Redstate

"We are still learning the details of today's tragic events in Pakistan, but this is a stark reminder that America must not only stay on high alert, but remain actively engaged across the globe. Pakistan has long been a key part in the war against extremism and radical jihadists. For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the War on Terror, one must look no further than what has happened today. America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation – the struggle against violent, radical jihadists.

"At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and to all the people of Pakistan who are fighting against extremist forces that would commit such heinous acts as the whole world has witnessed today."

.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third

Pakistan is divided between very violent Islamists and fuzzy thinking liberals who believe that an election will make everything better.

In the middle stands Mushareff. Maybe not the best, but for now, and a long time to come, the ONLY alternative.

And these people have nuclear weapons.

...as the Armed Forces of the United States were undertaking the liberation of Afghanistan from underneath the Taliban's bootheel, as the liberation forces prepared their assault on the city of Kandahar, an urgent request was received from the Pakistani Government to temporarily stand down American anti aircraft defenses around the city.
During the stand down, three Star Lifters carrying Pakistani Military personnel left from Kandahar Airport.
What do you think we are dealing with here? This swamp is far deeper and more convoluted than any of us can imagine.

for Musharraf to step it up regarding leadership. Bhutto was the key to organizing a government not affiliated with the military nor the extremists. Musharraf needs to get out there and take control of his government and country because this is all going to fall on him and Bhutto's supporters are going after his head.

Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Most likely Bhutto's supporters will point the finger at Musharaff for this, and most likely the Pakistani Intel service had involvement in this. Look for Musharaff to get overthrown in the next 2 years. This is what we get for backing a state full of radical islamists who don't want democracy.

The question going through my mind is how foolish are we if we do not make national security our first issue when deciding who to support. It does not matter how well the surge is working right now, because five months of good news can change in the Middle East over a weekend. The Bhutto assassination should not come as a shock to anyone, and I feel really foolish for saying, “Wow, this means we need McCain.” Seriously, how foolish are we if we do not put national security above every issue.

but let's not lionize her. Her rule was corrupt even by Pakistani standards, her method of rule had much more in common with Juan Peron than any affection for democracy, there is no evidence that she would pursue al Qaeda with even the lukewarm enthusiasm of Musharraf, and let's not pretend that her ascending to Pakistan's presidency would improve on the fragile nature of that country.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

The three laws of the War on Terror:

1. We will work toward American safety and security from terrorism, and never through inaction allow terrorism to thrive.

2. We will work toward world safety and security from terrorism, except when it would come into conflict with the first law.

3. We will work to promote freedom worldwide, except when it would come into conflict with the first or second law.

We've promoted representative government with freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan because the old regimes were promoting terror. We needed to try something new.

However the old regime in Pakistan is not promoting terror or outright oppositing representation; in fact, it's doing everything it can to get elections going, without turning the country over to the terrorists.

It's time we just quietly stood by General Musharraf.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Bhutto’s Death Means the status quo will prevail for now. With all due respect, her last involvement is Pakistani government affairs is not without substantial and substantive controversy. There are certainly many nice platitudes about Ms. Bhutto and these will increase with her assassination. But the fact of the matter is that neither she nor any other current “candidate” has the personal status or influence to prevent a further slide into the radical abyss.

Many of the personal attacks on Mr. Musharraf have been made under a pretext of proliferating democracy. However, these wistful opines do not account for a very tenuous reality which defines Pakistani geopolitics; that in order to defeat radical forces a more authoritarian rule is needed. Some may correctly point out that attacks have increased as Musharraf has tried to clumsily balance the country’s situation. However, much of his recent actions are borne from a need to balance an international pressure for steps towards wider democracy in tandem with pinpoint actions against radical tribal groups, especially on the border with Afghanistan. This foolishly projects those prominent previously corrupt political players, largely willing to make deals with other groups including radicals, will simply supplant Musharraf and succeed purely because they are participants in a democratic process. Nothing could be more short sighted or ridiculous with such an unstable environment in a country that not only holds nuclear weapons, but sits astride one of the most crucial bastions of regional stability.

