Ex-Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in attack

This is NOT good.  Pakistan is about to erupt.

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto died shortly after being seriously wounded in an attack after a rally in the city of Rawalpindi, news agencies reported on Wednesday.

1. Looks like the sweep hand is moving closer to midnight on the nuclear clock. And we can’t have a bigger bunch of incompetents running our foreign policy.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 0842 hrs




2. You, of course, ignore the fact that it would have already struck midnight with your boys running things, Keith.  Last I checked, Pakistan went nuclear under Clinton’s watch.

   Posted by steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 0850 hrs




3. Bhutto wasn’t much more of a saint than Musharaff. Though her being murdered is probably a bad thing, perhaps it will help make room for someone better to step up.</wishful thinking>

   Posted by Matt on December 27, 2007 at 0859 hrs




4. Looks like the sweep hand is moving closer to midnight on the nuclear clock.

   Maybe I’m just a dumb hick from Oklahoma .. but what does that even mean?

   Posted by Brian on December 27, 2007 at 1236 hrs




5. Us yankees are always happy to help. That’s just our way.

   Pakistan owns nuclear weapons. The possible instability that may result from the act could lead to those weapons falling into the wrong hands.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1307 hrs




6. Brian

   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1345 hrs




7. Who was in charge of providing security to Bhutto?  How is it that Musharraf has survived for years with the extremist threat, but that Bhutto couldn’t survive there for 6 monthes?

   This is a grim situation.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1403 hrs




8. Right, Doomsday Clock.  I knew that.  It was just that I found the metaphor to be strained.

   I’m not so worried about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands - they still have to get them here.  I’d be more worried about it if I were living in New Delhi - the right hands could launch their weapons at India and that would ruin their day.

   Posted by Brian on December 27, 2007 at 1446 hrs




9. And we can’t have a bigger bunch of incompetents running our foreign policy

   Proving once again there is absolutely nothing the Left cant and wont try to pin on Bush. As has already been mentioned Pakistan went nuclear under St Bill the Pantsless.  Musharrafs ties to the US have been one of the few postives in Pakistan evidenced by his cooperation in tracking and apprehending AQ in his country. Pakistan could have been much much worse. It is Bush Administration effrots that have kept it from going full blown radical.

   Bhutto represented to the Islamic extremists, better ties to the US (she was educated at Harvard) an unflinchingly moderate Islamic stance, and what the Taliban, AQ et al abhor most, a woman in power.

   It seems some are in the idiotic position of trying to blame the danger to those sympathetic to the West on Bush.  Because of course radical Islam never existed before 2000.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1511 hrs




10. Proving once again there is absolutely nothing the Left cant and wont try to pin on Bush.

    The CO is responsible for everything that happens while he’s in charge.  If , say, the rudder breaks five minutes after he assumes command and the actual cause is because the outgoing CO failed to have his crew properly PM the running gear .. tough.  It still goes on the current COs book.

    Of course this is only metaphor and assuming ownership of a problem is not something than many civilians know about but .. there it is.

    Posted by Brian on December 27, 2007 at 1546 hrs




11. Musharrafs ties to the US have been one of the few postives in Pakistan evidenced by his cooperation in tracking and apprehending AQ in his country.

    Have you heard of the lawless area called Waziristan?  Have you heard about the deal that Musharaf cut with the tribes in that area that essentially gives control of that area to them?  Did you know that it is very likely Al Qaeda (including Bin Laden) is hiding out there? 

    Musharraf is not some great ally.  A great ally would go into Waziristan and root out Al Qaeda.  A competent American leader would vow to do that job if our ally was unwilling.  He is only our ally because it is his only way to stay in power.  The Sunni’s in Iraq are in the same situation he is.  Either be killed by extremists, be our ally or we will force you out.  It is their choice.  He is the best thing we have in Pakistan, but I wouldn’t trust him further than I could throw him.  It is time for Musharraf to give up power, with Bhutto gone it is unclear who that power will go to.

    The spending bill Bush just signed greatly reduces the amount of aid going to Pakistan if they don’t implement democratic reforms.  If it is clear someone worse than Musharraf is going to win the election should we still push for the vote?  If we cut our aid and Musharraf meets the same fate as Bhutto we could arrive at the nightmare scenario with the extremists in control.  We are in a tough spot right now.

