Well, it looks like Pakistan's Taliban insurgency has claimed another target in that country's ongoing civil war. Bhutto was shot by an attacker after a campaign rally; the attacker then blew himself up, killing at least 20 others. The attack was well timed: her own party will find it difficult to replace her before the January 8/08 elections, and of course Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League-N held up their end of the operation by "suddenly" deciding that they'd boycott the election, while calling for Musharraf's ouster. Hmm, wonder who might rise to power in that kind of vacuum...
Ah, the Waziristan Accords - another successful example of diplomacy with terrorists as a gift that keeps on giving.
Still, I've told Dan Darling before that al-Qaeda and its allies have a bit of a "Pinky and the Brain" problem - good at thinking 2 moves ahead and decent at executing that, but not so great at anticipating what happens once they pull off their scheme...
Right now, it comes down to an information operation, with the Taliban insurgents and their mouthpieces/allies working hard to pin the blame on Musharraf. This is pretty obviously ridiculous, since he had many far less dangerous moments to kill her if he had wished. On the other hand, terrorism operations on the eve of elections, coupled with a rabid information op directed at the government, have worked for the Islamists before.
Problem: Al-Qaeda has now taken credit for the attack, which actually helps us quite a bit; the smart thing to do in an operation of this type is remain silent and help suspicion fall on the government via conspiracy theories. Which, as we've seen, is already in the playbook. Can it work, even so?
The key question will be which way Bhutto's PPP party breaks.
If they decide that their only war is against Musharraf, and go along with the Taliban's "it's all Musharraf's fault" info-op as their best option for political gain, the Islamists will be the final winners and Pakistan is in even deeper trouble.
If Bhutto's party decide that the Taliban and their allies have declared war on democracy in Pakistan, however, then al-Qaeda and their allies may well find that the success of their clever scheme doesn't quite get them the results they had imagined. For all of their guns and bombs, they are still a minority in Pakistan. That didn't stop Lenin, of course, and it won't stop them - unless a broad front of Pakistanis begin to see them as the true enemy.
In which case, Pakistan may have a future after all. Note, however, the use of the conditional phrase.
To the extent that the USA has a role in this drama, it should be strong backdoor diplomacy that strongly discourages Bhutto's PPP from going along with the Taliban's info-op. The elections will come, goes the argument. The US will continue to play a role in pushing for them, and the PPP is very likely to win without having to go that route. Instead, consider the message that the Taliban are sending you here by claiming responsibility, and realize that you'll need to begin rallying support against them now if you wish to successfully oppose them, given their armed strength is Western Pakistan.
Of course, to be able to play such roles, you already need to have a relationship with the opposition in the first place, and to have broadly aligned goals. These are a useful pair of things to remember as one contemplates the options in the Islamic world's other unstable autocracies, so beloved of (and generous to) advocates of the so-called "realist" school of foreign policy thought.
Additional Resources
- Benazir Bhutto's August 2007 interview with the so called "realist" foreign policy school's Council on Foreign Relations may be topical at this time.
- So, too, is her October 2007 piece she wrote for the Wall Street Journal, shortly after a previous attempt on her life.
- Readers interested in a more in-depth look at Pakistan's history of democracy and difficulties with same should read Patrick Belton's excellent 3-part overview "Democracy in Pakistan." You can't tell the players without a program, and you can't understand the realistic options without some history. Patrick provides both.
Ahmed Rashid, in tommorow's newspaper, points the finger at al-Qaeda as well:
The Dangerous Void Left Behind
I must say I've rarely heard the bullshit fly out of the television device so fast and furious as it did this morning. Over half an hour I heard that Bhutto's father was "Pakistan's JFK" (which is laughable) who was also assassinated (which is not what happened to him) and that her brother was also assassinated (which is not what happened to him). And that was followed by Hillary Clinton, who said this proves why we need a president "who is ready to go on day one."
Still, this is another bloody shame. Benazir was no Abraham Lincoln, but she was the best of the Bhuttos. Pakistan will have no good day until the Muslim parties are crushed.
Hmm.. Not sure about this. In a sense AQ really has little risk from something like this, and potentially a mountain of gain. Essentially they just kicked the table over, and why not? Their opponents have most of the chips.
AQ and Islamicists in general have one very good thing going for them- those sympathetic to them will believe just about anything. For that matter, there are plenty in the West as well willing to explain away such an act, come up with a conspiracy theory blaming the West, or become full blown apologists. Short of converting to Evangelical Christians, nothing AQ can really do right now is liable to sway many people out of their default positions.
AQ really had nothing to lose. We can debate whether they would have been wiser to remain silent, but this was an act on a global scale and it reminds the world AQ is a real player. That in itself probably helps them in their current straights (its been a bad year for AQ).
Their best case scenario, a full blown societal breakdown takes place and the Islamicists pull a Khomeini. Worst case- well they killed off an outspoken woman so nobody already supporting them is going to bat an eyelash, and Musharraf is in no state to strike back. I'd say its at best a draw and probably win-win for Fascist Islamicists, and AQ in particularly. Vanishingly small chance it spurs a Pakistani 'awakening'.
Joe, I'm certainly not as attentive a student of Pakistani politics as you are, but I am having some trouble with your reasoning here. Isn't this: "Right now, it comes down to an information operation, with the Taliban insurgents and their mouthpieces/allies working hard to pin the blame on Musharraf" somewhat contradicted by this: "Al-Qaeda has now taken credit for the attack."
Also, I don't quite see how PPP's going after Musharraf --or blaming Musharraf -- will result in a victory for the Islamists. To the extent that Musharraf and the Islamists seem to have some sort of alliance, however uneasy, it seems that the PPP can simultaneously oppose both the Islamists and Musharraf. Unless I am completely misreading your post, I think you are presenting the PPP with a false choice. Or possibly you believe that only a Musharraf is capable of keeping Pakistan relatively stable, which, after today, is a more difficult belief to sustain than it was yesterday.
mark,
Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League-N, an Islamist ally, is indeed moving to place blame on Musharraf for the attack. Follow the links. Even as there are reports that AQ has claimed responsibility. This is a time honored tactic that has been used before by Marxist insurgencies ("the government did it, and if they didn't do it it's their fault by virtue of their very presence"), so I can't see why it puzzles you to see it played out here, with names attached.
They don't. There have been a number of Islamist assassination attempts against Musharraf. What there has been is government appeasement/ accommodation of Islamists, due in part to the limits of its power. The Islamists have used this as a springboard to build the current civil war, while creating a country within a country that effectively separates Pakistan into a government zone and a Talibanistan no-go territory.
