Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Considering the last attempt on her life that killed 150 or so bystanders I'm not surprised. Pakistan is such a place. There are many people in the intelligence services and military with loyalties other than the government, or what we in the West like to perceive as it. Pakistan is a weird political arena. Iirc her Benazir's daddy Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged; his successor was an authoritarian general, much like Musharaff. It is likely so that Pakistan, despite all the lawyers rabble rousing on the streets Pakistan still isn't a democracy. In a sense, it is an authoritarian state, led by quasi-feudal oligarchy.

Bhutto was Washington's and London's dream candidate to replace Musharaf - pro western, reformist, a woman, in a Muslim country! One can virtually see the 'let's reshape the Islamic world' crowd drooling on their conference tables. There is a hidden point in the fact that they could only ask her out for dates in London, D.C. or Bharain.

Bhutto was undeniably popular in the west, perhaps deservedly so. In Pakistan she was popular among her party, but majorities don't necessarily reflect real power relations in the country. The existence of law and rights does not imply an acceptance by the ruling elites to abandon their own laws and privileges. Bhutto first fell from grace in Pakistan when she tried to tackle said oligarchy. They took care she went out of office. When she returned it was against the wishes of said Pakistani establishment. It was against the wishes of Musharaf, who was arm-twisted into accepting her as his successor. That doesn't mean he is the one to blame for her assassination. He and Bhutto shared many enemies. The Islamists who want to see Musharaf dead, probably despised Bhutto even more.

I don't know, but I feel Musharaf just has become much more popular in D.C. for the moment. Except for that, there is this guy named Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, a spook, former head of the ISI, and from what one hears a good sportsman too. Oh yes, and he trained, among other places, at General Staff College, Fort Leavensworth, Kansas.

It's a telling coincidence (no irony) that Bhutto, the pro-US candidate is killed the day the US announce they want to 'vastly expand their military presence in Pakistan'.

 

Oh, yes. I'm sure in a country where people blow each other up in the streets there is no need of "reform." Just let anyone who happens to disagree with the current "establishment" try to get elected and see what happens. The more some rant about the West and its systems - and the more one sees of the alternatives - it makes one wonder which one really needs the most "reshapping:" Those "drooling at the conference tables" or those mullahs foaming at their mouths, sitting around in caves, hoping to hold back the Twenty-first Century. But which is really the more practical effort? a suicide bomber, or a ballot box? Btw, your last comment would hardly need mentioning if we were speaking of a male. But I agree with you, what's so "hidden" about something that's always been in the open anyway?

 

Chandos,
oh please. That has nothing to do with blaming the West. Pakistan is Pakistan. Reform and whether (that, rather) it is desirable or not is one thing. Whether the country is ripe for it, whether it is even possible, is quite something else. People who exceed the politically possible die in Pakistan. It is illustrated in her fate as it was before in the fate of her father. That doesn't demean Bhutto, neither does it belittle her efforts: To be clear, she was a great woman. That said, it gives an (accurate) assessment about the political realities in Pakistan.

In face of these realities calling for reform in Pakistan, and supporting reform candidates, is in my view merely a political gesture that primarily expresses largely illusionary western hopes. It doesn't reflect in any way to what extent these candidates are able to survive (literally as much as politically) and whether these reforms have the potential to overcome local inertia, or rather, (often violent) resistance. When I mock those 'let's overhaul Islam' folks, it's because they are not realistic - neither in their goals, nor in their means.

Looking at Bhutto and the attempts on her life, it is clear that it must have been an inside job. Both attempts on her life have been taking place shortly after she was landed in Pakistan. Somebody was well informed. The folks who killed her are quite capable if the organisation of the assassination attempts on probably short notice are any indication. That shows up the inherent problem in Pakistan - the entire government is penetrated by people who oppose Bhutto and what she represents to Pakistan's conservatives: An alliance with the US, and the corresponding stationing of US troops in Pakistan and the crackdown in the tribal areas which promises nothing short of civil war. Unsurprisingly, conservative Pakistanis aren't thrilled by the US calling for Pakistanis to kill Pakistanis - that, subduing the tribal areas, is another practical aspect of the reforms that Pakistan has to implement. And, of course, her past attempts on reform aimed on land reform which were and are unsurprisingly being opposed by the quasi-feudal oligarchs in Pakistan. Either policy would generate sufficient(ly lethal) opposition for Bhutto. She stood for all of them.

