Musharraf looks blunt enough to have allowed this to happen, or even asked for it. The bulldozing of the Supreme Court was not exactly subtle. Expecting to simply override election practice and get another presidential term is equally flagrant disrespect for propriety.

If Musharraf knew that one of the internal Islamist groups was gunning for Bhutto, he would perhaps have hoped to let it happen and then round up the perpetrators, winning two for one. He hasn't given us any reason to trust his sense of proper lawful procedure.

Certainly, like Giuliani and Bush here, he should not be able to gain any support for continued service in office after such a disastrous failure. But like here, he may get a rallying effect among some supporters.

"Charlie Wilson's War", which I read, left me with the lesson that we can't walk away from stuff we start when the effect is to stir things up. It was not the arming of mujihadeen that led to blowback, but the ignoring of that area after Russia left. That was on GHWB's watch, and we missed a great opportunity.

One thing is clear from the tragic events in Pakistan today.

No. Nothing at all is clear from the events in Pakistan. No conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

Bhutto very narrowly escaped a massive strike when she reentered the country after many years. And now she has been struck down.

So, putting aside for a moment all the speculation over what her death means and the variety of opinions about her politics, it should be acknowledged by all that this woman was courageous and openly defied those who opposed her with grace and great calmness of purpose.

I am hardly a defender of the administration, but I think it is a gross over-simplification to assert that the Bhutto assassination speaks to Bush's failed policies toward the region or is simply the failure of security services funded by U.S. aid.

First of all, we don't know who did this but it is likely to be from a tiny minority group, rather than an ascending Islamic militancy. Second, this is less about Bush's policies and more about the Pakistani people and their ability to get a decent democracy working in the face of a political crisis. Finally, let's give Pakistan some credit for having a complex society that is not so dependent on what we say and do from Washington. This is not the movies, where everything is made crystal clear by Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.

Bhutto's assassination was a failure of the security services, who are lavishly paid by the U.S. government.

Perhaps not.

KARACHI, October 24: Former Pakistan President Benazir Butto had named four well-known persons, including Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Parvez Elahi and former ISI chief Hamid Gul, as those who pose a threat to her life in a letter to President Pervez Musharraf, a media report said on Wednesday.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/231913.html

And a failure of Bush policies? As Jorge suggests, let's stop exaggerating the US influence on other countries. Just because the US sends them lots of money it doesn't always control them much. It's too bad the US can't work with China--it has a lot of influence in Pakistan.

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

One thing is clear from the tragic events in Pakistan today.

Can anyone guess what comes next in this sentence at TPMCafe? What always comes next in this sentence? If a planet in the Zantar quadrant exploded, 100 million light years away, what would still be the next sentence at TPMCafe?

The Bush White House's policies in that part of the world are a miserable--and dangerous failure.

There comes a point where such dreary ideological lockstep is genuinely distasteful when it's trotted out so cynically while standing in the blood of the recently murdered. Considering the way Muslims in Pakistan have been slaughtering each other on a regular basis since partition, the implicit idea here-- that if only some smarter fellow like John Kerry had been elected, all in Pakistan would be gumdrops and moonbeams-- is asininity of an extraordinary sort.

For what it is worth, here's my take on what we know.

Benazair Bhutto was assassinated by firearm, either long range sniper or short range pistol assassin. Immediately after the assassination a suicide bomber blew up her car and some twenty people.

What does this tell us? First, it seems to rule out the 'crazed lone gunman.' There were at least two persons involved, and likely substantially more. It's not like they sell explosive vests at the Pakistani Wal-Mart. The operation shows planning and coordination, and at least a modicum of paramilitary or military sophistication.

The combination of shooter and suicide bomber is unique. We've got several instances in Iraq of multiple suicide bombers converging on a target, but I don't think I've ever seen this pattern.

Among other things, it seems contradictory. Suicide bombers are about as low tech as you can get. No basic skill apart from suicidal fervour and the ability to pull a string is required. From what we know, most don't build their own vests, don't acquire or load their own cars, don't even get delivered to the site.

On the other side of the coin, while generally pulling a trigger isn't much harder than pulling a string, a good shooter is something of a professional and requires skills, training and discipline. Tribesmen often have those sorts of skills, but they're not really oriented for long distance sniping or close in wet work. This implies some form of paramilitary training.

It strikes me as odd to see the two used in conjunction, it reminds me of those wacky mismatched cop movies that were popular in the eighties.

The logic and methodology of such an effort eludes me. Was the suicide bomber a back up effort, in case the gunman failed? If so, why did he go through once the hit takes place? Excitement, bad judgement, capture?

