political strategy.
Follow who stood to lose with another power-center in the country. The one thing that has always been clear is that Musharraf would not brook another power center in his country. He might not have ordered the attack, but he surely decided not to take too active an interest in preventing attacks on her life. Expect an emergency now for as long as Musharraf is alive. Expect him to con the Bush administration into thinking Pakistan is too unstable to be democratised, that he is the only viable leader who can hold the country together, expect Americans to fall for it again under the "he's our son of a bitch" argument. All too predictable.
Yeah, a little context doesn't rob this event of its significance.
It's difficult to predict where this is going, but the likeliest result is a reinforcement of the idea that the only relevant axis of conflict is between Washington (and its allies, like Musharraf) and the Islamic theocrats. Bhutto was a symbol of the Pakistani people's desire to break out of that destructive cycle, and her assassination is only going to reinforce it.
That said, Bhutto is going to be seen as a martyr, guaranteed, so it still might be possible for Pakistan's secular opposition to break out of that cycle if someone can take up that fight.
I tend to think that Spencer Ackerman is right and that this was probably a Taliban/Al Qaeda hit. If Musharraf was making the jump to assassinations I'd suspect he'd have gone after Nawaz Sharif first. The attempt to make a deal with Bhutto had broken down, but was probably way more doable than with any other opposition figure.
That said, I in no way disagree with the argument that Musharraf will try to use this to further consolidate power in an authoritarian direction. And in all likelihood bhagavathy is right and we'll once again be conned into helping him.
That said, mostly I just agree with Reality Man and JB.
It seems unlikely that Bhutto is going to be seen as a martyr, since she is already seen as a corrupt wheeler-dealer. I'm sorry to say.
since she had to re-promote democratic principles after fleeing the country due to Musharraf overthrowing the elected government by force - mds
um ... sorry to speak ill of the recently dead, but Bhutto fled because she lost power to Sharif (no angel himself) and it was discovered (or about to be discovered) that she had magically come into some pretty posh properties about the same time that some highly dubious contracts were awarded by her government to some rather shady multinational corporations (IIRC, Enron was among them).
There is a reason why Bhutto was the Plan B of the Team B crowd (e.g. Cheney) in DC.
Bhutto was a symbol of the Pakistani people's desire to break out of that destructive cycle, and her assassination is only going to reinforce it. - Demosthenes
C.f. above -- even head-stuck-up-its-elitist-ass NPR gets that she was no such symbol. OTOH, if she wasn't a symbol before, this assination may very well cause her to become a symbol of that. My fear is that still the only credible opposition to the powers-that-be in places like Pakistan is the Islamic theocrats ... who might still benefit from Bhutto's assasination (unless they become linked to it). As others have said, it's not predictable in which direction the chips will fall ... but somethin's bound to fall. If Musharrif's people did it, they made a big mistake.
"But any allusions to Mandela are off as the PPP is more akin to a 60's era Chicago Daley organization than the ANC."
Don't conflate the ANC with Mandela. The ANC had and continues to have serious problems with corruption. Even its new leader, Jacob Zuma, is under a cloud. Fortunately, it has progressed (as far as I know) beyond its old custom of "necklacing" political opponents (i.e., killing them by placing tires around their necks doused with gasoline and lighting them on fire).
"He might not have ordered the attack, but he surely decided not to take too active an interest in preventing attacks on her life."
Another possibility is that someone (or someones) in the ISI knew what was coming and neglected to tell Musharraf anything. This is possible given that some within Pakistan's intelligence community are said to be sympathetic to the Taliban.
Re Greg Sander's comment "If Musharraf was making the jump to assassinations I'd suspect he'd have gone after Nawaz Sharif first "
------------
I disagree. The US Government was REALLY ready to support Bhutto --but not Sharif. Bhutto was a major threat to Musharrif's partnership with Washington.
The larger lesson for the politicians of Southwest Asia is that the CIA can't protect America's partners.
So they will play ball with Al Qaeda --or with Musharrif's group. Which may be the same thing, if the truth was known.
Don Williams:
Hmm... interesting interpretation.
I still think it was Taliban or Al Qaeda, but you do provide a logic for taking out the politician willing to compromise. Namely, it eliminates the possibility of the U.S. seeking a "third way" with a politician that the U.S. government is comfortable with. That third way was looking as if it would include Musharraf, but his power would presumably be weaker than if he made no deal at all.
