Is Benazir Bhutto the democratic middle way between Musharraf's dictatorship and Islamist theocracy? It would seem so. But her niece Fatima warns that Aunt Benazir is a cynical, corrupt politician, and implies that Bhutto was involved in the unsolved murder of her brother, Fatima Bhutto's father:
Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.
My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.
(Hat tip: Larison)

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Just finished reading Mark Moyar's "Triumph Forsaken", wherein the following argument was made:
Early in the Vietnam War, we acquiesced to the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. Who was admittedly a tyrant - hence our ostensible reason for overthrowing him - but was nevertheless doing a competent job of fighting the North Vietnamese. His successors, OTOH, were so incompetent that, by 1965, South Vietnam was basically incapable of effective military resistance, and LBJ was faced with the choice of either utilizing US troops directly against the NVA or withdrawing (in defeat). The rest is history.
Although I suspect that Pakistan of today differs considerably from South Vietnam, it is interesting to note the similarity between today's complaints about Musharraf's "undemocratic" rule, and yesteryear's complaints against the Diem regime. If Musharraf does fall, I can only hope the two situations differ sufficiently that history does not repeat itself.
It's worth remembering that Musharaff's originally coup was greeted with wild jubilation, both within Pakistan and by Pakistani expats around the world. Nawaz Shariff and Bhutto were widely viewed by Pakistanis as interchangeable, ineffective kleptocrats.
While it is a striking measure of how unpopular Musharaff has become that many people would actually prefer the old kleptocrats, the reality is that a return to the likes of Bhutto won't do anything to stop Pakistan from being an economic, social and political basket case.
Joey, Islamists in Pakistan are not a serious threat. Less than 10% political support is what I've seen reported in many different sources. The argument that "At least Musharaff is with us against the Islamists" is thus pretty damned weak, especially given his unwillingness to move against Al Qaeda in the Waziristan provinces.
Now, the argument "but Bhutto would be even worse" - well, that may actually hold water.
Perhaps Bhutto has been recommended to the US by Ahmed Chalabi. I cannot believe we still do business with the likes of these people. (PS if you think Chalabi is out of favor after all the deliberate bad intelligence he knowingly fed us, you are wrong. Look him up in Wikipedia).
Our intelligence must be terrible if we cannot find and support better alternatives.
thanks for the GREAT post! Very useful...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.