Musharraf Regime, R.I.P.
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a shock that was, unfortunately, not entirely shocking. Given the chaotic political situation in Pakistan and her multiple enemies -- from jihadists to elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services -- the danger that she would be killed on the campaign trail was ever present. And Pervez Mushharaf himself must be condemned for sins of omission, in the form of the inadequate security provided to Bhutto from the moment she re-entered Pakistan to the day of her death.
No one knows who killed Benazir Bhutto, although rumors and accusations are already flying. An independent investigation is urgently needed, ideally involving both the FBI and representatives of the UN, to ensure international legitimacy to any results the ensue. And efforts must begin now to ease the Musharraf regime from power, even if it takes a year or more to successfully do so. What cannot be permitted is for Musharraf to use this tragedy to tighten his grip on power under the guise of providing "stability."
Musharraf's stability is the stability of the graveyard. By consorting with Islamist parties to ensure his majority while taking key secular leaders like Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of the political process for years, Musharraf has created more fertile ground for the growth of Islamic extremism than would otherwise have been the case. The idea that he provides any meaningful hope of being a reliable steward of Pakistan from dictatorship to democracy is no longer credible, if it ever was.
Until Musharraf carries through on his pledge to hold legitimate elections, there should be a hold on some, if not all, of the U.S. military aid that has flowed so freely to Islamabad since the 9/11 attacks. The proposed January 8th elections cannot possibly be free or fair with Musharraf's main rival Benazir Bhutto dead and the country's other best known political figure, Nawaz Sharif, banned from running by Musharraf. Far better to set a process and a date that both the country's main political parties and the international community find workable -- not in the distant future but in a decent interval involving months, not years. Talks about how to go about this should be delayed until there has been time to mourn the passing of Ms. Bhutto, a courageous leader who died far too young.
Who cannot permit? It sounds like you are talking about what the US should do. Don't you guys ever give up. Just remember IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM. The time for us to jump in and correct every injustice should be over. Especially in a country as large and complex as Pakistan. Grenada with 0.1 million people was a cake walk, Iraq with 30 not so much, Iran with 70 we all agree is too large but Pakistan with 175 is totally out of the question.
Articles like this point out the very serious problem with the US with the too many underemployed foreign policy analysts who have nothing better to do than thinking of ways for the US to solve one problem or another that are really none of our business.
December 28, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I was kind of wondering about this sentence:
An independent investigation is urgently needed, ideally involving both the FBI and representatives of the UN, to ensure international legitimacy to any results the ensue.
First of all, why the FBI? But more to the point, why would any USA agency going into Pakistan and producing a "report" give it the stamp of truth and legitimacy? Has this guy heard about when we threw Hans Blix out of Iraq? The Warren Report? The 911 report? Last I heard the CIA witheld important facts. Should we trust the FBI? Should Pakistan? Why?
Jan
December 28, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quiet down, pipsqueaks! William "Cardinal Richelieu" Hartung is speaking.
December 28, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether it is 3,000 dead New Yorkers, Pakistan's nuclear weapons or the America's relatinships with India, and China it is our problem. It is precisely becuase Americans pay no attention to places like Pakistan, Afghanistan Iran and even Iraq is why we have the crisis we do.
The idea that America can just ignore the rest of the world is perhaps a nice thought but not very realistic. Even if it is just oil Pakistan is not too far from the Gulf of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil passes. Our life in America is dependent on a stable and peaceful global system. On America can lead the effort to keep the system going. One of Bush's great crimes is his neglect of the global system.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 29, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The argument isn't that we should ignore any portion of the world. The opposite of trying to dominate a section of the world isn't ignoring it. The real option is to work with the governments of countries all over the world using diplomacy to nudge them in the directions that are more favorable to us.
We manage to work with some of the world's cruelest dictators when there are business advantages to doing so, so we can't argue that we mustn't deal with such cruel non-democratic regimes.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 29, 2007 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know, i think the argument is pretty clear:
December 30, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
you seem to be ignoring all of the money the US spends propping up musharraf's regime. the US most certainly has responsibility here. it is indeed OUR problem - we helped to create it and we owe it to the people of pakistan to do something productive with our influence and cash. washing your hands of the whole mess is not the moral high ground.