While I for one may not be happy with the entire situation, it could be much worse without Musharraf.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

She herself claimed that Al qaeda was involved in her removal from office. My extremely small sampling of Pakistan thought is that the Taliban/Al Qaeda was behind this.
Let us not forget that her prior rule was marked by extreme corruption and poor domestic results.
The only goal of this game, as far as our enemies are concerned, is to gain control of the Pakistani nuclear weapons complex. I am sincerely hoping that whatever rational, pro-American part of the CIA/Dept. of State remains is thinking on these lines and doing whatever it takes to assure that does not happen.

and Mrs Bhutto was not Mrs. Aquino. To paraphrase FDR, they're all SOBs and not one of them is our SOB.

Musharraf has been weakened badly in the last few months. If anything, the US will need to step up its involvement in order to prevent an anti-US, anti-Karzai policy from emerging in Pakistan.

The American/NATO forces in Afghanistan are supplied through Pakistan. if things go all to hell then the only alternative ways out are through Iran or the various SoandSoStans to the North. Imagine what their price would be for giving us an exit route.

The "moderate" Bhutto was actually a Saudi-backed, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian-terrorism force of instability, anarchy, and protest in Pakistan. Her return to Paki politics would only divide and conquer pro-U.S. forces in the country, allowing the more popular Islamists to dominate. That she was assassinated was not a good thing. But that she is now gone from Pakistani politics is a positive development in a myriad of ways. - http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

Yet a different read on this - seems to be some nuggets in this.

Please be honest with me, would we be concerned about Pakistan if Al-Qaeda wasn't based in Afghanistan and Pakistan didn't have any nuclear bombs to start with?

Yes, I know, it's a cynical question. Honestly, it is incredibly hard for me to sympathize with either Bhutto or Musharraf, their beliefs are radically different from mine. Is it wrong of me to say that both of them, by American standards, are too extreme for my taste?

No offense, personally, I believe that we need to do everything in our power to aid Pakistan, since she is indeed our ally. However, at the same time, I'm not so thrilled that while we're giving Iraqis a taste of freedom, we actually have to root for Musharraf to crack down hard on radicals, thus postponing democracy to take root over there. I don't think it's hypocritical, it's just that we're dealing with each nation on an individual basis.

In any case, I doubt this will bode very well for Pakistan and Musharraf.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

If AQ wasn't in Pakistan we'd not have the specter of instability with nuclear capability & some goons like AQ playing "planet of the apes" & worshipping a nuke, before it was set off somewhere.

It's definitely not going to "bode well" for anyone, unless the perpetrators (likely AQ Afghanistan) are defined for the public & that turns public opinion against them. I'm sure AQ Afghanistan gets a bit queasy when the thought of even a brief window of opportunity for the US to go after them.

Video of Fred talking about Bhutto on FOX News

Huckabee expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.”

Yes, that said apologies.

Anyone else think of Archduke Ferdinand when they heard about this? Pakistan is a nuclear power who has two, possibly three, nuclear neighbors with another separated only by the narrow panhandle of Afghanistan, which has strong presence of two other nuclear powers. Somewhat unnerving.

This may well be an event like Al Qaeda’s bombing of the Golden Mosque. This certainly makes it seem likely that Al Qaeda has moved the focus of its operation to Pakistan. Despite al Qaeda’s taking credit, I wouldn’t automatically rule out some government involvement. It is possible that a rouge element in Musharraf’s government was involved - if for no other reason than that would create more chaos - to Al Qaeda’s advantage. I agree it is very unlikely that Musharraf was responsible, but it is possible.

Bhutto was very pro-US and would likely have forged a more solid and helpful relationship with the US. I think she would have openly attacked the pro-Taliban regions. A real aggressive pro-US stance might have opened up an active civil war, however. Now a civil war might erupt along different lines - both of which were pro-US. Either way, will a civil war invite intervention?

Musharraf is in a lose-lose scenario now. With Bhutto martyred, there will be a tendency to vote against him - even if he’s not responsible. So he’s more likely to lose the election. That may not be a good outcome for the US since I don’t know who the opposition party's replacement will be. If Musharraf wins the election, it will appear that he was the one who gained from the assassination. This could easily erupt into civil war between the pro-US elements in Pakistan. This is what Al Qaeda would want. They would then help both sides until they are both so weak that they can overthrow or indirectly control the government -and their weapons or their weapons technology.

There should be serious thought about Biden’s proposal that Musharraf step down, but not immediately - if it can be helped. If Musharraf postpones the elections and then wins, we’ll really have problems. Of course, it might be that Musharraf is the only one who can keep the county together - either peacefully or otherwise.