It is possible, but the modes of opposing them are very different. Musharraf can be opposed in elections, while the Islamists are undertaking a civil war within Pakistan.
The PPP blaming Musharraf instead of Al Qaeda is first of all false, and in line with the Islamist info-op. Bad things in an of themselves. It also results is a situation where the PPP has no leader, Musharraf is handcuffed while he is in power (best case) or rising public violence creates a coup/insurgency opportunity (worst case), and al Quaeda and their Taliban allies take no meaningful consequences for killing Bhutto.
These consequences are also bad things, all of them. The most likely outcome in the near term would be cessation of operations against al Qaeda, the Taliban, et. al., and significant strengthening of elements of the military and ISI sympathetic to the Islamists, who might even step in via coup to "restore calm". This isn't good for Pakistan, or for the PPP.
The alternative for the PPP is to blame al-Qaeda and its sympathizers, and begin mobilizing broader Pakistani society against them. While focusing on ensuring that there are free elections that give the PPP time to sort themselves out, then ride a disaffection + sympathy vote to almost certain power.
One approach improves both Pakistan's chances and the PPP's. The other does not.
It is interesting to note that Bhutto herself blamed Musharraf if she were to be assassinated.
Of course I'm sure that Dan Darling and Katzman are more in tune with the going ons of internal Pakistani politics than Bhutto ever could be.
However, it may be worth considering that an over-simplified Al Qaeda terrorists did it because they hate freedom ™ response may be in order here. It also may be worth considering that, if Bhutto was right, the US' role in all of this may be more complicated as well.
I would also note that Bhutto, in death, is probably a better martyr for democracy than in life a promoter of it. Bush is helping making this true.
[Merged the following post with this one, fixed link. No problem, Avedis; wish we had preview... --NM]
Sorry Nort about the fouled up link format. this is the link
More than a few voices are piping up claiming that Musharraf had the most to gain from Bhutto’s assassination. I do not think this was Musharraf’s work for two reasons. First, al-Qaeda and the other Jihadist organizations were long-time enemies of Bhutto’s and had declared they were going all out for her life many times. Second, Musharraf didn’t kill Nawaz Sharif when he overthrew him in a military coup. He exiled him, and in fact has allowed him back into Pakistan. Zia killed Bhutto’s father when he led his coup, so the tradition was for coup leaders to execute the preceding president. And yet Musharraf, given the easiest excuse in the world, did not execute Sharif. It doesn’t make sense that Musharraf would have had Bhutto killed now, when he didn’t kill a much more dangerous enemy when he led his coup.
Avedis hates Joe and Dan.
Therefore, Musharraf murdered Bhutto.
There's like seventeen missing premises there.
And that's not the record, either.
In intelligence operations, things are never so easy. There is no "black" or "white".
Let us consider some FACTS:
First of all, Al Qaeda has never attacked electoral processes, that is PROVED
Secondly, the Taliban were created and existed due to heavy support from the Pakistani secret services. There is no such "opposition" between structures of the Pakistani government and the Islamic extremist, on the contrary, they have been allies during a long time.
Third fact, as far as I can remember, structures inside the Pakistani government supported operations against India that almost triggered a war a few years ago.
Fourth fact, the Mumbay train bombings that occurred in India soon after, did not have the characteristics of an Islamic extremist attack. Some fingers pointed toward the Pakistani secret services.
In addition, in a democracy, the opposition leader is the most important person. The government has to assure his/her safety before anything else. The political responsible for Bhutto's assassination is the Pakistani government.
Moreover, the international foreign affairs and security establishment would tend to accept and cover-up anything that happens in Pakistan as long as the nuclear devices are kept safe: some structures of the Pakistani goverment might have felt free to do whatever they wanted.
Unfortunately, we cannot rule out the possibility that we are before another case of the Strategy of Tension, that already worked in Italy (1969-1981), Spain (1973-) and Lebanon. On the contrary, Mrs. Bhutto herself told on Foxnews, when asked for the extremist in the Afghan border: a dictatorship always needs an enemy to justify its actions.
We report, you decide.
Come on Glen, give me a little more credit than purposefully making wildly erroneous statements here just because of my sentiments towards someone who is posting.
I think J Aguilar has it about right.
Mush has been playing footsie under the table with extremist elements for a long time.
I am sure that the psycho that actually pulled the trigger on Bhutto was an Islamic extremist of some type. AQ? Who knows. It is way too early to be making such pronouncements with any degree of certainty.
However, I am also sure that Mush is not all broken up over her death. Clearly he is now in a better position to maintain his grip on power. These things can hardly be disputed. Additionally, the US is now able to conduct business as usual; or at least the evolution of Pakistani politics has been made more simple. This would be seen as a plus by certain elements of our government (and please note that I am not making a moral judgement on the US pro or con should it be true that we had a hand - or a tacit look-the-other-way in this event).
The only open questions are the extent to which Mush/US allowed or facilitated what happened. Motive, opportunity, statements from the victim.....if this was a homocide case in the US I would say that Mush would be heading for a Grand Jury indictment. There is enough to go on that Mush's potential involvement could not be overlooked.
I object to Katzman and Darling because these people take every event and spin the facts and analysis to meet their pre-conceived notions and to further their neocon ambitions (yes, Katzman has refered to himself as being a "neocon" so complain to him if you don't like the label). Their filtering and arrangment of data is either deliberate or the result of gross incompetence. Either way I have contempt for both of them. That said, I am open to being convinced by either that their interpretation is correct. So let's see what arguments can be made.
Glen, also I want to note that I think the Kos article is over the top on some of its conspiracy theories.
On the other hand it does raise some thought provoking points.
Is anyone really surprised that Bhutto was killed? Her death was almost a sure thing once she returned to Pakistan. After the first attempt I thought to myself that it is only a matter of time. Iwould presume that our goverment would also recognize this if it is not comatose.
So all of the stakeholders, AQ, Mush, the US must have started figuring how to maximize the inevitible. AQ can claim responsibility and look like heros to their twisted adherants. Mush maintains/exerts more control and has an excuse for getting more US aid. The US gets many positives; ranging from keeping the flames of the GWOT red hot to maintaining a stable and predictable relationship with Mush as Pakistan's leader.
I suspect that a world without Bhutto starting looking ever more attractive to all stakeholders.
Again, the only question is the level and extent of colusion.
avedis,
I don't think about any foreign involvement. These things are, above all, inside jobs. On the contrary, the possible participation of a foreign country usually constitutes itself a cover-up: a way of focusing the attention outside, such as it was done with Morocco in the 3/11 case or very probably with the US in Italy.