December 30, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's global democracy crusade has hit another bump in the road. To carry on the fight against bin Laden's crowd and the Taliban, he recruited Musharref, an outright dictator. As his legitimacy ebbed, Bush looked for a way to shore him up. Bhutto was called upon to present a credible opposition for a stage-managed election that would legitimize Musharref's continued grip on power. Bhutto is dead, and the predictable result will be nationwide paralysis, as South Asian politics return to the streets, as ever. The economy will barely function, and eventually the people who care about money will want to break the strikes and stoppages that will immobilize the country. To do that, they will have to break some heads. The targets will not take kindly to the treatment and will fight back. Things can and likely will get a lot worse. Musharraf has reportedly survived nine assassination attempts already. Don't be surprised if the next one is an inside job and it succeeds. What then?
As for Hartung's comment, he's in a fantasy land. The assumption is that some kind of managed transition to "democracy" can occur prior to and without civil war. You can't get there from here.
December 28, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, times like this, I'm distressingly aware of how thin the US foreign policy elite is. Seriously thin. Vacuous. Empty.
Shall we take a look?
And how legitimate is the FBI? Some provincialism at work there?
So, maybe he's guilty, maybe he's not guilty, but we're going to convict him anyway. No matter what the outcome, Mushareff has to go.
If so, why bother with the investigation...
Yeah, and whose army is going to do that? What charming arrogance.
I'm afraid it was never credible. Wishful thinking of certain persons in the foreign policy establishment aside.
Yeah, like that's going to happen.
Actually, Nawaz Sharif isn't banned, he's announced a boycot of the election.
But this poses a problem. How is it that we must force Mushareff to hold free and fair elections and then pontificate that such elections are not possible.
December 28, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
ease the Musharraf regime from power,
I've got a great idea.
Let's give this new policy a name!
Regime Change, that's the ticket.
December 28, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Chris Dodd* discussed some of this yesterday on MSNBC, and today in an interview with Wolf Blitzer. I've searched without luck for a transcript of either show, but in a nutshell, he essentially said that calls to oust Musharrif and/or to cut off U.S. funds are unwise and risky as the stability of the country is so shaky now. I think he used the term, the devil we know, as opposed to the unknown quantity who might replace Musharrif. He also suggested postponing the elections for a while- until the PPP (People's Political Party - Bhutto's party) had time to regroup. It does seem an election so soon after the assassination could produce a questionable result, but I understand Musharrif has said they would go on as planned on Jan 8th. I thought Dodd's ideas sounded sensible, as did Biden's comments, but in general I hope all the candidates will simply shut up about the issue, as all the comments are not likely to help the matter much.
(* Disclaimer: I am still undecided re: the Presidential race)
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 28, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also worth noting is that while the Hartungs fantasize about Pakistan's transition to democracy, the world has stood by mute and helpless as an existing parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh went by the boards. Bush plans to eradicate tyranny from the face of the earth, supplanting dictatorships with democracies, starting in the "greater Middle East," presumably including Pakistan. Yet, a Muslim country in the S. Asian subcontinent with some years of experience with elected governments has slipped into authoritarian rule with not much sign of concern. The population of Bangladesh is some five to six times that of Iraq and the country even has some fossil fuel reserves. What are the priorities?
December 28, 2007 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
On further thought, I suppose Hartung doesn't really deserve the abuse heaped upon him. Certainly his little essay was well meaning, I'm happy to give him that.
When he asks for an investigation with international legitimacy, it's a sign of his respect for the FBI that he mentions it, and its merely thoughtlessness and not exceptionalism that forbids him from throwing in the Surete, the RCMP, Interpol etc.
When he says that Mushareff shouldn't be allowed, he's not actually calling for regime change, he's just saying that someone somewhere should do something somehow. It's no deeper than that.