Or was the suicide bomber supposed to go first? Unlikely, since if Bhutto had survived then the resulting security surge would have made her inaccessible to a shooter.

It's possible that the bomber was intended to cover the tracks. Once the shooting takes place, he walks in, destroys the scene. Had it been done right, there might not have been any awareness of a shooter at all. But this poses a question as to why cover the tracks, unless its to confuse the issue of who is behind the assassination?

If the object was confusion or misdirection, then this may speak to parties or agendas. Presumably Islamic Radicals, Al Quaeda and suchlike would not want any confusion and would be out to claim credit.

Mushareff, elements of the Pakistani military, internal security, internal political rivals, China or India, foreign intelligence agencies might be inclined to attempt to cover their actions, which brings us to a web of conspiracy, black flag, and plausible deniability.

Some of these can be discounted. Bhutto's political rivals likely don't have the salt to pull it off. Pakistani politics has no paramilitary tradition, the real military wouldn't stand for it. They could of course try to hire out, but it seems unlikely.

At the same time, it's not clear to me why a foreign government or intelligence agency would be inclined to do this. Perhaps if Bhutto promised a radical change of direction that severely upset the apple cart for someone or other, but I just don't see it.

Radical Islamists presumably would want Bhutto dead, and at least some groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban are sufficiently militarized, skilled and dedicated to pull it off.

The obvious beneficiary of Bhutto's death might by Mushareff. Dictators have a long history of murderous overreach. Remember Aquino's murder on the Manila airstrip? We can't rule him out.

On the other hand, would he really need to do this? By all accounts, Mushareff pretty much had Pakistani politics sussed out. He'd broken the supreme court, had the run of the country and was all set to be President, with a castrated Bhutto as his Prime Minister. Arguably, Mushareff already owned Bhutto, he didn't have to kill her.

Equally, Bhutto was central to Condoleeza Rice's 'democratization strategy'. It was cosmetic and meaningless in the larger sense, but the idea was to try and put a 'nicer looking' government in place amenable to American interests. there's even some notion that a pliable Bhutto might help to control the army, or at least direct Pakistan's foreign policy in a more reliable way.

Bhutto's death in the long term is an embarrassment to both Mushareff and the US, particularly since it appears that Mushareff is taking much of the blame for it, no matter what. Mushareff may not survive this.

So what does this leave? Dissident or rogue elements of Pakistan's internal security forces or military?

The political fallout promises to be nasty. The Bhutto party has no 'heir apparent', and no real leadership. That's the trouble with having personality based leadership, and with having that leadership regularly exiled.

The other major political party now proposes to boycott the election, which produces a situation where the entirety of Pakistan's new political process dissolves.
If that political process fails utterly, then what happens?

As we've seen with both the Red Mosque incident and the recent attack on Pakistan's legal community, the country seems to be fissioning all over the place. The military retains power through an ever shifting combination of accommodation, aggression, picking and avoiding fights selectively. The Military cannot be said to actually rule Pakistan, so much as front it. It sits at the top of the heap, a status not to be confused with dominion.

It's the chaotic nature of the Pakistan situation that prevents us from predicting the results of Bhutto's death. The situation is so screwy almost anything can happen, its fundamentally volatile.

The most certain thing we can say is that a hoped for movement to stability is foiled before it really had a chance. Whether that movement would have amounted to anything will never be known now.

But whether the Bhutto death will unleash the whirlwind, certainly a possibility... or whether the ripples of the Bhutto death will fade away... that remains to be seen.

On the American side, I don't see Bush as being much more than a hapless idiot in this matter. But then the Bush administration have been hapless idiots with respect to Pakistan since day one. Bottom line they need Pakistan badly for the war on terror, the access to Afghanistan, the pressure on Iran. They need it badly enough to overlook A.Q.Khan and Pakistan's nuclear proliferation. They're hapless in dealing with the ongoing cold war with India, the geopolitics of China, access to central asia. It's just a mess.

Bush policy seems to be based on hope and wishful thinking. A desire that Pakistan does what we want and not makes too many waves, and a willingness to make allowances and overlook. Beyond that, there's a vague wish for stability and loyalty, with some cosmetics desired.

To the extent that Bush has plans with regard to Pakistan, there's not much. Back the strongman and give him whatever he asks for is about it. The effort to put a kinder gentler face on it all has just blown up badly. They got nothing else.

Ladies and gentlemen, make some popcorn, pull up a lawn chair. Nothing to do but watch the show...

An ex-Pak intelligence officer is fingering, not Musharraf or al-Qaida, but domestic elements of the 'rogue' variety. 

More here: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004990.php

Christian Science Monitor has this nice roundup/summary of all the varying reports in the major media, with links.