I don't think either Musharraf is directly responsible (beyond the political responsibility shared with the rest of the government). My experience in Spain and the conclussions on Italy's attacks show that quite often, as a confusion tactic, two sides are provided to the public opinion in order to polarize it: either it was the evil AlQaeda or the evil dictator, in the case of Pakistan, or either AlQaeda or ETA, in the case of Spain. However, the investigations in Italy and Spain point out that there is a common structure behind both sides. IMHO both the Islamic extremists and Musharraf are simply puppets manipulated by someone else inside the Pakistani government, the one that really pulls the strings and make the puppets move.
The motive for killing Bhutto would not have necessarily been to attack the elections. Bhutto said she, unlike Musharraf and or any one else, would allow U.S. strikes inside Pakistan. Anyone fearful of allowing the U.S. a freer hand on the Afghan border would see killing Bhutto as a means of avoiding interference, whether she was killed before or after the elections. Before the elections there would be more opportunities to catch her in the public.
She had been the subject of assasination attempts for decades, had an established disregard for her security protections and built her personality cult in part on the bravery attributed to her for this. One of the questions has to be, why did she live this long?
No autopsy? I know that Muslims traditionally do not want autopsy performed, but this isn't your average everyday occurrence . I find it odd that no postmortem was conducted.
I honestly can't think that anyone would be surprised or shocked that this happened. It was only a matter of time before she was killed.
As to who or what group was behind it, I doubt we will ever know. It's to her oppositions benefit that the true identity of the culprits be not known as to help stir up as much chaos as possible. Now you have everyone pointing fingers at everyone else. The perfect storm for a group who wants as much cover for their actions as possible.
I do find it odd though that the media has latched on to Bhutto and her family as golden saints who never did any wrong and who were the only possible saviors for Pakistan. The woman did have some warts that shouldn't be glossed over. Perhaps now is not the time, but the portrait painted by the western press is highly inaccurate and incomplete.
God that was the craziest thing I've heard today. And for the
first time, it's nor from J.Thomas or Avedis. It could be that the shooter/sniper/bomber was AQ; from
LeT, HuR, or other faction. Being that this was not Kashmir. It's also not surprising that he might
have ISI or Pakistani army ties.
Just as one thought two generation ago that Zia ul Haq's pleasantries
at the Command & Staff College, proved he was a Westerner. Or A.Q. Khan's diligent work with Urenco proved his bonafides. It's that elegant Oxbridge accent that fools us into taking anything at face value. Hence we have Saaed Omar, LSE graduate turned Air India hijacker and Daniel Pearl's kidnapper. Cawthorne's ISI has mutated over three generations into a facilitator of the likes of Hekmatyar and Raisul Sayyaf's followers, then to the shadow armies, hugging the Kargil demilitarization line. The likely truth is that Musharaff needed this crisis, like the 'proverbial
whole in the head' metaphorically speaking. But the 'strategy of tension' thesis, doesn't hold much water. Pakistan, if anything needs
less of those 'interesting times'
that Chinese proverb warned about. The AQ plan to turn the election, theorized by the likes of Youssef Nada, is well documented. How anyone allowed Bhutto to
conduct an open air rally,
considering what happened at the previous one, in Karachi is beyond me.
Pakistan is as Churchill said in anither context, "a mystery, wrapped in inside a riddle, inside an enigma"
People who complain about Iraq being a synthesis of three Ottoman
provinces; think this melange of Pashtun, Afridi, Kashmiri, Sind, Baluchi, tribal areas; (did I leave any one out?)could be managed in any realistic way; is fooling themselves. Cyril Radcliffe. was among the latest to suffer this delusion. Pakistan's NorthWest Frontier has been the bane of Westerners going back nearly two centuries. The Two Afghan Wars. the innumerable camapigns in Buner,(where future
Marshal Roberts took his stand)
Malakand,(the beginning of Winston Churchill's career) the Black Mountains, the Tirah, and let's not forget the quarter century?
hunt against the Fakir of Waziristan
Ok, new tone, new tone...
Lets not forget that Al Qaeda immediately claimed credit. Just food for thought.
Personally I suspect this act will speed Musharraf out of office. AQ had a lot to gain and little to lose- Musharraf had a lot to lose and little to gain. His hold on power is more precarious now than it was. If he tries to remain in office now, he has enemies on both the reform and Islamicist sides with him in the middle. He can't play one against the other anymore.
I agree with both J. Aguilar and Narciso.
1. Anyone who thinks they know who or what is behind this assassination is not paying attention and anyone that believes any current claims or reports about who is responsible is, at best, naive.
2. Pakistan is not a viable state. Nor will it ever be.
Sometimes, a duck is just a duck.
Let's apply Occam's razor- AQ Islamicists swore to murder Bhutto, Bhutto is assassinated via AQs M.O., AQ claims responsibility.
These guys have come real close to killing Musharraf on several occasions- and he's not out giving political rallies in the public square. Bhutto was out doing something remarkably dangerous and she got killed- the fact that Musharraf couldnt protect her doesnt prove he was complicit, or even negligent. He might have been, but to assume as much smacks of prejudgement. Heck, Dutch filmakers get shot in the street, does that prove the Dutch government is out assasssinating film directors?
Let me also say that those claiming this package is too obviously AQ, well... thats an argument of symmetry, not facts.
The argument that Bhutto 'predicted' her death via Musharraf... well it seems like a fairly common way to keep Musharaff from thinking about actually doing it. But what does Musharraf really gain by martyring a Bhutto? Much like Obi-wan, she's probably more powerful dead than alive. You guys are playing a lot of 'AQ doesnt do this or that', well, what about Musharraf? What in his track record suggests he would make a move like this, particularly considering its likely to prove an enormous blunder? Alive Bhutto was a very devisive figure. Dead she is a martyr to anyone interested in reform.
Lets not forget that Al Qaeda immediately claimed credit. Just food for thought.
And they've tried to assasinate her before.
And Baitullah Mehsud, Taliban Commander and protector of Bin Laden, threatened suicide attacks against her if she returns.
And who created the Taliban, PD Shaw?
Mark (#18)
The Occam razor's does not apply to secret services, and a film director is not the opposition leader, the most important person in a democracy.
Musharaf had a lot of trouble containing the operations in India of the Islamic guerrillas. He is not in charge of the situation, that seems obvious, but the "gentle" face of other groups inside the Pakistani government, groups that might want he dumped or simply does not care about him.