I think we've all read something much darker in what was merely a hasty, sloppy, poorly thought out, unimaginative, uninformed opinion piece. Let's give Hartung a break. He dropped the ball. Everyone drops the ball once in a while. It's hardly a condemnation of the man.
December 28, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "And how legitimate is the FBI? Some provincialism at work there?"
I happened to catch Hillary's interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, and I noted with interest that Hillary did not make this mistake, My highlighting:
Overall, hearing the interview, I would characterize that her argument and manner was extremely aggressive against Bush policy. She didn't play the angle of being better than the other candidates very much, rather, she attacked the Bush administration's approach and appeared to take on more of the role of opposition Senator rather than presidential candidate, along the lines of: a change can't wait for the next administration.
December 29, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we want a democracy (excuse me, I meant a Democracy) in Pakistan. After all, whatever the majority of people there want is what we want. I suppose this is true because we are running short of governments in the Middle East that despise our country? How can we maintain our wartime economy without adequate enemies?
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 28, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I read someone saying we need to support whatever the people of Pakistan want? Have you lost your freaking mind? Who knows what sort of nutjob those people might elect? It could even be someone who thinks his job is to do what's best for the Pakitanis. Can you imagine the gall?
No, we simply cannot let the Pakistanis pick who runs their democracy. Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole democracy building effort if we let a bunch of ignorant foreigners pick the leaders.
Now Musharrif, there's a guy we can deal with. He would
do whatever we ask him to, bought and paid for just like a good dictator should be. Only problem is, he can't do anything because every other center of power in the country hates his guts. The reformers hate him for stealing power to begin with. The lawyers hate him or making a mockery of the constitution. The intellegence services hate him for stopping their dirty war against India. The Islamists hate him for dealing with the US. Even his own military hates him for making the rest of them look stupid.
So I guess it's time to explain The Bush Administation Middle East Policy. Karen Hughes would have, but those liberal, pointy-headed, State Dept. weenies kept cutting it out of her speeches.
December 28, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed--I saw Musharraf's soul, on the Daily Show last summer, and he looked like the kinda guy you'd like to have a beer with, y'know?
December 29, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
from another thread:
some PNAC princples--
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
some William Hartung demands--
* Pervez Mushharaf himself must be condemned for sins of omission
* An independent investigation is urgently needed
* efforts must begin now to ease the Musharraf regime from power
* What cannot be permitted is for Musharraf to use this tragedy to tighten his grip on power
If neocons are "thoroughly discredited" why does their philosophy keep popping up?
December 28, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
so if you disagree with these points:
we can assume you belive:
*musharraf must not be criticized for failing to provide adequate security for his political rivals
*the int'l community should allow musharraf to blame whomever he like for bhutto's assassination and ignore any indications (if there are any) that musharraf's government could have been complicit
*the US should continue to support and finance musharraf's illiberal regime/dictatorship, no questions asked
*the US should sit idly by if musharraf uses bhutto's assassination to scuttle elections or give himself more power
can't say i agree with any of those points.
December 30, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've listened to several of the candidates today, from both parties, and I have to say I am underwhelmed by the quality of the commentary on Pakistan so far. Perhaps I'm just prejudiced and my priorities are all screwed up. But when I hear the word "Pakistan", the first phrases that comes to my mind are "nuclear weapons" and "crazy, messed up country." What I am looking for is some sign that these candidates understand the very nasty issues Pakistan poses for global security, and grasp what is happening in Pakistan in a regional and global context.
I'm hearing a lot of "democracy process this" and "US taxpayers" that, and some idle "I talked to Benazir once or knew her back in the day" talk, along with some "Musharraf = bad dictator" breast beating, but not a lot of realistic assessment of the security situation, and nothing close to plausible-sounding proposals for improving it.
Let's recall that got into our current Middle East mess: a lot of obtuse ideological grandstanding, ham-handed meddling and half-cocked transformational enthusiasm. We've had American politicians galore blundering around for seven years in a region they evidently know little about; and what I'm hearing today is how we have to try blundering this way for a change, or that way.