 

Well, thank you for that observation. Here you were ranting about her being the darling of the Bushmen, and suddenly she's a "great woman." Well, yes she was. I'm a bit surprised though, because you are normally very astute in your observations regarding the Bushmen. The real deal is that they cared less about her several years back, when they were embracing and inviting Mr. Musharraf to be their frontman in the much ballyhooed "War on Terror." But that was before the political winds began to shift in Pakistan.

Suddenly Bhutto became the new buzz word among the Bushmen, because they sensed that "Big Mo" was with her, and that her political star was on the accent in Pakistan. And it was, despite all your posturing that she and her "western ideas" were unwelcome in the Ninth Century Land of Allah, she was a real threat to the current establishment.

No doubt she was put to rest by the government of Mr. Musharraf. He probably did not "order" it officially, but he does have his operatives. I'm reminded of Henry II and his statement regarding Beckett of Canterbury, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest."

Mr. Musharraf will now be newly embraced by the Bushmen, hoping to make amends for any "slights" that he may have encountered along this tragic and tortured path. It's up to the people of Pakistan to stand up to the autocratic bullies who are attempting to rob them of any chance of reform. The results of her death will be felt. Your notion that every person in Pakistan embraces the reactionary ideology of the mullahs is a mistake. I'm not sure what the breakdown is, but I'm sure not everyone in Pakistan wants to go back to living in the Middle Ages. That fact remains that the woman had a lot of support at the grassroots level in Pakistan.

 

Perhaps. Perhaps not: from what I know many of the radicals who opposed Musharaf liked her even less - and her star appeared in a position of ascendancy. Maybe the state security didn't know about it; maybe it did and kept silent, and maybe through some channels it came up with the idea and suggested it to the people who organized the entire affair.

 

Chandos,
the Bushmen trying to put her into Pakistan is one thing that doesn't have anything to do with her, her ideas, her ambitions and past attempts (after all they create their own reality) per se - except for her being the only pro-Western political person with notable political standing in Pakistan - and that was pretty much limited to her party, the PPP. Admittedly the PPP was able to win majorities in elections, so yes, she had popular support. That didn't keep her in power though. Of course she was a real threat to the establishment. That was the reason why she was forced out of country with those corruption charges in the first place (which is the point I tried to make about where to date her).

I don't say that everybody in Pakistan wants to live in the stone age, I just say that those who wield power in Pakistan don't care what the rabble on the street wants, and follow their own rules. I say that Pakistan is not a country where democracy works, if it's short history is any indication.

She was the Bushmen's dream candidate because, transformation fantasies aside, if there were to be elections in Pakistan she would have a fair chance to win and also because they believe that democracy would work in Pakistan. I presume the Brits, with their historically excellent relations to Pakistan, played a role in talking her into returning, assuring her of US and UK backing. The pressure on Musharaf must have been intense - after all he not only pardoned her, but also accepted (US demands to accept) Bhutto as his successor. That is an arranged transfer of power. I can't link anything to support that, but wouldn't be too surprised if the US did lend a supporting hand in the lawyer's rioting against Musharaf. The uprising against the dictator Musharaf and Bhutto's glorious return do strike me as too movie-like to be real. And I disagree about 'big Mo', that's likely a canard. The foreign policy Bushmen are ideologues first of all.

There probably is a vast difference between the 'real Bhutto' and the transformer's imagination of her. The goals of the Bushmen and Bhutto's goals also probably diverged. With her death there is no one to fill that void she left. Her party, the PPP, was literally her (and her daddy's) party - Bhutto was head of the party for life. That is also the explanation for why the PPP never went anywhere politically in her absence. Their program was basically 'Benazir'. There is no successor for her, which also means her PPP is out of the game for the time being.

And I disagree that it can only have been Musharaf. Political murder is a part of Pakistan's political culture (which is the point I tried to make with 'Pakistan is Pakistan'), or lack thereof. Even if it was an inside job from within the security services or the military, that doesn't necessarily implicate the government, split as the loyalties of these groups are. Everybody opposing Bhutto wins by her death, and that would be the army, the ISI, the religious conservatives, Musharaf, the oligarchs.
That are many groups who have an incentive to kill her and benefit from killing her. Just as an illustration: In 1990 Islamic clerics tried to get a court to bar her from running in elections. She was a bad Muslim, they said. "Anyone who supports the Pakistan People's Party will not enter heaven."

 

Most at the scene claimed there was a sudden breakdown in security, that the bomber got within close range, pulled a weapon and fired several times, with no response from police, then he still had time to blow himself up. So you would guess that the "breakdown" in security was more than likely planned to happen.