IMHO, the key question is that with Bhutto in the government, the West would have had another person to whom speak in Pakistan of any issue, ranging from Al Qaeda to the nukes to the relations with India, leaving aside the present people in charge, people whose importance for us increases as the crisis worsens.
The more the tension, the more indispensable they are for the West.
"The Occam razor's does not apply to secret services, and a film director is not the opposition leader, the most important person in a democracy."
Occam's razor applies to everything. Its a tool, not the final word. It simply requires that the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence required to be believes, otherwise the simpler answer is the best.
I'm still waiting for an actual accusation, much less some evidence over who did this. Motive is not proof.
But its pretty obvious where this is going- Pakistan's intelligence claims they have an intercept of AQ agents admitting to the attack- you guys are going to claim its fraudulent (making you the only people who will, considering Al Qaeda is openly taking credit). Basically nothing Pakistan's government can come up with will convince you differently, and dont even get me started about the Bush administration.
So my question is- what plausible evidence from what source would convince you that AQ did this? I'm not saying they did, just that they are the prime suspects. Having confessed to it and all. But is there some particular peice of proof (from whom?) that could convince you?
Oh, let me guess.
The brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
The Pakistani organized crime cartels, one of two groups known to have funded the early Taliban?
The other group known to have funded them - our good friends, the Saudis?
The ideological godfathers of Shari'a fundamentalism?
The Afghan warlords who allowed these Pashtun fanatics to take control of the entire country without a fight?
Perhaps the Taliban themselves created the Taliban, but that would assume they were human beings capable of self-organization, and of possessing cognitive intelligence that is not just an epiphenomenal by-product of American foreign policy.
Well Mark, it is simply not an AlQaeda tactic, but one based in the Strategy of Tension
Occam's razor applies to everything. Its a tool, not the final word. It simply requires that the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence required to be believes, otherwise the simpler answer is the best.
Extraordinary is subjective. What can be extraordinary for an American - political violence - is something common in Spain or Lebanon and it was something common in Italy between 1969 and 1981, year in which members of its secret services were caught planting false evidence to cover-up the Bologna train station bombing, that killed 85.
In a dictatorship the government is everything: the simplest thing is to blame the Pakistani government for Bhutto's killing.
Pakistan's intelligence claims they have an intercept of AQ agents admitting to the attack
Mark, I ask you again: who created the Taliban?
Basically nothing Pakistan's government can come up with will convince you differently,
Mine eyes have seen cover-ups in a so-called democracy. I've studied cover-ups in other so-called democracies... what should I think about a dictatorship?
and dont even get me started about the Bush administration.
Foreign affairs are very very pragmatic ones: who is in control of the nukes? Period. It is not a crime, or well, maybe it is, but it happens everyday.
So my question is- what plausible evidence from what source would convince you that AQ did this?
You might begin with the autopsy report, don't worry for the pictures... you can continue explaining why she had to be killed twice, by a shot and then a bomb, and so on...
Look, when a westener says that 3/11 - an attack with no suicide bombers three days before the National Elections - was carried out by Al Qaeda, Arab people just roll on the floor laughing. They are used to false flag operations and those kind of deceptions in order to get rid of the opposition (Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky also carried them out in New York in a very successful way). We cannot offer the Arab world, or even to our own guys at the secret services such naive image, believing sources of a dictatorship with nukes. I like an elegant skepticism, it is probably the safest option for us all.
Glen,
The Madrid atrocity has now dramatically posed the question of a serious intelligence investigation of international terrorism, in order to respond in the adequate way. Terrorism does not pop up in the woods at night, like mushrooms, but it has a background and a history. Looking at the history of the "strategy of tension" will be useful for our readers, in order to draw the possible parallels and avoid giving naive support to the usual witchhunts, launched to cover up the real perpetrators.
Claudio Celani, Strategy of Tension, The Case of Italy
"Well Mark, it is simply not an AlQaeda tactic, but one based in the Strategy of Tension"
Its not?! Somebody please ask Massoud to get out of his grave, he's making a fool of himself.
J, this is pointless. You're mind is clearly made up. Your screeds about 3/11 only prove that we still dont know exactly what happened, and for the life of me I cant figure out who you think did it. Your arguments have that confused air of conspiracy theorists, at least to my mind. I just happen to think it cant always be the guy on the grassy knoll. Statitistically, I would think the obvious answer might end up being the true on at least once in a while.
"Mark, I ask you again: who created the Taliban?"
The Romans. Because the Pakistanis created the Taliban, and the British created the Pakistanis, and the Romans created the British.
"The other group known to have funded them - our good friends, the Saudis?"
Seems you're leaving out one other alternative which is odd since there is a major motion picture out now detailing the whole affair.
And by the way, that one other isn't the USA. At least not directly.
Ironic isn't it that the same ISI organization we paid to train Osama in days gone by can't seem to find him today despite billions paid to them for the effort.
Occam's Razor indeed!
And who created the Taliban, PD Shaw?
I would say it was indiginous -- the mujahideen that organized against the warlords that were raping and pillaging Afghanistan. If you want to talk about foreign support, then it would be the fundamentalist Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam party that set up the madrasses that educated and supplied the early Taliban. The JUI then introduced Bhutto to the notion of using the Taliban to help obtain safe transit of goods to and from Central Asia. Pakistan intelligence services weren't behind the forging of this relationship, they were still backing one of the warlords, Hikmetyar. And Musharraf was Bhutto's Director General Military Operations advising her at this time.
I don't know where any of these "secret origins" gets me. They've all used each others when the ends justify it, but the longest relationships have been with like-minded idealogues.
I have no doubt such idealogues exist in the military. The notion that Musharraf is behind it bends all common sense though.
Guys, its easy to throw out the ISI just because they helped bankroll the Taliban. Dig a little deeper. Why did they do that? Was it to overthrow the government of Pakistan via a Pushtun Islamicist revolution? Obviously not. But if they killed Bhutto yesterday that is exactly what Pakistani Intelligence would be formenting. Thats rather the tail wagging the dog isnt it? I dont believe there is evidence the ISI is interested in AQ taking over Pakistan. Just because they help build the Taliban doesnt follow that they want to live under their rule or see their nation go up in the flames of Civil War.
If you want to accuse the ISI for this, please, indicate the motive and why they would use this method. The ISI has spent years pulling the strings in Pakistan just fine without resorting to blowing themselves up in the market square to get to somebody. Talk about change in M.O.
To say that the ISI "created" the Taliban is like saying the Kaiser created the Bolsheviks. Which, in fact, many people used to say.