    Blaming this situation on Clinton is as silly as blaming it on Bush.  Even if Clinton was inclined to, the republican controlled congress would have never authorized any action against Pakistan.  If the republicans were so diligent to stop Pakistan from going nuclear they could have started the process during the Bush 41 administration.  They had been developing a nuclear weapon since the early 80’s.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1623 hrs




12. Musharraf is not some great ally.  A great ally would go into Waziristan and root out Al Qaeda.

    Without speaking to what kind of ally the fellow is ... there is this; Pakistan might simply be unable to enter Warzistan with their army.

    The area is remote with difficult terrain and people who are well-armed and do not think highly of the government of Pakistan .. or of anyone else.  This attitude predates the events of 2002.  If the Pakistani army went into the area they’d be an occupying army and would take many many casualties.

    It might simply be beyond their capability.

    Posted by Brian on December 27, 2007 at 1700 hrs




13. The CO is responsible for everything that happens while he’s in charge.

    With this kind of ignorance, the R’s are going to have a field day if a D takes over in 2009.  Everything they have been complaining about for the past 8 years will suddenly become their fault.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1703 hrs




14. I hate it but I’ve got to go with Brian on this one.  Musharraf has done all he could to align himself with the US without putting his own head on the block.  There are large chunks of that continent that have been lawless and will remain lawless.

    Having said that, Bush didn’t just take over the watch here.  he has been (nominally) in charge for nearly 7 years.  You’d think he’d have firgured some of this out by now so he wasn’t stepping on his pud everytime he takes a step.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1706 hrs




15. If that is the case Brian we should pack up and head out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Waziristan is feeding this global conflict.  If we are unwilling to go where the leaders are we have no business being anywhere on the battlefield.

    I don’t see how people can talk of defeating Al Qaeda if their headquarters are somehow off limits.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1709 hrs




16. Sad day for us all when a terrorist/extremist assassinates a political leader for his/her beliefs and influence. It will be interesting to see how things continue/develop in Pakistan.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1757 hrs




17. A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden.

    A little reality check from NRO

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTExNmE0MzY3YjB lYWEwZDkzOThkMWJiM2JmZGQ2NDE

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 1836 hrs




18. A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden.

    Polls are sometimes valid, sometimes they are not.  Another poll I read yesterday gave Hillary a 19 pt lead over Obama in Iowa.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2007 at 2114 hrs




19. So, pjr, you are normally one of the anti- Bush, anti-war on terror, Bush’s fault crowd right?  Are you also among the liberal majority that believes the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderates that do not wish death for all unbelievers?  If the 46% approval rate were true in a country that is US supported and technically US friendly, what does this say about the Muslim masses world wide?

    Why aren’t there prominent Imams condemning Bin Laden and terrorism?  Why isn’t there any coalition of Muslims against terror?  Is it because Democratic ideals like one person one vote or separation of Church and State are virtually unheard of in Muslim dominated societes?  Are these types of questions never asked because it would be politically incorrect or insensitive? 

    Skip all the rest, what do you think this says about the opinions and thoughts the Muslim masses have towards unbelievers in general and the West in particular world wide, in your opinion(or Scott’s or 3rd way’s or any devout Muslim).

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 0909 hrs




20. Tuergas - Al Qaeda has wide spread support because they are seen as resisting forces that are perceived to be counter to Islam.  Throughout the muslim world people have lived in oppresive poverty and watched as non-muslims have prospered.  I think they feel spited, betrayed, embarassed by this.  If their belief system is the purest and only path to god how could they be left behind while infidels continue to oppress them?  I don’t believe this, but I think this is what goes on in the jihadist supporters psyche.

    I believe the only way to counteract that is to convince them that we are a stronger force for prosperity than the Imam’s.  That is a tough sell when all the press coverage our efforts recieve is of death and destruction.  I am not talking about the American media.  Foreign language media is driving world opinion not CNN.  If all the money we spent in Iraq went to aide for Pakistan and Afghanistan and for rooting out Al Qaeda in these areas the foreign press might paint us in a different light.

    I believe that the disputed 46% could be swayed to support whatever side is more convincingly putting forth an effort to improve their life.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1016 hrs




21. 3rd Way,

    Your last post is pretty reasonable, but I dispute your contention again that taking the resource from Iraq and allocating them to Afghanistan & Pakistan would be worthwhile.

    Michael Yon became concerned about Afghanistan a long time ago and stated he thought we stood a much better chance of success in Iraq than Afghanistan even in the darker Iraq days. Not necessarily due to resource issues but due to the fundamental differences between Iraq & Afghanistan.