Before you know it, we'll have Congress passing a "Pakistan Liberation Act", and we'll be off and running on another glorious transformational scheme to bring True Americanism to the heathens. I understand that every policy carries risks, but I want to hear some clear statements of priorities and how the suggested policies get from A to B and B to C.
Mainly what I want is some indication that these candidates understand the worst case scenario, and the second worst case scenario, the third worst case scenario, etc. and that before trying anything else they know how to prevent those scenarios from arising. Here's what I see where Pakistan is concerned:
1. A nuclear armed country riven by frequent violence, factional extremism, and a history of violent and turbulent transfers of power.
2. This thoroughly worrisome country borders a very large country to its southeast containing about a sixth of the world's population, and which is also nuclear armed and not entirely stable, and which is in a more or less permanent state of tension with Pakistan.
3. Pakistan also borders another nuclear armed country to its Northeast, containing about a quarter of the world's population, and whose entire economic security depends more each day on what happens in the Middle East.
4. Pakistan borders Afghanistan, where US forces are already engaged in military activities, and Pakistan contains regions that are thoroughly embroiled in the whole Al Qaeda/Taliban/Afghanistan Sunni jihadist mess.
5. Pakistan borders Iran, a country which has its own worries with the aforementioned Sunni jihadists, and with which the US unfortunately has fairly hostile relations. Meanwhile, an extremely large contingent of US forces and equipment is sitting nearby in Iraq, and US navy vessels are steaming around the area.
6. We have Sunni jihadists throughout the region who are now thoroughly emboldened by the fact that the US is helping to promote an absurd Shia-Sunni cold war, and has astoundingly thrown in its lot with the very Sunni countries from which these jihadists spring, and against the Shia peoples who are targets of the jihadists, and who even dominate the government of the country we are occupying and whose government we claim to support!
7. We have refugee populations now moving all over the region, creating additional strains on the social fabrics of the countries to which they are fleeing.
8. We've got Turks bombing Kurds in Iraq, and generally speaking a highly unsettled power vacuum in Iraq which is a huge worry for all of Iraq's neighbors.
9. We've got nuclear armed Israelis in their own unending battle with their many regional enemies, making belligerent noises about unilateral military action against Iran, and meddling with the internal politics of Lebanon to counter Iran's allies in that beleaguered and failing state. Oh yeah. They just fought a war with Lebanon last year, a war which didn't go so well and embarrassed the Israeli public and military.
10. We've got vital global oil supplies sitting underneath all of this chaos.
I'm sure I will be accused of fear-mongering, but doesn't all this strike anyone else as the veritable powder keg? The situation in Pakistan is truly scary, and casual chatter about new American experiments in intervention, and more democracy-promotion happy talk is not reassuring me. And now we've got William talking blithely here about "easing Musharraf from power", which sounds to my naive ears a bit like easing a pin out of a grenade.
So what I want to hear more about from these candidates are things like this: what they are going to do to get nuclear non-proliferation and de-proliferation back on track? Because unless something is done about the nuclear issue I fear it is only a matter of time for a lot of people in the region. I want to hear some evidence that they have received solid briefings on, and understand Pakistan's military situation, chain of command and nuclear security (or insecurity) situation. I want to hear what they are going to do to stabilize the situation in Iraq and cut us free from the Iraqi ball and chain. I want to hear how they plan to move toward normalized relations with Iran, and possibly then build on that relationship to isolate and check jihadist forces in the region. I want to hear how they are going to keep the Israelis in their corner, and prevent them from going all Six Day War on us.
I'm sorry to be so harsh, but Benazir Bhutto was just one corrupt politician, and half-assed US gambit on the old chessboard. I'm sorry she was blown up. But in case people haven't noticed, lots of people are getting blown up every day in the Middle East, and have been getting blown up for several years now. Of course most of them are not so well-connected in the US with a bunch of old Ivy League buddies and media friends, so their deaths pass unremarked.