I’ve searched far and wide for a source that makes some sense of what happened to Benazir Bhutto and, unsurprisingly, it comes from someone who actually knew her as well as something about her country. I hope you’ll find the following reflections by Tariq Ali to be instructive
In addition to Tariq Ali, I believe our discussion could benefit by the addition of other Pakistani voices on this matter, for example this from Manan Ahmed.
People are looking for simplistic and moralistic solutions and villains, heroes where there are none.
Benazir Bhutto was an exile who had not been in her country for a better part of a decade, and prior to that had looted the country blind, allowed Islamists to grow, been both incompetent and corrupt, and lied about Pakistan's "peaceful" nuclear program to Bill Clinton. While allowing the AQ Khan network to export nukes everywhere.
Her party, handed down from her father and filled with internecine fights and assassinations, was one based on patronage of well, looting the treasury. Business as usual in the third world and particularly Muslim nations.
Musharraf is weak, has faced seven assassination attempts of his own (by AQ/Taliban) and can barely force Pakistan to allow the US to transit it for Afghan forces resupply. The military is divided, weak, and corrupt, but is the only modern institution in the country capable of ruling with a modicum of competence and dialing down the corruption.
All other forces have both Islamist and tribal/ethnic overlays. Bhutto's party was based in the South, mostly Punjabi, and expecting more patronage. It's unlikely she could have dealt with the men with guns, either the military or the Taliban.
The Taliban and AQ control most of the NWF provinces, are Pushtun based, and have strong adherents in the military and security services who believe in a Pushtun-based "defense in depth" with their fellow tribesman in Afghanistan against massive India.
Nawaz Sharif is openly allied with Islamists and promises to end cooperation with the US against Osama and the Taliban. Over fifty percent of Pakistanis admire Osama and probably more are sympathetic on launching terror attacks on the US or other Western Countries.
Pakistan is a nation capable of building nukes but incapable of picking up garbage on the street or preventing it from being an open sewer. Most Pakistanis deeply resent modernity which threatens their tribal identity. Bhutto in power let national educational institutions be replaced by Wahabbist madrassas. Most Pakistanis are tribal fundamentalists who are innately hostile to the West and all it's values. It's worth noting that Musharraf passed the anti-rape laws that most Pakistanis are dead set against.
The problem as Andrew McCarthy notes is that the people of Pakistan are our enemy, we ought to understand that and adjust accordingly.
"The problem as Andrew McCarthy notes is that the people of Pakistan are our enemy, we ought to understand that and adjust accordingly"
-Jim Rockford
Both you and Andrew McCarthy are fools. The people of Pakistan, like the people of Iraq and Iran merely wish for us to keep our blood-soaked hands out of their affairs.
If you wish to educate yourself, however, on the context of Bhutto’s life and death as it relates to present day Pakistan then you would be well served to pay close attention to the observations of Tariq Ali in this essay published back in November’s issue of the London Review of Books.
Or... this one ...I meant.
[Coldtype: If you run the link together with your other text, the blog software can't parse it. You need a space before the first quotation mark and after the last character of the URL. Fixed. --NM]
Oh the hell with it! Just click to my site and you'll find the link to Tariq Ali's essay in my post: "Benaziar Bhutto her Life & Death in Context".
While you're here shooting your mouth off, who's keeping suicide watch over Arthur Silber?
If you think we're going spend another 200 comment thread exploring your warped headspace ... well, you're probably right, but it'll be done without my help.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I not address your point about how fascist and blood-soaked the United States is, and how everybody except your elite crew is too fucking stupid to notice?
There's no fence around it, buddy. Head north or south and you won't have to swim.
"Oh, I'm sorry, did I not address your point about how fascist and blood-soaked the United States is, and how everybody except your elite crew is too fucking stupid to notice?"
-Glen Wishard
Actually Glen what you haven't addressed are any of the points that Tariq Ali has raised--which are what matter. The US has no leverage in Pakistan, in fact, Musharraf has played your Boy King Bush like one of Antonio Stradivri's finest. And Bhutto? She died on a fool's errand and without a shred of credibility amongst the vast majority of Pakistanis. It's a sad day for her children, but that's about it.
If Pakistan is to ever move foward the effort would be greatly enhanced if the US would step out of the way...and yes, keep its blood-drenched, charred-flesh flecked hands out of their affairs.
coldtype? coldbrains? coldnose?
Followed by drivel of the worst sort masked as some type of journalism.
Jeebus, man. You actually quote the guy from whose name 'Moonbat' is derived? How's about some facts? The signatories of Kyoto have INCREASED CO2 emissions since the signing of the agreement. The US did NOT sign but has decreased CO2 emissions anyway. China is bringing one coal fired power plant on line a WEEK. The US has not built a new one in 25 or 30 YEARS. Etc.
But reason is beyond you moonbat types.
One commenter to the Guardian article by 'Moonbat', Strangebrew says:
Sheesh. What can I say?
In his essay "Tribes", Bill Whittle suggests that we must publicly deride nutters like Coldtype, Strangebrew and Monbiot. Publicly point and laugh in a warm but mocking way.
[He, he, har, har-de-har!] Look at the funny men!
And to the poster above who thinks Occam's Razor is not applicable really, really needs to go back to logic class and retake the final.
Bhutto was a lot of things but she was a patriot, I believe. Perfect? Probably not. Human? Yes! At least SHE TRIED! Which is more than most will try to do in that particularly poisonous section of the world.
Tariq Ali didn't raise any points about Bhutto's assassination. He called it a tragedy - which we know, and agree with - and he expressed admiration and sympathy for her.
Sympathy which you obviously don't share, when you say "She died on a fool's errand and without a shred of credibility amongst the vast majority of Pakistanis."
You argue with him. You're the one with the problem.
Mark (#25)
Its not?! Somebody please ask Massoud to get out of his grave, he's making a fool of himself.
Was Massoud a candidate? Elections were coming? Who attacks electoral processes? Al Qaeda? ho ho ho
Your arguments have that confused air of conspiracy theorists, at least to my mind.
Secret services and other hidden structures in or next to governments operate in ways that are difficult to explain. Claudio Celani needed a very long report to give us an insight on what happened in Italy. If you read it, you'll find that there are former members of the SISMI, the italian intelligence service, found guilty of covering up the Bologna massacre.
It is the same tactic, the same strategy.
Statitistically, I would think the obvious answer might end up being the true on at least once in a while.
There is nothing obvious when secret structures are involved. On the contrary, the obvious answer is the more improbable because they set up deceptions: any big operation is preceed by a disinformation campaign, that is taught the first day in a secret service. Occam's razor can never be applied to them.