    I do not see it reasonable to think pouring more resources into Afghanistan and Pakistan would have headed off Benazir’s assassination. Pakistani politics has long since been strongman politics with changes most often being done by coup or assassination. While Benazir’s tone was very different from the status quo in Pakistan I doubt a third PMship would have changed much. Many (go over to the Belmont Club) note that the consequences of Zia’s rulership of Pakistan are in full bloom.

    Perhaps the situation in Iraq will allow us (AQ reportedly has turned its focus from Iraq to Pakistan) to shift resources , we may have to, but what exactly do you have in mind? Remember we have to consider India in all of this.

    As for your contentions about the foreign press why do you believe they would treat us differently if we spent more resources in Pakistan? Obviously they treat us better with respect to Afghanistan (not much) but my guess is if we were seen as pushing harder for intervention in the lawless regions of Pakistan I would guess we would get the same treatment, after all it wasn’t Waziristan that attacked us.

    What disturbs me the most is the quick reaction to pin blame upon one or two individuals. This puts people into a CYA mode. Also disturbing is the sainting of Benazir. Benazir may have had good intentions but she and her family are strongly implicated in various corruption scandals. In any event, the Pakistani government is well infiltrated by Islamic sympathizers. As we know if the people actually running the ship do not want the ship to turn the ship does not turn.

    Right now, we have to sit back and watch. My guess is Musharaff will retain his tentative hold onto power but his freedom of action is going to be even more.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 28, 2007 at 1135 hrs




22. So, pjr, you are normally one of the anti- Bush, anti-war on terror, Bush’s fault crowd right?

    You are correct Tuerqas, what a novelty, I always believe in giving credit where credit is due.

    To keep the list short, please list the things the Bush warriors have done right rather than wrong.

    Please begin with an explanation of the underlying brilliance of turning the tragedy of WTC and the bringing of those responsible for it to justice into the current dilemma.

    3rd got it right here,

    If all the money we spent in Iraq went to aide for Pakistan and Afghanistan and for rooting out Al Qaeda in these areas the foreign press might paint us in a different light.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1159 hrs




23. Marcus - We have been in a bad position since 9/11.  The assasination of Bhutto is just the most recent set back.  Things are continuing to get worse.  For the last 6 years I have been arguing that we are making the wrong moves by trying to frame this as a global conflict that can be won by overthrowing regimes and turning the mideast into a battlefield. 

    The only millitary action I supported was going into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and cripple Al Qaeda.  That would have sent the message that we are the most capable nation on earth and the most principled in forwarding human rights and democracy.  I still think that is a noble goal, but it has not been achieved and now people are saying it can’t be done.  That is upsetting.  I think we should do our best to finish what we started in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  From what I have read it appears that the only way to secure Afghanistan is to defeat Al Qaeda in Waziristan.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1230 hrs




24. Thank you 3rd way for your honest opinion and though I agree with Marcus on his take, it was well and honestly said and has merit.

    pjr…you believe the anti-west prevalent thought among Muslims is due to the Iraq war and the Bush administration(s) and if we had just given money to Pakistan and Afghanistan there would not be that prevalent thought among Muslims world wide?  Cuz it didn’t seem like it worked all that well when we were throwing money at the Shah of Iran or any of the other times we have tried aid, including to the Taliban in Afghanistan and to the warlords later opposing the Taliban.  How pathetically simplistic of you… according to you the hatred of fanatic Islam is only 7 years old?  Huh…
    Monetary aid has rarely increased a foreign country’s populace opinion of the giver.  Much more often it has increased the grip of a dictator and hence lowered the opinion of the populace. 
    I have never been a Bush supporter so I wouldn’t care to list any ‘Bush warrior’ deeds, I was merely asking for opinion.  I do think that the fanatic or anti-west group of the Islam faith is a lot larger than most liberals give credit for.  I don’t think aid to them will help our cause, but I don’t think we should be scrambling our fighter jets over them either.  I thought we should enter Iraq at the time, but I totally blame the Bush administration for not having an exit strategy.  In hindsight, I would rather have never gone in to Iraq, than have the current circumstance.  If I am correct so seldom in your mind that it is a novelty then I suggest you skip my comments so I don’t offend your sensibilities in the future.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1243 hrs




25. If all the money we spent in Iraq went to aide for Pakistan and Afghanistan

    What about the trillions of dollars in oil we have purchased from them for the last 100 years or so?  It’s not our fault if the money stayed concentrated among various dictators and ruling elites under systems of commerce and government that do not facilitate the growth of a middle class.

    Aid is for countries and peoples who truly have nothing and are suffering.  The middle east countries do not fall into that category.  They have plenty of money already.