The thing is that Musharraf is really pretty soft on the Taliban in his country. He talks a good game, but really does very little. The army is another matter, since it seems that it has suffered quite a few loses at the hands of the Taliban and its friend, Al-Qaida. I think the army is serious in its fight with the Taliban and Al-Qaida. Yet, Mr. Musharraf has been splitting the difference with his own army and the Taliban for sometime now. Musharraf would aopear to be playing all the angles to keep himself in power.

Edit: Ragusa - It seems that you have a differnt approach in your last post. But perhaps it's my mistake. The first seemed to indicate to me that she was unwanted in Pakistan and that she was only a candidate of the West, regardless of what the people of Pakistan wanted. I felt that she had a viable base of power, pushing for reform, at the grassroots level within the country itself. But I agree with your last post, that the there was a sense of unreality to what was occurring over the last few months with Musharaf and the Bushmen.

 

Chandos,
you have a very US centric view. I don't think that being 'soft on the Taleban' even starts to describe the pressures Musharaf faces for having to basically start a civil war against the Pashtuns under US pressure. How many attempts on his life so far? Eight? Nine?

For him to be 'soft on the Taleban', Musharaf would need to have a choice to be tough or soft. I rather think Musharaf does what he can, which is not enough for US tastes (and probably the reason why the US wanted Bhutto instead). He is walking a razor. And I don't think that he is so much interested in staying in power but that he rather serves clients in his country, that means he is replaceable with a very similar general. In my understanding Musharaf's foremost concern is sparing Pakistan a more direct US intervention, which for the nationalists and for the army or the religious conservatives is simply unacceptable.

Yay! post #6000

 

I found the idea that the "democratic" component in all this is really a "facade," a rather complex notion of how the counrty would be governed. The idea that they could share power seems a little far out - too many moving parts that just would not sync well with each other, I think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy..._2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2007122700452

Ragusa - I think you are right that many people in Pakistan resent US meddling, especially by the Bushmen, who have "declared war" on anything that does not resemble what their preconceived sense of reality should be. Nevertheless, Ragusa, you have made it a major theme of yours, at least on this board, that generally speaking the Muslim people in the ME have no interest in democracy and that Occidental notions of reform were somehow out of place there. And I still strongly disagree with you - for all the good it will do me.

You would not have made it without that Bush guy.

 

Why do us the in West (maybe it's just Britain...) always shout 'We/America must do something!' when events like this happen. What would you want the "West" to do? Invade and declare the region the United States of the American Middle East? Britain and America can't police the whole damn world.

Also, I don't think that Musharraf is very upset by this. Considering Bhutto was one his main opponents and that the other key player, Nawaz Sharif, is considering to boycott the general elections, it now seems that Musharraf will win. Yay for more dictatorship in the world. I wouldn't like to guess what the full ramifications will be, but they're unlikely to be pleasant.

 

Chandos,

Probably And as for that major theme of mine, it is primarily aimed at explaining their view. I don't share it.

To make a more general point, I also think that the folks from down there we get to hear on tv or read in the newspapers on this are the photogenic ones, and I don't trust them to be really representative. Take for instance Ahmed Chalabi and his incessant babbling about 'the Iraqis'. Chalabi does not represent 'the average Iraqi'. That starts with Chalabi being distinguished from 'the average Iraqi' by knowing the country from basically hearsay, by having a US passport and by having studied at the University of Chicago. He left Iraq and moved to the US with his family at age 13. When he returned to Iraq he had not set foot in Iraq since his childhood. Your typical Iraqi, no doubt. Many of those pro-western 'exiles' are like that. Listening to them will inevitably give you a distorted picture. Not only in that respect Bhutto is in a different league entirely.

It is important to keep in mind that those who oppose the West, aren't just some demented kooks, but people who more often than not have substantial reasons that one ignores at his own peril. We might not share their views, but knowing them, and taking them serious, will lead away from buying into demented nonsense like Podhorez' World War IV, or feel-good delusions like 'They hate us because we're so beautiful'.

But to get back on topic, sadly, I think the US have wasted Bhutto. Her return to Pakistan was made possible only through quite massive US diplomatic efforts. The purpose was to continue the strategy of spreading liberal democracy throughout the region. Yet Pakistan’s instability leaves little room for maneuver and her untimely exposure led ultimately to the death of the only credible liberal politician in the country. As usual, the Bushmen were rash and impatient. In chess terms, the Bushmen led with the queen; a strategy that seldom works and usually forces you to play the game without your most valuable piece.