The Romans. Because the Pakistanis created the Taliban, and the British created the Pakistanis, and the Romans created the British.
No, the ISI, Pakistan intelligence service.
If you want to accuse the ISI for this, please, indicate the motive and why they would use this method.
It had worked in Italy during many years; in Spain, where all the foreign media repeated like parrots "Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda", Algeria... the easiest way to slap the face of the Americans is doing it and then shout "Al Qaeda did it! Al Qaeda did it!", the media will get along and you can then roll on the floor laughing.
The ISI has spent years pulling the strings in Pakistan just fine without resorting to blowing themselves up in the market square to get to somebody. Talk about change in M.O.
I suspect the ISI does not want anybody else in the country to whom the West can talk. Bhutto in the government was a threat for their position.
Glen (#30)
To say that the ISI "created" the Taliban is like saying the Kaiser created the Bolsheviks. Which, in fact, many people used to say.
What is worse, is that Socialism was a dead ideology in the beginning of the last quarter of the 19th century - preaching the collapse of capitalism since 1848, a collapse that never show signs of happening - until Bismarck revived it in order to keep the control of the military and foreign services and crush the classic liberals in the Reichstag.
That is, members of the governments trying to avoid further political evolution that harms their interests create such monsters as the Socialists, ETA, the Red Brigades or the Taliban.
Oh Come on, it is always the same story, the same strategy, the same tactics!
From FoxNews: Bhutto Aides Deny Al Qaeda Involvement, Accuse Pakistani Government of Cover-Up
"Tariq Ali didn't raise any points about Bhutto's assassination. He called it a tragedy - which we know, and agree with - and he expressed admiration and sympathy for her"
-Glen Wishard
Glen? Glen is that you? I'm certain I read somewhere that you weren't going to say more on this thread.
Well, since you've changed your mind I guess I'll be a good sport and direct you to the post I WAS TRYING TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO!
The post that you refer to was an obituary, a farewell letter so to speak from Tariq Ali to Benazir whom he'd known since her childhood. The post to which I refer was penned by Ali in November of this year in the London Review of Books before her death. Are you with me so far? In that post Ali addresses the contradictions and failings of Bhutto and how much those factors compromised her credibility with the only audience that mattered--the Pakistani people. Since I had difficulty getting the link to work in the comments section here, I suggested that anyone wishing to read Ali's analysis go to my blog where I link to it in the "Benazir Bhutto: Her Life & Death in Context" post. Please do that Glen, then comment.
Robohobo? I'll have to get back to you later fool.
PS: The US comprises 5% of the world's population yet produces 25% of the man-made carbon emmissions--which are not declining. More later.
The people of Pakistan are our enemy. They blow up Brits in London, provide support for same, assist plots to fly planes into buildings, hide Osama, and practice a barbaric code of perversion. To wit: "honor" rapes of women to "avenge" a family's "dishonor."
The Dark Ages savagery of Pakistanis (it must be admitted a truly loathesome people in their practices, be it cousin marriage, forced marriage, "honor rapes" and female genital mutiliation) would not concern us if they did not have nukes and did not form the horrific nexus of world-wide terror.
Contrary to wanting to be "left alone" they want to conquer us. Rioting and threatening to kill people world-wide because the Pope said something or Danish Cartoons. They will not leave US alone. Witness 9/11.
We ought to spell out exactly what will happen to the People of Pakistan if a US city is nuked: they (all 170 million of them) will cease to exist. Let them decide if they want to follow Osama over the abyss or will content themselves in limiting their savage barbarity to their own benighted and miserable people.
[Cousin marriage left the Hapsburg Emperor Maximilian a drooling idiot. "I am the Emperor and I want noodles" he bawled at State Dinners. This with only a few centuries of that practice. It's quite likely that the effect, in practice longer, in the breadth of Pakistan has left America to deal with essentially, the Short Bus with nukes. Making it even more important to spell out to them EXACTLY who will be killed and how it will happen if US cities are nuked.]
Bhutto of course could not make Pakistanis less savage, more intelligent, less Islamic, and more inclined to back away from Osama's jihad.
"PS: The US comprises 5% of the world's population yet produces 25% of the man-made carbon emmissions--which are not declining. More later."
And what is the problemn with CO2? Besides how much that 5% of population produces, you know the things that make you stay here and have time to rant?
And I'll direct you to the title of this post, which is about Bhutto's assassination. Tariq Ali is certainly entitled to his opinions about the Bhuttos; they are not particularly illuminating or relevant here.
Since you came in here to be instructive and benefit the discussion, why don't you just state your point?
Jim (#43)
The people of Pakistan are our enemy.
I don't think so. I don't think the people of Pakistan deserve such consideration. What happens there is that there is a big mess, arguably the most complicated Gordian knot for mankind ever, which has been building up bigger year after year since the very first moment when Jinnah proposed the State of Pakistan, and a weakened Britain accepted it.
IMHO the people ruling Pakistan - an Indian downtown (I thought he was Pakistani) referred to them yesterday as "mafias" - need tension to keep their position, they had the wars with India, and then, when it went nuclear, came the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which reinforced their position before the Western World; they allowed the Islamic extremist to grow, also as a release valve to internal unrest and then they practiced in that territory the holy war, when the hot cold war there mutated into a vacuum... it's a problem that has been growing a long time.
Any approach to it has to be very unpassionate and pragmatic, avoiding radical positions or swallowing of the usual baits.
Pakistan has been in constant state of repressed civil war since its inception.
This is an interesting lecture on global strategy.
I like this guy and it has something to do with Pakistan.
[TOC, bare links are a bad thing here. Fixed link format. --NM]
“The Dark Ages savagery of Pakistanis (it must be admitted a truly loathesome people in their practices, be it cousin marriage, forced marriage, "honor rapes" and female genital mutiliation) would not concern us if they did not have nukes and did not form the horrific nexus of world-wide terror”
-Jim Rockford
Fascinating. So Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is on par with ours then? The last time I looked into the subject, the US had well in excess of 10,000 warheads. Furthermore, the current Bush administration (the most aggressive in our history) has embarked on a campaign that threatens the viability of our species by support of such schemes as the US/Indo Nuclear Agreement which radically violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Furthermore, the US which has by far the worlds most advanced nuclear arsenal, has never lived up to the most important article of the NPT (Article 6) which calls on the nuclear powers to press forward in good faith efforts to permanently eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. In dramatic contrast to this requirement, the Bush administration’s unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty has triggered both Russia and China to respond by upgrading their nuclear weapons capacities as a deterrent. In short, a renewal of the arms race…but the world should fear Pakistan?
