And Pakistan Goes Insane
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Benazir Bhutto | Foreign Affairs | Pakistan | Pervez Musharraf | terrorism — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Anyone who thinks that foreign policy is not going to be a big issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign has likely had his/her world rocked by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto today:
Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, aides said.
Bhutto's supporters erupted in anger and grief after her death, attacking police and burning tires and election campaign posters in several cities. At the hospital where she died, some smashed glass and wailed, chanting slogans against President Pervez Musharraf.
The death of the 54-year-old charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections into chaos and created fears of mass protests and violence across the nuclear-armed nation, an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.
Musharraf convened an emergency meeting with his senior staff where they were expected to discuss whether to postpone the election, an official at the Interior Ministry said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
Read on . . .
The assassination has thrown Pakistan into chaos. Of course, now, we are confronted with questions concerning the identity and associations of the attackers. It would not surprise me in the least to find out--as this story speculates--that al Qaeda was indeed involved. And with Nawaz Sharif's threat to boycott the upcoming elections and demand that Pervez Musharraf resign, Pakistan will be thrown into still greater social and political disorder.
In the event that it has been forgotten, let us now remember and resolve to bear in mind that we live in a tremendously dangerous world, that random acts of violence can dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape--especially when those random acts of violence take place in a country with nuclear weapons--and that unless foreign policy and national security receive heavy and pronounced attention in the ordering of any nation's priorities, we will be manifestly unprepared to deal with crises and disasters.
The events in Pakistan will rightfully keep us on edge for some time to come. For all of the right reasons, it is now a major issue in any discussion of the foreign policy landscape. And instead of asking our Presidential candidates whether they believe every word of the Bible or whether they prefer diamonds or pearls, perhaps we can start asking them some serious foreign policy questions and quit with the ridiculous and appalling frivolity with which we make inquiries of those who ask to lead the country.
« Al Qaeda Opens a New Front — Comments (9)
And Pakistan Goes Insane 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Pej, I must disagree. There will be settling effect as all those middle class Moslems finally take control and move the nutcases off the streets. I'm sorry Bhutto, as a fellow human being, was killed so cruelly, but we'll all be better off without another old style commie trying to stir up the old hatreds and re-seize power.
And more directed at the nature of the crisis we face concerning Pakistan.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
In addition to being a fantastically corrupt PM, Benazir Bhutto made the call to lend Pakistan's support to the then-nascent Taliban in the early 1990s. It's not an exaggeration to say that she bears a central responsibility, together with the ISI apparatus, for Afghanistan's subsequent descent into Islamist tyranny -- and for Pakistan's chronic failure to sustain something approaching a sustainable democracy, and for the conditions that led to 9/11. (See Ahmed Rashid, among others, for some serious investigative journalism on these points.)
Your RS colleague Ericka Anderson states that "[Bhutto] was a couragous supporter of democracy." This is what we'll hear a lot of in coming days. It is also ridiculous and false. Benazir Bhutto was a corrupt populist who empowered the murderous fanatics who slaughtered 3,000 Americans in fall 2001, and who almost certainly killed her today. She looked good and spoke well -- and that is all. A pity she died, yes: but no tragedy for America.
This. I did not write my post so that we could mourn Benazir Bhutto. Rather, I wrote it to highlight--in my own small way--the fact that Pakistan has become a powder keg that has nuclear weapons and we all ought to be concerned about that.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
I refer to Bhutto as Hugo Chavez' and Vladimir Putin's most recent sacrifice. It's always the same old story...
You
In addition to being a fantastically corrupt PM, Benazir Bhutto made the call to lend Pakistan's support to the then-nascent Taliban in the early 1990s. It's not an exaggeration to say that she bears a central responsibility, together with the ISI apparatus, for Afghanistan's subsequent descent into Islamist tyranny -- and for Pakistan's chronic failure to sustain something approaching a sustainable democracy, and for the conditions that led to 9/11.
About Bhutto (wikipedia):
The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[13] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.
About US policy, mid-1980's (wikipedia)
The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.Ronald Reagan praised them as "freedom fighters", and the 1988 Rambo III portrayed them as heroic.
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent organizer and financier of an all Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments[2]. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.
Now, I don't think Reagan administration is directly responsible for 9/11 any more than Bhutto, of course. I do think your accusation is simplistic (a moment's realpolitiking is sometimes "brilliant" and sometimes "suicidal" in hindsight) and it involves cutting off causation at an arbitrary point in the past (1988).
how many times in the last 75 years has our own State Department made the same judgment, with similarly disastrous results? Particularly in the Cold War, any and almost all regimes that brought "stability" and did not have a business relationship with the USSR, were deemed good enough by our government.
As I recall, she was out of office for 3 years before the Taliban took power, anyway, long before anyone saw how they would actually govern.
but she was still on her way out just as the world was seeing the Taliban demonstrate how it would govern once installed.
Right on trevino! Drudge is reporting that Huckabee apologized. I don't have the stomach to read the details about what he said, but I think it's safe to say that he's now exposed his true self and as such better change the R after his name to a D and run as a dem.
Huckabee has spoken at length before on the problem of Pakistan, and he's one of the few candidates on either side to approach it from a strictly pro-American position. I'm in contact with some folks in his campaign -- I'd be surprised if the "apology," as reported, was anything more than a verbal slip; but of course I'll let you know if I hear otherwise.
Bottom line is that given Huckabee's prior statements at length on this topic, it's a good bet he's cognizant of who is truly to blame here.