The presidential candidates really need to grow up, stop pretending that Bhutto was some kind of savior of democracy, and discuss Pakistan in a larger framework. Anyway, I'm tired of the same old Wilsonian "democracy will fix everything" mentality. The Wilsonians are the ones who are chiefly responsible for the current sad state of US policy. And yet now they are working for all of the campaigns, hawking the same sophomoric and irresponsible pseudo-idealism.
Oh, and finally, while we're on the topic of foreign affairs, let's see what our good friends here at America Abroad have to say. Oh ... sorry ... I forgot. They just rent the space here but don't talk.
December 28, 2007 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me deal with your issues in order.
1) There isn't a goddammed thing the US can do about Pakistan except ship over truckloads of cash to whoever is willing to accept them from us.
2) There are no coherent plans to deal with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of the state. Sorry. You were expecting Chuck Norris would drive in and load them all on his jeep? Planning here consists largely of hoping for the best and praying whoever ends up will be someone who can be dealt with somehow.
3) The big danger is a pre-emptive move by India. Here's a clue. If the Indians go for it, there's no one and nothing that can stop them. So the plan is to hope for the best.
4) China uses Pakistan as a strategic counterweight to India, but apart from that has no vital interests in the country. They've got the prospect of big rewards in terms of energy access, and they'll pursue them. But if things turn to crap, they'll just go 'oh well' and pursue something else.
5) Iran doesn't have any frictions with Pakistan that aren't driven by the United States.
The reality is that we got no options in Pakistan, what's going on there is internal politics, and the players all have their own agendas. We're a card that they're playing, but we're not necessarily a big card.
What options we might have had have largely been blown by seven years of spectacularly aggressive and incompetent foreign policy. The remainder of the wounds you complain of are all self inflicted and do not admit to easy solutions. There's no 'reset' button.
The Sunni/Shiite Cold War is largely a joke and an American invention. It'll fade away when the pressure is off. The Turkish/Kurdish thing is a nightmare in progress, and having worked so hard to set it up, it has every chance of getting messy.
One of the risks of the Turkish Kurdish conflict is expanding the Kurdish strife to many of the countries in the region. Another risk is creating a Turkish/Iranian entente which would be bad for America.
Israel's current situation, like the United States, is largely self inflicted, and based on an utter inability to realistically assess its situation or to distinguish imaginary threats and enemies from real ones. Truthfully, much of Israel's foreign policy is 'theatre of violence', a self serving binge of paranoia and bloodbaths for domestic consumption, and devoted to ignoring local realities. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
In the long game, the Iranian and Saudi perceptions is that America has shot its wadd. There's too much mishandling, too many mistakes, too much lost credibility. America loses its role as the Guardian of the Region. A new Regional balance will be achieved, and America's just going to be another customer... like Europe, Japan, India and China.
December 28, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other than ideology what is the basis for your positions.
Iran and most Sunni countries have problems. Although Pakistan's bigger issue and conflict is which the Hindu India. Pakistan's policy and especially of its ISI has been focused on India not the Soviets, or Afghanistan or Al Qaeda. This has been something Americans have never quiet understood.
The notion that there is no anomosity and virtual war between Sunni and Shiite is fanciful. the Saudis keep their Shiite's as very much second class citizens. The Taliban and the Iranians were often at each other. It is one of the things that Bush did not take into account by knocking off the Taliban.
Israel situation is largely of their own doing but they are clearly in the driver seat. They have a booming economy that is leaving the Arab World in the dust. The "wall" has succeed in making internal terrorism almost a thing of the past. The Palestinians want things from the Israeli. I hope they get their state. However, their use of violence and lying to their people and the lies of their supporters in the West will get them nothing. However, Israel isn't disappearing and are becoming more and more part of the global trading system.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 29, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mistake me completely, Daniel. I'm ideology free. It liberates me. The basis of my positions are clear thinking, an appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of human nature, a lack of affiliation for patriotic delusions, a winsome smile and violet eyes to die for.
"Iran and most Sunni countries have problems"?