Your “nexus of world-wide terror” comment regarding Pakistan is rather curious when one considers its context. No nation on earth can match the aggression of the US since the Second World War. What nations does Pakistan occupy? Does Pakistan have over 700 military bases garrisoning the entire globe? Let’s compare and contrast Pakistan’s record of aggression over the same period (post WWII) with that of the US. Here is a PARTIAL list of countries our nation has attacked since the end of World War II:
Korea 1950-53
Lebanon 1958
Vietnam 1961-73
Laos 1964-73
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Cambodia 1969-70
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-2007
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994
Haiti 1994-2004
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-2007
Let’s now take a very brief look at the nation’s we attacked indirectly by sponsoring major acts of terror to bring about the overthrow of their governments:
Angola
Zaire [formerly Belgian Congo]
Greece
Italy
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Bolivia
Argentina
Honduras
Cuba
I rest my case with you Jim. Now go take a sedative.
“And I'll direct you to the title of this post, which is about Bhutto's assassination. Tariq Ali is certainly entitled to his opinions about the Bhuttos; they are not particularly illuminating or relevant here”
-Glen Wishard
Ali’s comments are perfectly relevant since Bhutto would still be alive and running from her fraud indictments if not for Bush’s encouragement that she return to Pakistan as America’s proxy. As Ali’s piece makes clear, she had little credibility with the vast majority of Pakistanis and the complete enmity of Musharraf. Thus I concluded (and certainly not only me) that she was on a fool’s errand—which took her life. I place the primary responsibility for Bhutto’s death at Bush’s feet, where it belongs.
[Fixed link format. --NM]
From coldtype, friend of monbiot (moonbat)
And, what you do not say, consumes 25% of the world's energy to produce 30% of the world's GDP. From 5% of the population. Yup, us EVIL Americans had better get in line
and behave. Quit that polluting the air, raising most of the world's food, those kind of things.
Makes me want to revive the old meme of the US taking a busman's holiday for a year. No foreign aid. No military aid. No tech transfer. Nothing. Cut the rest of the world off then come back and see how many of you accuse us of murder we didn't do.
Oh, and where are your facts, dude?
[He, he, he, har-de-har! Funny man. Bet he rode the short bus to school and I apologize to those who did for comparing coldnose to the kidz on the short bus.]
Good point, Rohobobo. The US energy consumption per dollar of wealth generated is one of the lowest in the world. We all benefit for such productive economy.
Coldtype,
No nation on earth can match the aggression of the US since the Second World War.
Define "aggresion". Is it "aggression" to openly invade a country and hang the tyrant? I understand then that many powerful guys in this world consider it a especially regretable kind of "aggression" and the US an "aggresive" country (and what staging they set up to avoid it happening!). However, I am not one of them, and I applaud, as a private citizen of the world, what this administration has done.
No nation on earth can match the aggression of the US since the Second World War.
Who fueled the genocide in Rwanda? Was it the US? No, no, no... France. How many million deaths, Coldtype? Where has the US provoked a genocide? "Aggression"? "Agression" to whose interests?
Yes, Robohobo. Of course it wasn't America that invented the concept of planned obsolescence. Oh no. It wasn't American companies that started making new car models every year in an attempt to make people junk perfectly good vehicles. Oh no.
There is a reason why even Americans tend to buy Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen and Audi when they have the chance. And that is because American cars are deliberately designed to start falling to bits as soon as the guarantee runs out. Germans build cars to last, even the cheaper brands. So do Swedes.
So how much of that GDP is composed of replacements for goods that shouldn't need replacing?
And how much of that GDP in the last five years has been composed of disposable equipment, weapons and ammunition produced for the sole purpose of blowing holes in Iraq?
30% of world GDP for 25% of the energy sounds like not quite such a good deal now, no?
I hate to break the news to you Mr. Christian, but every product or system even built by anybody, anywhere, has a designed life expectancy engineered into it. Your propaganda aside, even your vaunted European automobiles are designed and tested to a specified operational lifetime.
Along with this, the maintenance costs for those same quality European models that you tout, range from 150% to 200% of the equivalent work on American vehicles.
You are correct that many Americans like to drive European cars, but quality seems to be low on the list of reasons why. The number one reason is that they COST more, representing a STATUS symbol beyond the economic reach of the average American.
OK, maybe KOS really isn't so over the top. Here's what that mediocre fool Kagan has to say
“Oh, and where are your facts, dude?”
-Robohobo
Here you go Dumbo, make sure you read it carefully, but find someone to help you with the big words:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report
“And what is the problemn with CO2? Besides how much that 5% of population produces, you know the things that make you stay here and have time to rant?”
-Lucklucky
“[Monbiot’s sub-title] Followed by drivel of the worst sort masked as some type of journalism”
-Robohobo
_“And, what you do not say, consumes 25% of the world's energy to produce 30% of the world's GDP. From 5% of the population. Yup, us EVIL Americans had better get in line
and behave”_
-Robohobo
“Makes me want to revive the old meme of the US taking a busman's holiday for a year. No foreign aid. No military aid. No tech transfer. Nothing. Cut the rest of the world off then come back and see how many of you accuse us of murder we didn't do”
-Robohobo
“Define "aggresion". Is it "aggression" to openly invade a country and hang the tyrant?”
-J Aguilar
“Who fueled the genocide in Rwanda? Was it the US? No, no, no... France”
-J Aguilar
“Where has the US provoked a genocide?”
-J Aguilar
I promise to address these gems in my next post. Stay tuned.
Let’s try that again
You know what Robo, just paste this link to your browser are read the IPCC report there:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm/
Joe
We know at this date 12/31 Bhutto's party is going to participate. They should be congratulated because the act is something for the whole nation not themselves. They are trying to operate without fear and as though Pakistan is pre-emergency.
They have nothing to gain electorally because Musharraf has the entire pre-emergency judical government under arrest. He has replaced it with judges whom are explicitly loyal to him and are unlikely to be replaced even if he is removed from power because the military has to CYA. Their clear goal then is to create a situtation such that the military gives up or is forced to give up much of their power and the civilian government regains supremacy.
Does it really matter who killed Benazir Bhutto, anymore than it matters who killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand or Roger Rabbit for that matter?
The IPCC is bad science framed for political ends.
Fool? Ooooh, I am overwhelmed by your rapier wit. Gives me the vapors it does.
