Bhutto Assassinated
This is huge.
I’ve been writing since 1999 that Gen. Musharraf’s regime wasn’t the prescription for, but rather the cause of, instability in Pakistan and South Asia. Here’s where the rubber hits the road.
Now the only salvation for a post-Musharraf Pakistan–and Pakistan MUST get rid of Musharraf–is Nawaz Sharif. It’s far from certain that he enjoys the political credibility and broad-based support to rule the country. But if he fails, my long-predicted nightmare scenario could be at hand. Fracture, disintegration, warlordism, full-on Talibanization leading to Islamists waging (possibly nuclear) war against India.
This is America’s mess: we made Musharraf and we supplied him. Calls for military involvement there would not necessarily be legally or morally illegitimate.
Again: this is huge.
22 Comments.
Maybe now we can focus on fighting terrorists and terrorism. This administration has shown no inclination or talent for finding or punishing the people who attacked us and who still threaten us. Instead they made power grabs, tons of money, and millions of enemies.
Right after 9/11, an Indian co-worker/friend of mine said, "I don't know why you are allying with Pakistan. You should start in Afghanistan and keep going until you meet the Indian Army in Islamabad. That will get the people who are doing this."
I don't think she was completely right, but she was on the right track.
Musharraf took the same approach to "terrorism" that Bush took – consolidate power, lock up protestors, spy on the opposition, suspend liberties, and in a move Bush must surely envy, lock up lawyers.
I think it is too late to expect this president to change in any meaningful way, but we have to get very serious about who the next president will be, and how the next president will run foreign policy. Continuing to support vicious but U.S.-friendly dictators is a policy whose time has passed. Shock and Awe must be discarded. Bombing them until they love us must stop.
Instead we need to support democracy, give economic aid, build schools, build water projects – all the hard work which builds good will and creates friends. This would have been easier before we toppled two Muslim governments and threatened a handful more, but we need to start down a smarter path, and soon.
Here's where the military consequences of Iraq become clear. (The moral and legal and economic consequences became clear a long time ago.) If Musharraf has any brains, he's loading gold bullion into duffel bags and scrambling into a military chopper on the roof of the presidential palace as you read this. He's an idiot if he sticks around another week.
After Musharraf's departure, the collapse of Pakistan and its takeover by radical Islamists who account for a majority of the population can only be stymied by a full-on military invasion. This would probably occur at the hands of the country most threatened by this eventuality: India.
This might not be a totally bad thing. Reunification could correct the horrors of partition and eliminate, among other problems, the Kashmir conflict.
But it would probably be most effective with U.S. military assistance, which we are in no position to provide because we're bogged down in the Iraq (and Afghan) quagmire.
Ted,
Are you suggesting that India attempt to conquer Pakistan? That a government at various times led by Hindu extremists will bring democracy to Pakistan, or that a "reunification" will lead to anything but an Indian empire or nuclear war? I am incredulous.
It seems more likely that the United States government, which has been complicit in all of this, will do nothing.
What would be far more important would be support of left-wing, secular parties like the Labour Party of Pakistan – but why would the Bush administration do that?
Ah yess… the famed and powerful secularist movement in Pakistan…. About as realitic an option as an atheist presidential candidate here.
Ted,
You lost all credibility with me and possibly with a lot of your
readers by calling for India to invade Pakistan. What kind of lunacy is this? Did you foget that
Pakistan has Nuclear weapons? Do you know what kind of ramifications will
happen to the Chinese and our factories there. Your proved your self either to be bonafide idiot or a dangerous war-monger.
India annexing Pakistan? An impossible thought, at least at this moment. Not because the "Hindu extremists" cannot bring democracy to Muslim region, but the simple truth that the democracy cannot be brought by invasion.
The worst I can imagine is Osama bin Laden taking over the helm at Pakistan and bring the situations under control in Pakistan.
If anybody else take the lead, a war (nuke or not) with India might be good to mobilize unity in Pakistan. Or why not Bush take the lead and install his another buddy in Pakistan to wage a war on Iran?
having visited pakistan over the summer, i got the feeling people are tired of mush, the military and the same old politicians. the people want change, they want fresh leaders with fresh ideas and hope. by the way ted, the vast majority of pakistanis are moderates and not radicals. don't believe everything you see on tv. ie.. the taliban are taking over pakistan!!! run!!!
not by a long shot!
just another day in pakistan i guess
Everybody here makes good points. But I'm having trouble with the nowadays-ineluctable assertion that the US needs to adjust its holster and stride in guns blazing and fix things.
This is about Pakistan and its people now. It has nothing to do with US internal politics: Zero – zip! – to do with the current president-hopefuls, much as some of them may try to grab the event of this murder as a club to swing around.
Peace.
Ted wrote: "After Musharraf's departure, the collapse of Pakistan and its takeover by radical Islamists who account for a majority of the population can only be stymied by a full-on military invasion."
Whoah–just a second there! Usually you are spot-on Ted in analysis of this area of the world, but this assessment of the Pakistani population as (as a whole) supportive of the Islamists totally contradicts everything I have heard up to now from interviews with Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis alike. I have heard the vote of Islamic parties has barely hit 15% at most in the past. Is this not correct? Also, that that support is concentrated primarily in the NW Frontier Province and Waziristan, not in the far more economically and politically powerful cities such as Karachi and Lahore.
Of course, anti-American sentiment and sympathy for the Kashmiri cause are widespread, but is that really the same thing?
