After Bhutto, the deluge

This is terrible, terrible news. Apparently Bhutto was killed in a highly secure zone, leaving little doubt that some of the Pakistan military, and perhaps even Musharraf, may have been, probably were, involved.

But, even if they weren't involved, I find this assassination utterly demoralizing, even though it was entirely predictable. It feels like we are losing the "war on civilization." (We may be fighting the "War on Terror" but our enemies have made war on civilization itself.)

That's how it feels to me, today.

Great sadness over this -- it would be nice to have hope that a "silent majority" of fed-up Pakistanis will find their voices and a collective wisdom to counter this outrage with a complete marginalization and discrediting of extremists. I fear though that her assassination is ripe for exploitation for divisive and evil purposes. The conspiracy theories will be in full bloom :-(

This is terrible – for Mrs Bhutto.

Pakistan needs someone who can put Islam in a straightjacket. I don’t think Bhutto was that person, and I doubt if Musharraf is as well.

We are witnessing the inevitable result of a country in the stranglehold of a psychotic ideology. Democracy is the last thing these people need.

Bhutto was never a friend of the US and her assassination can only be good for us. It will give Musharraf the excuse to slaughter Islamist radicals if he has the guts to use it. If not, let India get paranoid enough to deal with Pakistan once and for all. Either way we win.

It's a terrible thing, she was blown up and then shot, or shot and then blown up depending on the reports. At least 20 other people were killed. They weren't doing too hot a job with the video editing at CNN - me and my fellow mentally unstable soldiers were counting body parts in the footage of the aftermath. May God's peace be upon all of them.

I'm not sure why everyone here is so riled up about this geo-politically. Musharraf has kept all his options on the table this whole time. Out with Democratic reform, in with true military rule is how things will go. That will at least bring stability to all but the border with Afghanistan, of course. It sucks for the people of Pakistan, but then, it beats open warfare for them. There really is no other choice, given the nukes. I'm not sure why Pakistan should be any different from our other autocratic allies. Of which we have a few...

Just how in the hell does Will include an O'Hanlon among those getting a supposed Hanukkah present...

Excsue me, Scott. For the politically correct, Bhutto's assassination was a Christmas present to O'Hanlon. Better still, let's call it a seasonal gift.

The neocons have been talking about occupying Pakistan for some time now, and it's no secret that they dote on Israel. I guess you see no connection whatever?

Bhutto's assassination will surely spark a rash of bellicose rhetoric from the PNACers. Please inform us here if you find that not to be the case.

would you mind liniking to some quotes from "neo-cons" who are advocating for the occupation of Pakistan?

To avoid the html filter, I won't post the link, but Google Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem by PNACers O'Hanlon and Kagan. Here's an excerpt from the recent NYT piece:

So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south.

I would think a discussion of this piece in light of recent events in Pakistan would be interesting. Particularly since PNAC position papers helped launch our disastrous pre-emptive war with and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

This afternoon is different from this morning. Before breakfast it was the evil-doing Mike Huckabee and his attack on the constitution. This afternoon it is how fast can we get John McCain in there. Simply put, Huck is irrelevant - a no body with nothing to contribute to the new reality of this afternoon. This morning I was sniffing around Mitt Romney, the man who would save our economy and bring stability to out-of-control government spending. Now, it is John McCain and his vice president Mitt Romney. Wow - this changed in a heart beat.

What a nice, if belated, Kwanzaa present for the Barrackistas. O'Bama has been calling for military intervention in Pakistan for months now.

Also cheap, but it doesn't have quite the same ring. No Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos involved.

Start Praying.......

joel said:

"No. Support for Islamists in Pakistan has long been, and still remains, in single digits. The Pakistani military *hates* the Islamists."

___________________

Joel: I'm not sure how the poll was worded, but according to this CNN article, OBL has the support of 46% of the Pakistani population:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html

The idea that terrorism is caused by poverty simply does not comform with reality and, in my opinion at least, has been thoroughly debunked:

“. . . . terrorism is less like property crime and more like a violent form of political engagement. More-educated people from privileged backgrounds are more likely to participate in politics, probably in part because political involvement requires some minimum level of interest, expertise … all of which are more likely if people are educated enough and prosperous enough to concern themselves with more than economic subsistence . . .”

http://www.alanalexandroff.com/nr-krueger.pdf
_________________

As for the real root cause, I think this interviewer gets a little closer to the mark:

Scott Atran interviewing Abu Bashir:

Q: “What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?

ABB: They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam.

. . .

SA: How can the American regime and its policies change?

ABB: We'll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace.”

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=2 423&p=2