Okay, I think that effectively counters my argument that Sharif would be the more likely target.
Good riddance - Bhutto was as corrupt and vicious as they come. This is a woman who was implicated in the assassination of her own brother 11 years ago.
Exiting their proverbial cave means having to cope with democracy's visions, including dealing with the bitter realities of reason. And then their little extremist, retrograde views might collapse.
Wtf? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Regardless, I sense Iran's hand in all this.
Unlikely - Bhutto was Shiite.
I don't mean to be a dick, but that's probably the best thing that could happen for the PPP.
My father was saying the exact same thing this morning - the release of Bhutto's iron grip on the PPP will allow the party to change. Bhutto was probably the most corrupt individual in the entire party. By some estimates she had ripped Pakistan off to the tune of 12 billion dollars.
My fear is that still the only credible opposition to the powers-that-be in places like Pakistan is the Islamic theocrats
They aren't - they never have been, and it's unlikey that they will be in the near to medium term. They simply don't have the popular support to pull it off.
It's interesting how the NYT and other scattered news outlets are still reporting that Bhutto died from a sniper shot before the bomb went off; similarly, there was a sniper attack at a Sharif rally.
Reading the unfolding of news stories in Pakistani papers like Dawn, you see something interesting: first, there were reports of a suicide attack at a Bhutto rally, but that Bhutto was not in the area. Second, one sees reports that Bhutto was in fact killed in the attack. Something fishy is going on.
In summary, I think it's clear that this was a political hit by Musharraf, who got some military sniper to shoot Bhutto and then cover it up with a suicide bombing so as to better blame it on "extremists". I'm not usually prone to thoughts of cover-ups and conspiracy, but this is really incredibly obvious.
I doubt "Al-Qaeda" had anything to do with this. CNN is scrambling to explain to us that this is some kind of fundamentalist attack but that seems unlikely.
It looks like Hugo Chavez was involved. It's pretty well confirmed in fact, according to my sources. We should attack Venezuela at dawn.
Bhutto was the 2nd most corrupt figure in Pakistan history. So corrupt she had a role in assassinating her brother when he said the bribery and extortion threatened the future of Pak democracy.
The 1st most corrupt Pakistani was Ali Bhutto, her father. Who bears much of the blame for the rise of radical Islam under Haq - radical Islam was promoted by elements of the Army concerned that corruption had permeated every corner of Pakistani society and was making the nation weak and helpless with a failing economy in the face of the Indian enemy. Radical Islam and the Sharia Haq touted was seen as a way of returning to purify Pakistan - which was the original intent in founding Pakistan - to make a Pak(pure) nation(stan)...
In the long-term, I venture that the Pakistanis will be better off without the klemptomaniac Bhutto family. Good riddance, even. There will be a lot of feminist leaders and PC media that gooed and gushed about a "well-educated woman" leader over the years in deep mourning for "the cause of women everywhere" - but Pak gets a swift burial of her, martial law, a period requestioning support for radical Islamic and political violence - then back to Same old, same old..
Americans also have belief in the "Single Great Man of History" theory that all events are from single great men or women and any assassination is an earth-shaking event. Why so many Lefties purport that "getting" bin Laden and giving him ACLU lawyers will somehow end radical Islam...
Truth is, movements, ideology and progress drive history more than single "great" people. Kill off a few, nothing substantive changes. As Charles DeGaulle said, shrugging off an assassination attempt that some thought would "cripple France" - he said "No matter. You see, the graveyards of Europe are filled with indispensible men." Then waved around, as if to confirm, yet here we all are without their indispensibility.
The US and other nations have had a spate of assassination or terror at various points in history. In a 12-year period we had JFK, MLK, RFK, George Wallace's attempted assassination, two tries on Ford, a school super done by the SLA. With little long-term effect other than give some of the Martyred ones a better reputation than they deserve - Malcom X, JFK, MLK..- the system and ideology churned along just fine without those "indispensible individuals".
I am shedding no tears for Bhutto.
She and her family have a confirmed record of corruption and bribery in Pakistan stretching from charges of of money laundering by the Swiss Banks thru their 740 millon Swiss bank account all the way to French and Spanish banks who have filed the same charges. Charges they were still facing when she made her deal to go back into Pakistan....and unluckily for her remaining family will now most likely be legally reopened since the waving of prosecution against her by the pakistan gov. ends with her death. Guess the US will have to dig up another exile to plug into Pakistan.