 

That is, of course, where we disagree. I think that it is only one view in a region with very diverse views regarding reform. There is a block of liberals who are not heard very loudly over the reactionaries, the reactionaries who fear the loss of power that reform would bring to the region. They are not only "kooks", but muderous thugs (look at the results). I'm on the side of the reformers....

 

Chandos,

.... and that is good so. Still I don't see the Middle East waiting for their Rosa Parks. Where we disagree is about feasibility. Just don't forget that Roasa Parks operated in a different legal and cultural environment than Benazir Bhutto.

Ideals are nice and well, but be aware that these ideals can get you killed. If you want to encourage people to be idealistic in their countries, be prepared to give them asylum in case they're forced into exile for their ideals because they happen to be 'ahead of their time'.

 

You don't have to remind me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Civil_Rights_Workers_Murders

We had our share of reactionaries was well. And we still have them. America has its own share of hate mongers, who would like nothing better than to turn back the clock as well. You can't give up the fight, and I'm sure there are those in Pakistan who will have the courage to carry on.

 

Chandos,
in a sense it reminds me of the struggle of Lenin and Trotsky one wanted to create the worker's paradise at home first, the other wanted to carry the torch to the world. Viewed historically, Lenin was more realistic.

 

There's something I recently found that rather confused me. I apologize if it's tangential to the topic, but it is tied to the last few months of Mrs. Bhutto.

I found a video on Youtube that comments on Bhutto's interview with David Frost at the English-language channel of Al-Jazeera back in November, in which she said something about being worried about several people who might have provoked and would provoke attacks against her. One of them, she said, "had dealings with Omar Shaikh (sp?) the man who murdered Osama bin Laden."

I might have missed this - I wasn't paying attention, it was said only in passing, at around 4:25-4:40, but the comments under the clip were, shall we say, rather unequivocal so I decided to check the audio back. Then it hit me that she was talking about that Osama bin Laden, and she probably knew a little about what happens in Pakistan. So when she talks, off-handedly, about a man who murdered ObL, and does not clarify it much more, then I get the feeling that a) she isn't necessarily speaking complete BS and that b) she probably thinks it's fairly well-known. Well, not to me.

Does anyone else know what she might have been talking about? I've heard of a few mentions of attacks that might have killed ObL, but iirc those were by bombs or missiles, not assassinations - and none of them was openly acknowledged as successful. So when she talks quite calmly about the man who killed Osama, I can't help but agree with the author of the video - how come there wasn't more about that? You'd think that the death of bin Laden would be a talked event, yet most of the comments on the speech I've subsequently come from no bigger news outlets than, say, the Daily Kos.

A longer segment is available here, from the YouTube channel of the English section of Al Jazeera. The sentence I spoke of are at around 5:50-6:15.

Edit: I don't trust my memory for names, so I checked on who that Omar Sheikh is. Apparently he's the man who has supposedly organized the kidnapping and killing of Daniel Pearl, the WSJ reporter who died in 2002, and had been imprisoned for organizing some kidnappings back in the 1990's. It is suspected that he has had some ties to the Pakistani Intelligence and possibly even the British one (although it's suspected that he's since gone rogue).

 

It seems everyone and their uncle seems to think they know how UBL died.

Reports of his death have been circulating since 2001. Pervez Musharaf said that he died in December of 2001 and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. There was also a lot of conjecture of his death after his first tape was released due to the obvious poor state of his health. The Bush administration, upon release of Bin Laden's first tape, even conjectured that Al Quaida was just trying to cover up the fact that Usama was already dead.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 2005 that "Dr Clive Williams, director of terrorism studies at the Australian National University, says documents provided by an Indian colleague suggested bin Laden died of massive organ failure in April last year."

In September of 2006, the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (DGSE) stating that he died in Pakistan on the 23rd of August 2006, after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs.

Then, there was Benazir Butto. Incidentally, her statement wasn't reported anywhere else, nor was it challenged. Maybe it is true, but I kind of doubt it. I don't doubt that UBL is dead. He probably is. I just doubt that he was murdered.

 

I always thought she was a fool to go back, though a very brave one. I find myself in agreement with Ragusa in that I believe that the power elite in Pakistan has no desire of vested interest in increasing the power of democratic institutions in their country. They would only lose their power for a gain of . . . nothing. If I were her I would have stayed in exile and spent my time advising Western leaders on the political landscape of Pakistan.

One thing is certain -- the destabilization of Pakistan is bad news for everyone, regardless of their political stripe. The ensuing chaos means no one is safe.