Is this your way of saying each country has its own problems? If so, then you're being obvious and narrow. All countries have
problems.
Or are you saying that most Sunni countries are having problems with Iran, and vice versa? If so, does this include Bangladesh, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Chad, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt etc.?
Or are you limiting your comment to Sunni Arab countries in the Persian Gulf which are firmly in the American orbit and have large Shiite minorities... In which case, I'd ask how much of this tension is due to American pressure? And in which case, I'd make observations that the Iranians and Saudi's seem to be having a lot of diplomatic intercourse.
But I'm kind of handicapped in making any sort of reply to you, since I'm forced to guess what, if any, idea animates your words.
You seem to jump from your broad remark to noting that Pakistan's pre-eminent strategic and military focus is India. Well yes. By virtue of same, Iran doesn't really enter strongly onto their radar, either for geopolitical or religious reasons.
The principal area of border between Iran and Pakistan is the Baluch territory, which is thinly populated, inhospitable, and of no particular economic or political significance. Currently, the United States is using the Baluchi population to mount a violent guerilla insurgency against the Iranian government, a sort of covert warfare. The Pakistani's go along with this because they're paid to. Left to themselves, they wouldn't do it because the risks of such meddling is stirring up their own Baluch nationalists, which is happening. One of America's little contributions to the destabilization of Pakistan.
Apart from that, Pakistan and Iran have no significant economic ties, no economic rivalries, and no material grounds for friction.
There's talk of a pipeline which could bring the two countries together and warm relations, perhaps assist in stabilizing the entire region and benefitting the Pakistan's economy. But the American's don't want that, so of course, they make sure it don't happen.
Basically, without American pressure, there'd be a lot less tension.
Now, I'm not arguing that Sunni and Shiites get along better than Protestants and Catholics, Hatfields and McCoys, Right Wing Drag Queens and sensible people, etc.
But let's be clear here. Despite frictions, no one is all that interested in upsetting the apple cart and having wars or violent overthrows of this or that government.
Oh my God! Well, let me just throw everything out and abjectly conceded. The Taliban didn't get along with Iran! Well, good gosh, there's a trump card. Kind of makes your case.
After all, who didn't get along with the Taliban? Weren't they just the most lovingiest guys.
I mean, if you can't live with the Taliban, who can you get along with?
After all, the Taliban were famous for their easygoing manner. There wasn't much that the Taliban hated... women, buddhist statues, shiites, Americans, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Haircuts, Kites, balloons, and another six billion things, peoples, objects and ideas.
Yeah, he should have just kind of overlooked that whole 9/11 thing and left the Taliban in place to keep the pressure on Iran? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
Hands off. That's my point. There's no real military threat to Israel anywhere. Their security issues are nonexistent, and foreign policy is now driven by 'murder for ratings.'
To be perfectly accurate, Israel has a subsidized economy propped up by foreign trade and supported with loans and guarantees, and occasional multi-billion dollar bail out packages. Hand Chad the same sort of money that Israel gets funnelled to it, and they'd be the powerhouse of Africa. But so what, what does that have to do with the price of oranges in Denmark. Or to put it bluntly: So what?
And at the handy collateral benefit of stealing even more Palestinian land, expropriating more Palestinian water and destroying whats left of the Palestinian economy. Don't you love it when a plan comes together. But I gotta say: So what?
Don't hold your breath.
Translation: Blah, blah, blah. I don't really have a point, rather, I just feel the need to get some racist speechifying in.
No offense, but could you go be an ass on someone else's thread? I'm not in the mood.
So?
Look, Daniel, let me apologize. I seem to have woken up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm grumpy, and normally I'm somewhat more tolerant of half baked, superficial, narrowminded bullshit like yours. I try to respect the reflexive inanity you bring to discussions, the singleminded irrelevance. I'm sure you get a coupon or something every time you work in an anti-palestinian slur, or manage to drop an out of place reference to Israel's booming economy. But I'm seriously, seriously not in the mood. So I'm saying this in the kindest possible way. If you continue to engage, I will make it a point to rip multiple new holes in as unpleasant a manner as possible.