Fletcher C - All engineered systems have a defined life length. I buy Pontiacs and Fords because I believe they provide the best bang per year per buck. I just traded a Ford I had for 13 years. Burned no oil, got the same gas mileage as the day I bought it. For a gas guzzling Pontiac GP GxP. Va-vrooom! Spewing carbon all the way!
I am the greenies worst nightmare!
Bwah-ha-ha!
There were lots more Archdukes where that one came from, but Benazir Bhutto was unique as the only elected female leader in the entire Muslim world. What doesn't matter now is what kind of person she was or what her politics were.
What does matter is that "overwhelming majority" of peaceful Muslims in the West have once again got their tongues tied in a knot, which gives you a pretty clear indication of who they think did it. The silence at the Friday mosques was widely noted. Outside of her supporters in Pakistan, it was not exactly a Martin Luther King event.
Hey, any conversation about the motivations and/or consequences of the Bhutto assassination that veers into minutiae of global warming policy has abandoned the real world for the one where Unicorns United Against Evil Empiricism will make it all right for free-thinking individuals. (UUAEE).
Get a grip, folks.
#59 Robohobo:
Yes, you are the green movement's worst nightmare. You are also the worst nightmare of anyone trying to control Islamofascist expansionism. Why? Ask yourself - where does the money to pay for all the weapons and explosives for the terrorists come from?
Of course all engineered or manufactured systems have a designed life. However, it is a matter of fact that many European cars have a longer designed life than most American ones - using such things as galvanised steel bodywork, wax-filled sills and so on.
I don't know where I saw this, but apparently Goodyear designs tyres for the American market with a different compound (which incidentally doesn't last as long) from those made for the European market. Nothing to do with different operating conditions, either - the special compound is designed to squeal like crazy when going around the gentlest of corners. They have obviously found that the American market loves that - a brilliant example of typical American infantilism.
Maybe so Mr. Christian. I'm no privy to they actual design lives that the various automobile manufacturers might use. It is interesting that you really don't have an objection to the "designed obsolescence" as practiced by European manufacturers.
Everything, even the specific ones that you mentioned, cost more money for materials and testing to achieve a longer designed life. It's not clear to me that Europeans enjoy a distinct advantage in design life based on my personal experience. Even if they do, isn't it better that the market offers choices for this criterion?
I don't know anything about this secret Goodyear material for squealing tires. In your imagination do you see all Americans driving around with squealing tires? The only thing infantile in evidence is your over generalization based analysis.
I apologize to the proprietors for the successive thread hijackings.
Fletch-
Oh, that Pontiac has a "Displacement on Demand" engine. Throttles back to 4 cyl when cruising. Bet you didn't know that one did you? BTW, that was snark I was using. coldtype needed some. He takes it all way too seriously and believes the IPCC is good science. [sheesh]
So, on the energy front, what is the limiting factor to the cost of gasoline in the US?
Why not build nuclear power stations to supply electricity?
A lot of those questions are answered wrong by most folks. Give it a try and see how you score.
EUropeon engineering gives a lower bang for the buck in the US, why? Know that one? Bet your answer will include tariffs. But whose? The answer is NOT that simple.
#60 from Glen Wishard at 6:24 am on Jan 01, 2008
It would appear that we agree.
The digression into energy policy is (sort of) relevant. At an extreme, if nobody was buying Arab oil at all then they would still be Dark Ages barbarians - and no-one would care. Al Qaeda was founded, and is largely financed, by an Arab - who happens to be a part of the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
It won't help the immediate problem - with the current chaos in Pakistan I would not be all that surprised if the new year sees a South Asian nuclear war - but one way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism is as follows:
Crash programme - now - into any and all sorts of "alternative energy" not involving fossil fuels. Including, but not limited to, cellulose ethanol, thermal depolymerisation, biodiesel, ocean thermal, wave power, safe (pebble-bed?) nuclear, Polywell fusion (magnetic-confinement fusion is a blind alley), and the grandaddy SPS.
Once one or more (and it probably will be more) of these has borne fruit and there has been time to get it working, confiscate any and all Arab-held assets in the West, destroy all pipelines leading out of the area, lay a minefield in the Persian Gulf - and let them see whether oil is edible.
In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to slow down the cataract of money flowing into Arab coffers from the West - the largest part of which is coming from the USA. And one way to contribute to this would be a quickly growing tax on gasoline and other oil products. Gas guzzlers aren't very popular in Europe - and one reason for that is that the stuff is about $7 per gallon, most of it tax. Make something expensive, and people use less of it. If you own a car bigger than you need, then it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Still, guys, carry on driving the SUVs. Don't think about the fact that the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are blowing up American (and British) soldiers, using explosives bought with money that you gave them. Is it so much fun driving your 15mpg car now?
Oil has little to do with Pakistan, which has modest production far below its own consumption. It's an importer of both oil and natural gas.
So much for Kossack foreign policy theory on Pakistan.
All,
A few facts about Bhutto, the princess of democracy:
1. Under her Premiership of Pakistan, Taliban had grown and encouraged whole heartedly by the Pakistani military and establishment.
2. Under her Premiership of Pakistan terrorist attacks in Kashmir were at an all time high.
3. She was saying exactly what the US wanted to hear so as to become the only choice of US support, since Musharraf's stock was declining daily.
4. She was personally an accomplice in sharing Pakistani nuclear technology with North Korea on a state visit to that country, in exchange for its missiles.
5. She along with her husband had stolen money from Pakistan almost to the tune of 1.5 BILLION USD. In fact, her husband was known as "10% man" on all governmenmt contracts.
My only amazement is why she took the threats to her life so casually. It was as if she was so confident that she knew enough people inside Pakistani military establishment to not worry about it too much (although she did have powerful enemies too), or she was a part of a conspiracy by an insider too, or just plain crazy. Its not a good thing to be saying bad about a person departed, but the media\blog frenzy is just going crazy labelling her as the only hope of democracy in Pakistan.
although, no one can take away her claim to be the first leading woman of a muslim nation.
#69 from Sachin Kumar at 4:29 pm on Jan 03, 2008
I repeat:
Does it really matter who killed Benazir Bhutto, anymore than it matters who killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand or Roger Rabbit for that matter?
#70
Yes, It matters about Bhutto because if the killers are in the Pakistanis establishment, then Musharraf has to be pushed more to clean up his department. If it is a conspiracy by someone from within PPP (Bhutto's party), then US has to see who to not support further. If it was really the al-Qaida, then it matters because they will get more enboldened now and try bolder things.
All the above mentioned things impact the regional stability. Please let me know how it does not matter to know who her killers are.