Also, even a 15% minority can take over a country for a while or cause serious instability if it is really determined. But that is quite another matter, and calls for more subtle countermeasures than a "majority radical Islamist population". I doubt such a beast really exists in any country in the world, and would find it hard to believe it exists in such a large and socially diverse one as Pakistan, at least without further evidence.
Help …the world is a scary place, I am afraid for the future.
no kidding…I'm scared
I suppose more "Exporting DemoKKKracy"…
Now the Pakistanis and most Indians and some Americans who'd followed the events or like me know someone from India who'd met her a few times know;
How "Hippie Generation" people felt when Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Look it up on YouTube.
American military intervention might be justified in Pakistan, but how are we going to do it?
Our forces are already stressed to the breaking point thanks to the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. We can't keep up the pace of stop-loss and extended tours-of-duty.
The American people would never stand for a draft, and for good reason.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't foresee us using military involvement.
I am in India right now, and after yesterday's tragic event the Central Govt(like Fed, but has more power than states) already had several high-level discussions including the cabinet, and the top brass from the Army and Intelligence. It is not about an offensive, but to shore up the defences near the Line of Control(LOC) and Pakistan occupied Kashmir(PoK).
PoK is especially important because India has always accused Pakistan of using that area to harbor and send terrorists into India. With the absence of a formal power structure in Pakistan, I am sure the intelligence agency(ISI) will start orchestrating the moves, given the shady nature of this organization, overnight, Pakistan will be the free world's nightmare.
This is a very crucial moment for the west, and of course India.
P.S: Greenguy and Anonymous, The current government is being led by a coalition of secular left including the communist parties of India. You are about three years late talking about Hindu government. 🙂
Counter-evidence for Ted's assertion:
Dec. 23 WashPost article
Quote:
The anger is showing up in polls: Just 4 percent of Pakistanis said in a recent survey that they intended to support the religious parties in the Jan. 8 elections.
Are we going to see a retraction from Ted? A counter-argument to the mounting evidence that he is wrong? An admission that this was just an exercise to see if his readers are asleep? Or is he going to continue hiding out from us?
My ancestry is Indian and I oppose an Indian invasion of Pakistan. The last thing India needs now is its own private Iraq.
More good reasons to vote republicant in the up comming election. No other party should get credit for the position bush has us in.
For the record, I don't think the US should invade Pakistan. I'm more musing aloud that, if we wanted to, we couldn't. And: there's more of a case for that than invading Afghanistan or Iraq.
As for heatkernel's somewhat troll-y question, well, these things are obviously hard to gauge. My 50% figure comes from my own experiences interviewing Pakistanis of different walks of life all over the country. Radical Islam is mainstream there, much the same way that socialism is the norm in France.
Well New York Democrat (mysteriously-turned-plural-in-the-headline) Kirsten Gillibrand thinks the US SHOULD invade Pakistan, redeploying the troops from Iraq. This is dangerously wrong. The troops should be redeployed – to their own hometowns.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Democrats_Redeploy_troops_from_Iraq_12292007.html
I don't think the Pakistanis would be any more willing to tolerate occupation by the Indians than they would occupation by us, and I doubt the Chinese would be any too thrilled either. The idea has some merit but it isn't practical – besides, the true problem lies within the border highlands and they've got the home court advantage plus six years to prepare. Better to wait and see what happens with the elections than start banging the war drum right now. That does touch upon the source of so many problems — the absolutely insane manner in which these countries were created as the British Empire withdrew. Much of Pakistan is ethnically and linguistically related to India, although divided by religion and culture. The 'wild west' regions of Pakistan are tied to the Pashtun of Afghanistan and the non-Pashtun of Afghanistan are more closely related to, but not quite the same as, the Iranians. What drug-addled idiot drew these maps and created these countries this way?
I think it is incorrect to lay all responsibility on Musharraf, Bhutto was no saint herself. She was a patron to the Taliban and supported them in Afghanistan in the 90's. Pakistan has supported them all along, to try to assert control in Afghanistan or appease their own Pashtun populace. Neither Musharraf, Bhutto, or Sharif has/had done much to address the grinding poverty or disaffection of Pakistanis, their goals were to protect their respective establishments, and we all know that these (and not some general hatred of America for the sake of hating America) are the root of radicalism and terrorism. The U.S. also bears responsibility for neglecting Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, leaving Afghanistan to simmer in anarchy until the Taliban took power and leaving Pakistan to deal with the massive influx of war-hardened, impoverished and increasingly radical refugees being sheltered in the same provinces harboring bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban now. I so disagree with the criticism of the war in Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was safe-harbored in the Pashtun tribal mountain areas of both countries, not just Pakistan. This should have been dealt with in 2001 and 2002 – up through Afghanistan and then down into Pakistan. It should have been the reason we allowed the weapons sales despite Nunn-Luger restrictions instead of the laughable 'support' we got. But we did not have the forces needed in place nor the will to fight that kind of battle, so it didn't get done then and obviously won't now.
Well, I didn't intend to use up this much space. Ted, I think you're spot on, except for when I think you're a total loon — good work regardless.
Seen the new video of Bhutto apparently taking a bullet to the head?
swisn, do you really think Bhutto's patronage to the Taliban is remarkable in this case? I think the strategic partnership with the US obliterates the significance of Bhutto's patronage. I remember the talibs being the good guys before we needed them as bogey men.
We became pros at alignment theory during the cold war. Even after the soviets decided they were okay with non-alignment, the US carried on the Dulles strategy to this day. Bush even quotes him "yer either for us or against us" There has been a pattern in nations run by our stooges.