2007 murder of Benazir Bhutto (new title)

[Mike in Hilo]

Peters frequently does make liberal use of hyperbole, but in this instance, having served in Pak 1989-94, I find myself in total agreement with the article. He could have added tidbits about her government's heavy leaning on Saddam's side in the Gulf War (until the last few days!), husband's involvement in the heroin trade, and the interesting trivium that it was not Gen Zia, but her own father (socialist, secularist!) who introduced Islamic law to Pakistan. Sad comentary on the state of party politics in Pakistan that, nevertheless, Pakistani poor of diverse ethnicities proved as manipulable by her as were her American admirers.

Cheers,
and a Happy New Year to all y'all,
Mike.

[Rex Brynen]

and the interesting trivium that it was not Gen Zia, but her own father (socialist, secularist!) who introduced Islamic law to Pakistan. .

Not really. Islamic law already had some status in Pakistan, but most of the most severe implementations of it--notably the Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance (1979)--certainly did take place under Zia ul-Haq.

[Mike in Hilo]

Yes re Hudood. Nevertheless, the last night you could drink a legal beer in the Pindi Club was during Zulf Bhutto's reign...
Cheers,
Mike.

[redbullets]

Yes re Hudood. Nevertheless, the last night you could drink a legal beer in the Pindi Club was during Zulf Bhutto's reign...
Cheers,
Mike.

But makes it rather fun to drink the "special tea" in the Chinese restaurants.

Cheers,

[tequila]

It pays to remember who sponsored Lashkar e-Toiba, Jaish al-Muhammad, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal which even prior to the Lal Masjid incident was "Talibanizing" the NWFP as well as Balochistan, and of course our good friends the Taliban. It certainly was not any of the civilian rulers of Pakistan, whether Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto. It was the Pakistani military who funded, sponsored, recruited, trained, and armed the militant groups which now wage war upon it and their own country.

[Uboat509]

I have been out surfing political side of the blogesphere and I was amazed to see some of the stuff that has been written about this woman. Over at HuffPo she has all but been canonized. She apparently was a brave martyr who gave her life for freedom, I'm not really sure whose freedom; Bush and Cheney somehow figure prominently in her death though it is unclear how or even why. I had no idea. Has anyone called Rome yet?

SFC W

[bourbon]

I have been out surfing political side of the blogesphere and I was amazed to see some of the stuff that has been written about this woman. Over at HuffPo she has all but been canonized. She apparently was a brave martyr who gave her life for freedom, I'm not really sure whose freedom; Bush and Cheney somehow figure prominently in her death though it is unclear how or even why. I had no idea. Has anyone called Rome yet?

SFC W

Regardless of what the libs at Huffington Post are saying, I would not view responses to Bhutto's assassination in solely partisan terms here. Liberal interventionists on the left and neoconservatives on the right are hard to distinguish between on this matter. The policies of actively interfering in the workings of other nations for the purpose of imposing democracy - policies promoted by both camps – have a direct connection to the assassination of Ms. Bhutto.

U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan, By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler. The Washington Post, December 28, 2007.

The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"Musharraf still detested her, and he came around reluctantly as he began to recognize this fall that his position was untenable," Riedel said. The Pakistani leader had two choices: Bhutto or former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf had overthrown in a 1999 military coup. "Musharraf took what he thought was the lesser of two evils," Riedel said.

The return of Bhutto may have been more window dressing then substantive, but this window dressing would be necessary to remain congruent with our policies of spreading freedom and democracy.

The Realist persuasion, though less frequently heard from, offers an viable alternative to these policies. Here are two realist perspectives on the Bhutto matter worthreading:

Enough with Democracy!, By Robert Baer. Time, Dec. 27, 2007.

The common denominator between Pakistan, Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq is an ongoing war, wars without end, wars that poison democracy. The Bush Administration is particularly culpable in creating the chaos in Pakistan because it forced a premature reconciliation between President Musharraf and Bhutto; it forced Musharraf to lift martial law; it showered money on Musharraf to fight a war that was never popular in Pakistan. The Administration could not understand that it can't have both in Pakistan — a democracy and a war on terrorism.

The immediate reaction in the United Sates will be visceral: al-Qaeda killed Bhutto because she was too secular and too close to the United States, an agent of American imperialism. It will be of some comfort that the front lines of terrorism are thousands of miles away; that we are fighting "them" there rather than in lower Manhattan; that there are heroes like Bhutto ready to fight and die for democracy, moderation and rationality.

But this misses the point. The real problem in Pakistan undermining democracy is that it is a deeply divided, artificial country, created by the British for their expediency rather than for the Pakistanis. Independent Pakistan has always been dominated by a strong military. And democracy will only be nurtured when the wars on its border come to an end, whether in Afghanistan or Kashmir, and the need for the military to meddle in politics is removed. And never before.

Bush's best-laid plans: The Bhutto assassination demonstrates anew the folly of the administration's efforts to manage history, By Andrew J. Bacevich. The Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2007.

At the beginning of his second term, Bush spoke confidently of the United States sponsoring a global democratic revolution "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Ever since that hopeful moment, developments across the greater Middle East -- above all, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and on the West Bank -- have exposed the very real limits of U.S. wisdom and power.

Now the virtual impotence of the U.S. in the face of the crisis enveloping Pakistan -- along with its complicity in creating that crisis -- ought to discredit once and for all any notions of America fixing the world's ills.

Bush dreamed of managing history. It turns out that he cannot even manage Pakistan. Thus does the Author of Liberty mock the pretensions of those who presume to understand his intentions and to interpret his will.

[selil]

.... Over at HuffPo she has all but been canonized. She apparently was a brave martyr who gave her life for freedom, I'm not really sure whose freedom....

I was on huffington post last week and I was afraid they were going to take away my conservative curmudgeons card.