Now, go off and have a terrific day, but have it somewhere else.
December 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
I notice that in calling for future action you avoided the third rail of TPM geopolitics -- Afghanistan (AKA The Good War). But that's how I get most of my zeroes so here goes.
One key necessity to stabilizing Pakistan is to settle next-door Afghanistan, and just as in Iraq, to use your words, stabilize the situation in Afghanistan and cut us free from the Afghanistan ball and chain. That means talking to the Taliban, and maybe it'll happen.
news report:
KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- The United States reportedly signaled support for secret talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan following the expulsion of two European diplomats. The Financial Times reported that U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan William Wood said Thursday if Afghan officials approve, there is a "place for this type of conversation."
The comment represents an apparent shift in policy since the United States has long said it would never negotiate with the Islamic militant group, the Times noted. Wood said the two U.N. diplomats who were expelled for contacting the Taliban had done so "with absolutely the best of intentions." Wood said reconciliation with the Taliban can only be achieved if members accept the authority of the Karzai government.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/27/us_shifting_policy_on_taliban_talks/4279/
I'm sure that "the authority of the Karzai government" can be obtained. Just pull this puppet string right -- here.
December 28, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, I'm not trying to make light of your post on the seriousness of the Pakistan situation, but one candidate did offer a solution that could in no way be confused with a Wilsonian mentality:
No signs of intelligent life on that planet. Yet, according to the Poll Tracker, this is the guy that is either in first or second place for the Republican nomination.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 29, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, every time poor Huckabee opens his mouth to speak about foreign affairs, something embarrassing comes out. And consider that with Bush it took several months in office before it became clear that he was brainless.
December 29, 2007 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dodd made the point that democracies have to be built from the bottom up, not the top down. Expecting Musharraf or Putin to give Democracy to Pakistan or Russia is an effort in futility. The populace, not military or clandestine service dictators, create democracies. When the populace allows the government to run roughshod over them, authoritarianism results. Eastern Europe and South Africa are recent examples.
Dodd also noted that democratic elections may result in Fundamentalist governments being elected. The Middle East is a quagmire. There is no easy alternative to Musharraf in nuclear-armed Pakistan. There is alao no easy answer to who in the Pakistani military will be in charge when Musarraf is assassinated. But then I'm a pessimist.
December 29, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the December 14, 2007 edition of Frontline
There are deep divisions within the Bhutto family. In 1996, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir's younger brother and her political opponent, was brutally gunned down just steps from his house in Karachi, while his sister was the prime minister.
The authorities claimed he died in a police shootout with his body guards, but the public -- depending on whom you talk to -- point fingers at Benazir and her husband Asif ali Zardari.
Benazir Bhutto has publicly denied any involvement in the death of her brother.
Fatima is Murtaza's eldest daughter. A graduate of Columbia University, the 25-year-old spends her days writing and campaigning against her aunt, who, she says, is "one of the most corrupt leaders the world has seen."
The questions and accusations grow as elections draw closer. Before I leave she tells me that she is worried about what Benazir's return means for the country. "Her legacy as a two-time prime minister is a legacy of gross corruption. She is estimated to have stolen $1.5 to $3 billion from the Pakistani treasury. It's one of state violence..."
"Benazir needs to be tried in court for the crimes that she has committed. We do not see eye to eye on anything and we do not subscribe to her distorted version of democracy
Frontline
Lose your homework? Blame aL-Qaeda
Did your favorite doggie run away? Blame aL-Qaeda
Someone steal your car? Blame aL-Qaeda
Who farted in the elevator? Blame aL-Qaeda
Wife divorcing you? Blame aL-Qaeda
Acne acting up? Blame aL-Qaeda
Credit Card maxed out? Blame aL-Qaeda
The official foreign and domestic policy manual of the Bush-Cheney Regime.