.... even heard of Bhutto's death. I mean, it only happened this morning. Based on Huckabee's keen understanding of Iranian affairs, I expected him to wait until the evening papers to get interested. [/snark.]
This is not solely an opportunity to Huckabash, however. Bhutto had many faults -- but, then, so does (did) her competition. It's not as though the ISI was operating at Bhutto's sole direction, or that the army (or Mussaraf for that matter) had no role in the Taliban's rise, or that Sharif was not equally corrupt. Indeed, the difference between Sharif and Bhutto in this area was that Sharif cultivated the moderate Islamist vote whilst Bhutto largely, to her credit, remained a secular leader.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Hizhonor, Mayor Bloomberg announced increased security by the NYPD around the consulates and embassies in NYC. More taxpayers money being spent because something, somewhere else is going on.
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
The police officers get the same salaries no matter where they're assigned. There might be some other logistics to pay for but the NYPD is expected to protect the diplomats, so it's probably money well-spent. A failure on the NYPD's part would be very bad for everyone. I'm not a big fan of Bloomberg but he's smart to at least take further steps to avoid such catastrophe.
Front and center.
Christmas cards and stupid socialist wet dreams to the rear -- Sit right next to global warming please.
These types of events always provoke an outpouring of violence and unreasonable reactions. They will blow off some steam, but if Musharraf's past is prologue it won't last forever.
The real danger lurks in a pending confrontation between radical Islamists and moderate factions (BTW, Musharraf is the "moderate"). That was to play out in coming elections, which were a dangerous farce imposed by outsiders including many of our own ignorant Democrat Congressmembers.
Bhutto and moreso Sharif both are not only proven to be corrupt, but have cavorted with AQ supporters as part of their electoral and governmental strategy. Their election would mean an institutionalized radical philosophy much worse than any complaint about Musharraf.
But now once the dust settles and Bhutto supporters realize this was not only fostered but celebrated by AQ, it will further free Musharraf to conduct some housecleaning in rural tribal areas and radical political elements. My thought is that after some ebb and flow, AQ will regret another move at trying to subjugate a country by killing her populace. In the end, the only chaos will be radical killers complaining there are human rights violations galore and no democratic process.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
The U.S. needs to accelerate negotiations w/India on this matter. If Pakistan won't control itself then it needs to be controlled. Pakistan has really proven that it is not a responsible nation and certainly doesn't need to be trusted w/nukes in its possesion. The U.S. and India should be able to get together on this and form some sort of alliance. If things continue to deteriorate in Pakistan, an invasion would be justified to keep the radical Islamists from getting their hands on those nukes. India would have to team up w/the U.S. They really wouldn't have much of a choice. DD
while the US and India invade? This is a WONDERFUL demonstration of why Iran -- or for that matter any other unstable regime -- must NEVER be allowed to obtain nukes.
Once they hold those nukes, your options in dealing with them are drastically reduced.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
program?
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister.
**Scientific Wild-A** Guess
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
...no shots would probably have to be fired. Oh who know's. I gotta believe that the U.S. has a bead on each one of those nukes. And certainly they've already got some sort of plan in place to isolate and neutralize these items. Wouldn't you think? Or we could just step back and let India handle it. The one unthinkable option would be to let those jihadists nuts take possession of them. I fear its coming close to that.
Please be serious. So long as Musharraf is in power, there is no need to take such action. There is also no legitimate pretext for invading Pakistan, unless you are Obama.
I trust that not only do we know where the nukes are, but also have a plan in the event there is loss of control. That would be the only reason military action may be taken against a "sovereign" nation, which could in fact be construed as an act of war. But at that point Congress, even this Congress, would be crazy to vote against such a sagacious move.
We should indeed further engage India as a wedge against Pakistan. However, given the geographic importance of the Pakistani-Afghan border region, that could be a very high stakes game of "chicken". Nonetheless, we could also more effectively use Pakistani military funding to further squeeze democratic reform from Musharraf. However, that problem is compounded by a substantial lack of any real, untainted democratic reformer waiting in the background.
These are complex problems requiring intellectual solutions. The current policy, with a few "tweeks" is absolutely the best course.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
...trying to figure out what to do one must use a lot of "howevers". Ha! Its true because it is so very complex! Well I hope you're right. I don't relish the thought. "However" you're right about it being complex. We simply do not have a large enough military and its way too far from home.
One thing to agree on; "the India Wedge" effect. Heck they do half of our Tech Support as it is. Why not other forms of support?
And instead of asking our Presidential candidates whether they believe every word of the Bible or whether they prefer diamonds or pearls, perhaps we can start asking them some serious foreign policy questions and quit with the ridiculous and appalling frivolity with which we make inquiries of those who ask to lead the country.
Is there an implicit equating of believing in the Bible to frivolity? Why the juxtaposition?
Treating Presidential candidates as if they are trying out for the role of Chief Rabbi or Chief Priest is.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Looks like I misread that sentence. Although from my perspective I would also like to know what each candidate thinks of the Bible.
"Do you believe every word of the Bible is literally true?" may be a good question to ask your Sunday School teacher, but it is absolutely inappropriate in a presidential debate.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
"Coast to Coast AM" has invited analysis of the Pakistan situation by Jerome Corsi, of all people. CTCAM listeners might not be the most serious-minded audience there is but I still have a problem with giving such a large forum to someone whose contribution will likely be neither competent nor honest.
It was hardly a random act of violence.
(-2.75, -4.92)