    Posted by David on December 28, 2007 at 1257 hrs




26. Do a little research David.  Pakistan and Afghanistan are among the poorest countries in the world.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1309 hrs




27. 3rd Way
    If that is the case Brian we should pack up and head out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Waziristan is feeding this global conflict.  If we are unwilling to go where the leaders are we have no business being anywhere on the battlefield.

    I don’t see how people can talk of defeating Al Qaeda if their headquarters are somehow off limits.

    You talked about Pakistan’s army - which is what I was talking about.  I never said the area was off limits, just that the Pakistan Army tried for a few years to pacify the region then negotiated an agreement.  This may be all that organization can do.

    Me, I think that we should pursue AQ there.  I suspect that there are efforts ongoing to do that - but they’ll be special forces operations and we won’t know about their methods and means for a few years.

    Posted by Brian on December 28, 2007 at 1326 hrs




28. Obama floated the idea of going into Pakistan to get AQ.  From the reaction he recieved by the GOP it sounds like everyone in that party thinks that is off the table.  I hope the recent developments make everyone realize that Obama is not naive, and that the course our current administration has set us on has become part of the problem and not the solution.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1455 hrs




29. I don’t know if our initial reaction of going to Afghanistan or Iraq was the worst thing we could have done, but I agree that the answer is not to go in to any and all Countries that have terrorist ties with guns ablazin’ now.  The current situation has made that answer a bad one in the near future.  Hopefully not too many terrorist groups agree with me though.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1537 hrs




30. 3rd Way,

    Our bad position goes way prior to 9/11.

    The battlefield is in the Middle East because that is where the root of ideology we are fighting lays. Surely, the key to eliminating Nazism as a significant player in the world was in Germany and not in Japan, no?

    Afghanistan is a project that will go a long time beyond the situation in Waziristan. What does Afghanistan have to support itself with? A landlocked nation with few resources of any sort and the only one with global demand is one the world simultaneously loathes – poppy products.

    The situation in Pakistan is more internal politics than anything else, but internal politics that can rapidly ripple to change the focus of the GLOBAL war on terror rather markedly. Any serious meltdown in Pakistan is likely to have a major affect on India. I read somewhere the India military is ready to move against Pakistan and of course this would not be an easy affair and would likely rile up India’s significant Islamic minority.

    Another item I have read is AQ has moved its focus from Iraq to Pakistan. This is a pretty good idea on their part and should be fairly obvious with their ability to reset themselves up in Waziristan, furthermore Pakistan unlike Afghanistan and other nations has nuclear weapons. Remember too, Musharaff has so far survived a number of assassination attempts on his life.

    Many agree Musharaff is not a good answer. Many such folks will argue the totalitarian nature of his regime is what radicalizes Pakistan’s population, and in fact, partisans of both sides make that argument. Marc Reuel Gerrecht & Daniel Pipes a number of years ago had a good discussion on this topic and eventually Marc conceded the debate to Daniel by saying true liberal democracy (as opposed to pro-forma democracy or illiberal democracy i.e. three wolves voting to eat two sheep) will only come to the Islamic world after the arrival of Islam’s Martin Luther. Until that person arrives and reforms Islam in a liberal direction I do not have hope for truly democratic & liberal Islamic states. Bin Laden is attempting to reform Islam, but it is hardly in a direction many Muslims want to go let alone the rest of the world.

    Also to follow up on your more recent comments. About Obama’s surprisingly unilateral comment. Have you seen a map of the area where we are talking about? It is surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. Coincidentally enough, we supply Afghanistan through Pakistan. So if we attack Pakistan, how do we then supply Afghanistan? It is possible Afghanistan may become the least of our worries, but surely that time is not now. We invade Waziristan w/o Islamabad’s cooperation we lose all cooperation from Islamabad. What upset me most about the comment was it was thoughtless and seemed to follow an all too typical pattern of wanting to beat up on our allies (I make no claim Islamabad is an ideal ally) while at the same time trying to make nice with our enemies.

    I am quite sure the Pentagon’s plans on dealing with Waziristan are not dusty but they are not going to be imminently executed either. I do not see cooperation coming out of Islamabad either, unless something truly nasty arises out of Waziristan.

    On Pakistan being poor. They may not all live in 14,000 ft² mansions with 50” HDTVs in every room and a fleet of cars, but most Pakistanis I see appear to be adequately fed, they are not grindingly poor. Afghanistan is another story their only export is a crop which is both greatly desired and despised.

    David, I do not believe Pakistan exports significant amounts of oil nor does Afghanistan.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 28, 2007 at 1603 hrs