December 29, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hesitate to wade in here, since I am completely baffled by Pakistani politics, but I do know that the Pakistani elites, to which the Bhutto family definitely belongs, believed that Benazir Bhutto, with her appeal to ordinary Pakistanis, posed a threat to their self interest. Does this explain the controversy you note? Who knows - it might, it might not - as I said, I find it all baffling. As Dan notes above, it would be reassuring if our politicians' statements - as well as those made here - would better reflect some minimal understanding of the incredible complexities of the situation.
What I don't understand is why the Pakistani government came up with the story about the death being the result of Bhutto hitting her head on the sunroof. Without an investigation, surely they must have realized that this would only stir the pot further, even if true.
I understand that Bhutto left a message to be read to her followers in the case of her death, which will be revealed at the conclusion of the current three-day mourning period. Let's hope it calls for peace (...a suggestion of a successor, perhaps? ...a way out of the current crisis?) and doesn't contain statements that will only inflame the situation further.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 29, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The debate seems to have fractured as it progressed. The initial remarks seem to me the most reasonable -- support Pakistan and the electoral process, reject the Lord Jim attitude of the column writer, and recognize that in the end Pakistanis will decide how to lower the temperature, and who will dominate the new Parliament. After having lived there and watched it for almost two decades, I find that one of the most irritating suggestions out there is that Pakistan has a thin bench. On the contrary, its professional, judicial, banking and business sectors are replete with world-class players. The system works against them filtering into politics -- the former prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, was an exception -- and that's where Musharraf could truly do some good.
It also would be great if Nawaz Sharif would calm the rhetoric.
Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com
December 29, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine an organization that would be less trusted in Pakistan than the FBI. That's nuts.
The UN would be the only institution that could investigate the assassination with any credibility at all in Pakistan. In the end though, it doesn't really matter who killed Benazir Bhutto when, to paraphrase the Rolling Stones... "after all, it was you and me."
Only Pakistanis can resolve the problems in Pakistan. All those of us who are not Pakistani can do is attempt to support those working for Democracy.
December 29, 2007 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb.
"I can't imagine an organization that would be less trusted in Pakistan than the FBI. "
The "UN" Hariri (Syria did it!) Tribunal model would be worse as it would have a thin patina of undeserved legitimacy and supposed independence.
December 30, 2007 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Realistically, this is going to require expert testimony. In particular, as with the Warren Commission, the autopsy and interpretation need to be done by qualified forensic pathologists, who may need help from ballistics, explosive, and automobile trauma specialists.
The UN clearly doesn't keep these in house. The FBI or Secret Service, for that matter, tend not to have the pathologists on their staff. One of the key questions will be is whether the Pakistanis can identify such people that will have credibility within their system and culture.
They might want to look at the Warren Commission section on the autopsy, wound ballistics, and other technical sections, as a guide "How Not to Examine a violently assassinated VIP".
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 30, 2007 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
A report in a Pakistani newspaper, Jang, says that the PPP is demanding a United Nations probe into the assassination. Britain has offered assisstance, although there's no mention that I've seen that the Pakistanis have accepted such assistance.
Also in the Pakistani press it's being reported that Benazir Bhutto's son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has been named (in her will) as her successor. He's only 19, and studying at Oxford, but a PPP council may be put in place to run the country while he finishes his studies.
And the really good (and amazing) news is that the PPP has decided to take part in the upcoming elections. The other opposition party has said it will follow the PPP's decision.
Benazir Bhutto is said to have patterned her own political life on the example of Indira Ghandi. After the assassination of Indira, her son Rajiv won a huge electoral victory in his bid to replace her as Indian Prime Minister. It appears that the instability in Pakistan is receding.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 30, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"ideally involving both the FBI"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Oh you're not joking.
And once the 'FBI' had 'found out' that whoever did it was that particular group of people who the US had decided was their 'enemy of the week' do you really think that anyone else would believe you ?
After all it was a 'slam dunk' that iraq had WMD etc etc.
Maybe if the US just tortures (oh sorry 'interrogates') some of its victims in gitmo they could 'remember' something about Pakistani assassination attempts.
December 30, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink