Was Benazir Bhutto killed because of
American negligence? Was
Pervez Musharraf to blame for failing to provide sufficient security? Should the
U.S. send more troops to
Pakistan?
These questions are being asked around the world, particularly by U.S. presidential candidates. The answer to all is no.
Bhutto sadly was killed because she decided to campaign entirely in the open, in large crowds, popping out of the sunroof of her SUV, in one of the world's best-armed militant-filled countries. Given her chosen style of politicking for the Jan. 8 election, jammers and policemen standing or driving beside her car, as one report suggested she had requested, wouldn’t have stopped the simple pistol and body explosive the killer apparently used.
The U.S. and Musharraf are responsible, but for something entirely different.
For Washington, it goes back to the George H.W. Bush administration and the decision effectively to halt the U.S. relationship with both Afghanistan and Pakistan following the 1989 Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. At the time, both countries were crawling with both lethal weapons and a multi-national force of militant Islamic fighters who were now out of work, and looking for some. Fast forward to the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and the various militant Islamic bombings and shootings between and after, including the Bhutto assassination, and you have a snapshot of the result. Neither Bill Clinton nor Bush’s son, George W., fully took cognizance of that enormous blunder.
That leads us to Musharraf, who at this point is the only one, along with his Army, who can seriously address the crisis in Pakistan. He has the men, the materiel, the cash and the intelligence services to suppress the militancy. If he didn’t before, he knows now that there's no other choice.
Was Benazir Bhutto killed because of American negligence? Was Pervez Musharraf to blame for failing to provide sufficient security? Should the 
8 Comments:
Well said, Steve. I find it ridiculous that various scholars and pundits I hear are blaming Bush for this. I'm no fan of the president, but Bhutto's assassination...
In a sense, Musharraf can come out the big winner in all this, even if this isn't at all what he wanted (and why would he have wanted it!). If the turmoil dies down w/o too much ado, and he doesn't end up resorting to the imposition of marshall law, then he can survive to unify the country--to the extent Pakistan ever can be. Before too long, he is going to have to show some sharp fangs and eat these crazies alive, though I don't think this is so easy to do.
For the near term, we will keep hearing how he is deeply unpopular, and that Pakistan is in turmoil. Maybe so, but this too will change.
ugh, i haven't heard anyone seriously saying that bush is directly "responsible" for bhutto's assassination... but then, i also don't really trust any analysis that depends on the concept of martial law (and as a good outcome!) but fails to correctly spell it, or to analyze anything beyond promising "this [pakistan's turmoil] too will change". would love to hear why...
more seriously, steve, don't you think you've written off musharraf's potential involvement rather hastily. he is, after all, the person with the most to gain. and rawalpindi _is_ a garrison town, i.e. the place where he should have the most control. i agree that pakistan is a dangerous, unstable place, but you don't think musharraf is cold-blooded enough to take out one of his more potent opponents? a lot of pakistanis seem to believe he might have been. why don't you?
[as an aside, i think your string of questions at the beginning is a cheap trick -- the first author doesn't say bhutto was killed _solely_ due to american negligence, but the us needs to face up to the fact that we have helped put pakistan in the position it is now in (a point which you make later in the very same post); the second article, likewise, suggests that musharraf resign, but it is reporting the position of nawaz sharif -- i.e. it is a news piece, not analysis, and it is the position of musharraf's chief rival, not some observer (i.e. obviously an interested party). the whole notion of increasing us troops in pakistan wasn't even reported in a serious newspaper -- you had to go to a blog linking to a murdoch-owned australian newspaper. you can do better than set up these straw men.] also, umm, how should a politician standing in a democratic election campaign that doesn't involve large crowds? i generally agree that no amount of security can prevent a determined individual assailant (who needs to get lucky, but sometimes does), but it is is hardly bhutto's "style of politicking" that is at fault here. that makes it sound like she took unnecessary risks; i don't believe she did.
Tacitus, dear, so it's "martial" and not "marshall." Thanks, got it.
First, NPR' s coverage yesterday provided the blame-Bush types. Naturally, not for her murder directly, but more or less for the "fact" that Bush & Co. created the conditions and climate under which this sort of thing happened. What these fools end up implying is that Pakistanis themselves cannot be law-abiding and responsible because of the U.S. policy initiatives and positions.
Second, why in Pindi? Garrison town and all... Have you been alive and following events in Pakistan for the last six years? There have been umpteen number of attacks on even the forces of state security in that city. If memory serves, Musharraf himself almost was assassinated there.
You are right that there's no easy explanation as to why turmoil over Bhutto should or will end, especially in a country that perennially exists in turmoil. Nevertheless, the current turmoil brought about by her supporters probably won't be sustained because they are mainly law-abiding and liberal folk. These are not long-term turmoil types.
As for politicking, responsible and irresponsible, it's dumbfounding to see hers as anything but reckless considering the fact that she was almost killed a few weeks ago. Steve's bang on about this. Incidentally, many of Bhutto's own recent statements belie your own argument that this wasn't irresponsible opposition behavior. You may want to check out the things she said.
Hi Russell and Tacitus.
My favorite self-serving political line is not Bush administration complicity, but the Obama campaign's accusations of Hillary's complicity.
I do think that Musharraf is attempting to emerge whole by trying furiously to broker a political reconciliation. Nawaz Sharif could do everyone a service by rising above his petty grievances and becoming a uniter, but don't count on it. He himself is a 1980s creation of Zia and the ISI; it is truly rich to hear him decrying dictatorship. Presuming that he keeps up the 'Musharraf is to blame' rhetoric, and the language of revenge against him, Musharraf will try to find someone within the PPP to embrace. It would be a positive sign if Zardari made an appeal for reconciliation. If none of the above occurs, expect elections to be postponed until at least March, which is what Mushahid Hussain (who has pretty solid political antenna) suggests would be reasonable.
As for Musharraf's possible blame: Musharraf did not have the most to gain from Bhutto's assassination (the militants and Nawaz Sharif did). In fact, as Anthony Zinni has said, apart from Bhutto herself he had the most to lose. Despite their differences, she is precisely the kind of flexible politician with whom he might eventually find common ground. She was fully prepared to live with Musharraf, while of course criticizing him at will, which is the privilege of those on the campaign stump. Looking at the outcome of the assassination, I see absolutely no advantage for Musharraf that's come of it.
As for the questions and links. Questions are not a cheap trick. They are a narrative device. The questions themselves seem to me to be reasonable and the obvious ones -- the Time magazine article quotes Hussain Haqqani as saying that the Bush administration bears some responsibility for the slaying; a lot of people in Pakistan and elsewhere, and not just Nawaz, are blaming Musharraf on various grounds (you yourself suggest that he is "cold blooded enough" to have done so); and Anthony Cordesman, the security expert at CSIS, was on NPR today fielding questions on the possibility of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan to secure its nuclear facilities in the case of chaos there (mea culpa on the link; not the best selection).
Finally, on Bhutto's campaign style: one is always on soft ground when placing some blame on a victim. After all, the real responsibility lies with the actual killers. But I do think that Bhutto imagined she was returning to the Pakistan in which she campaigned during the late 1980s and 1990s. I know first hand that that's her strong suit -- hands-on connection with crowds, learned at the foot of her populist father. So she thrust herself back into the crowd this time, somehow not fully appreciating that Pakistan has completely changed in her absence. Another well-known charismatic figure -- Pope John Paul II -- accepted a similar unfortunate shift and began to "campaign" in his "popemobile." Bhutto needed to accept a similar adjustment. Again, not blaming the victim. But noting the exceptional risk she took by treating it as campaign-as-usual.
Thanks for the great remarks and best,
Steve
Thanks for reminding me Russell, I did want to reply to the garrison description. This is a routine exaggeration that journalists and others make about Rawalpindi. As I'm sure you know yourself, having traveled there as I'm sure you have, 'Pindi is actually NOT a garrison town, but a huge, sprawling, busy city of 3 million people, part of which contains a defense cantonment, Army headquarters, Navy headquarters and so on. The majority of the city has no link to the military at all, and it's in that portion that the rally took place. It would be like calling the District of Columbia a garrison town because the Pentagon is situated there.
Thanks again, Steve
Zardari and Hussain are both okay, but what about IMRAN KHAN?
Sorry, this really is a time to be serious. But given our own history with elected sports figures and other celebutants, I actually wonder if he might be a good change.
Hi Josh, you know I actually like Imran. He's really charming. A lot of people alert me that he's dumb as a stump, but he seems all right one-on- one. Musharraf is pretty desperate. We may hear from him yet. Best Steve
See, I think Pakistan might benefit from a dumb guy with a good personality. Would that mean he would be more well-meaning and less openly manipulative and corrupt? Or would he just turn into yet another corrupt figurehead?
Or might it be good to have a totally new face at the top, regardless of his skills as a leader?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home