The more corrupt politcial leaders that are knocked off around the world the better.
Next.
And faster please.
I am quite amused that Chris Ford believes his analysis is somehow shocking or in contrast to "the left". But then, "the left" is simply that combination of women, Jews, colored folks, etc. which happen to be offending him that day.
women, Jews, colored folks, etc. - El Cid
What would Chris Ford think of my fiancee who is all three?
CG:
In summary, I think it's clear that this was a political hit by Musharraf, who got some military sniper to shoot Bhutto and then cover it up with a suicide bombing so as to better blame it on "extremists". I'm not usually prone to thoughts of cover-ups and conspiracy, but this is really incredibly obvious.
I doubt "Al-Qaeda" had anything to do with this. CNN is scrambling to explain to us that this is some kind of fundamentalist attack but that seems unlikely.
Occam's razor, my friend. Anti-American lefties used to joke that Americas's boy Musharraf would get knocked off one of these days - he has had several assassination attempts- b/c he was so disliked. Why not not Al-Qaida/the Taliban? They just suicide bombed a mosque the other day. (trying to get at a recently retired former interior minister)
It could be that Musharraf, or elements of the military - allowed it to happen. Khalid Sheik Mohammed
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, principle architect of the 9/11 attacks according to the 9/11 commission, was captured at Rawalpindi, garrison town and headquarters of the Pakistani military.
It's like as if Timothy McVeigh was picked up in West Point.
I agree with what others have said about the theocrats not having much support in Pakistan. Bhutto would say Musharraf was bluffing when he'd argue it's either him or the radical Muslims.
Re Peter K'x comment "Bhutto would say Musharraf was bluffing when he'd argue it's either him or the radical Muslims "
------------
Bhutto also said "hidden hands" would retaliate is anything "untoward happened".
I suspect there's going to be a blip in Pakistani death statistics in the upcoming month. It will be interesting to see what Musharrif does -- and what happens to him.
The story as I got it was that she was entering her car when a motorcyclist rode up and tried to shoot her. Allegedly she ducked into the car, then he blew himself up.
Problem with that story is now they say she was shot through the neck. As someone else pointed out, very unlikely that shot came from a guy on a motorcycle - unless he was a trained assassin - which is unlikely if he then blew himself up.
Therefore the most likely explanation is a sniper covered by the guy on the motorcycle - the explosion used to disrupt the evidence (as well as blame it on Islamic extremists). The sniper story is also buttressed by the fact that a sniper attacked another opposition group today.
As someone else said, this happened in Rawalpindi, which is a military garrison, and almost certainly could not have happened without military support - unless military security was just pathetic (which is possible, "military security" is as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence" - and for the same reasons.)
Bottom line: almost certainly a military or ISI - if not directly Musharraf - hit. Of course, since you have Islamic extremists inside both organizations, they could be involved as well, so just saying "military or ISI" doesn't really say much. The question is: which faction?
Since all sides benefit from Bhutto's death, it's hard to answer that question.
But what matters is that US policy is "in tatters". And it always was since the US should never have been doing anything in Pakistan like it has been doing.
And now we're going to "vastly expand" US Special Forces presence in Pakistan, according to a Nation and WaPO article.
That should really accelerate the destabilization ball.
I agree that Hugo Chavez is likely behind all this. That damn gaucho is loco.
Seriously though, It is nice to see some sanity in the U.S. Most everyone else is describing bhutto as asome combination of mandela, ghandi and king. She was no such thing, and an unfortunate death should not whitewash this fact. She was extremely corrupt and used the cause of democracy only when it was personally beneficial.
While this is bad, I think too few people realize how unpopular the theocratic movements in Pakistan are. And that there is a serious secular democratic movement (Much to bill oreilly's chagrin) in Pak.
Eerie foreshadowing in yesterday's Financial Times ("War in Iraq slips down voters’ agenda"):
“When you look back a few months to the importance that people thought foreign policy and national security would have at this election, it’s definitely not going to be at that high pitch unless there is some collision of some kind – a disaster in Iraq, a high level assassination overseas or something of that order,” said Steve Clemons, a foreign policy expert the New America Foundation think-tank in Washington.
Comments closed January 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
Posted by Reality Man | December 27, 2007 9:47 AM