Pakistan: which conspiracy theory do you prefer?
There’s no dearth of conspiracy theories to explain the audacious attack on Bhutto’s convoy, and Bhutto herself has hinted that the government may have been involved.
Has she just been watching too many Oliver Stone movies? No. The sad fact is that there are so many possibile suspects that the culprits may never be known, although the complexity of the mode of attack has al Qaeda written all over it. But it’s also possible that copycats are involved.
One fact that seems relatively new in the field of political assassinations is that the perpetrators of this one didn’t care how many Pakistani citizens they killed in reaching their target. Usually assassinations are—well, more targeted towards the political figure him/herself and perhaps his/her bodyguards and family, and there’s some sort of effort made not to blast away huge crowds. Lee Harvey Oswald seems extremely restrained compared to this Pakistani crew.
Insider assassinations are not all that unusual in thrid world countries, as I’ve written in this post that focuses on the facts behind Indira Gandhi’s killing, and the ways in which India clamped down on the forces responsible. It’s a sobering tale.
Pingback:The Moderate Voice
What the US press may not be saying is that “government” does not mean “man at the top.” A governement like Pakistan’s has many factions and interests, including some sympathetic to the Islamicists. Some of them are in the army. Musharraf’s hands have been tied by his need for their support, so he has not been able to go after them. (They are, after all, foreigners using Pakistani soil.) Bhutto gives Musharraf the support he needs to abandon the Taliban supports. Would attacking her be a logical act on the part of Taliban sympathizers, or suicide? Or both?
The killing’s almost unbelievable in its indiscrimination.
Al Qaeda (or whoever’s responsible) cares not one bit about human life, whether the victims are Pakistani or American. The goal is certainly to kill Bhutto, but a marksman could have done that without all the carnage. The violence is simply designed to prevent the formation of any type of legitimate regime, especially a democratic one. The brazenness of the attacks seek to send a chill to the people, demonstrating that no one’s safe. All this in the effort pave the way for a nihillist reign of terror under the Islamist caliphate.
All the more reason for us to resist the world’s forces of death.
“Usually assassinations are–well, more targeted towards the political figure him/herself and perhaps his/her bodyguards and family, and there’s some sort of effort made not to blast away huge crowds.”
Tell it to the Lebanese…
You are certainly correct that there are too many possibilities to be certain at this point. Looking like AQ doesn’t make it AQ. In fact, it makes a pretty good cover, if one is so inclined. We may never know who did it. For all I know, Bhutto (who did survive) planned it herself. There would be motive there too, unfortunately.
douglas: when I said “usually, ” I meant historically. Not caring if many civilians get killed—or even hoping that many civilians get killed—is relatively new, I believe, and so far seems limited to the Muslim world.
True enough.
Oh, pish. Everybody knows Bush is behind it – trying to protect is lap-dog Musharraf.
When leftists refuse to leave the US they hate so much, claimimg that they would “become victims of US foreign policy” if they did, what they really mean is, “If we moved to a country that actually does what we claim the US does, we know we would be assassinated within days by our new country’s government, so we’ll stay here and lie about it, because we can.”
Bush has and always has been interested in oil, his father was the ex-president of the CIA, now Bush does what his Dad tells him regardless of the inpact on his own people: he is the ultimite hypocrite; he obeys his dad blindly as a form of exacting revenge on Saddam, who has been killed and he doesnt care about his very own people, let alone the people of Iraq, who are “collateral damage” in IED explosions and the poor military men and women who die needlessly while priveledged young people go to college….while as always rich white men run our world with the pretext of nations, who are irrelevent because the world is corporate. Who cares about the Iraqi people…hopefully people wiith a conscience who vote out Bush and his neo-cons in early 2009.
The problem with Pakistan is that it’s extremely unstable, and oscillates between military dictatorships and militant Islamist rule (and once, both, simultaneously under the Islamic militant dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq). It was strategically wrong for the US to ally with this country as it is the most violent, unruly, extremist and homicidal Muslim nation in the world, far more so than Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It’s just that their Islamic fanaticism has been directed primary at their “infidel” neighbor India instead of the west. However, that will change if they grow bolder and the Islamists come to power. In that way, they are a lot like the Palestinians, a democratic election only means that they will vote for militant Islamists. Before giving them democracy they must be educated out of their social and cultural backwardness, and that is a catch-22 situation.
The best bet for the US is to ally more closely with stable nations in the region and establish a more authoritarian military presence in the Pakistani province of Balochistan (which borders Iran, a long term threat to the US). Balochistan has been in the grip of a major insurgency against Pakistan. The native Shia Muslim Baluch have basically lived in apartheid oppression from the Sunni Muslim fanatics who run Pakistan and are getting sick of it. If the US cultivates a good relationship with the Baluch like they did with the Kurds then US troop presence there will be welcome, and they can carry out their hunt for bin-Laden in the neighboring NWFP from there.
Let Pakistan rot in chaos for now. They have been worthless as allies and are closer to being enemies.
If the Muslims there are kept busy killing each other they will not be strong enough to kill kaffirs. Once they have fought themselves out and realized that their society needs a major overhaul then maybe we can talk about fixing up their country. Right now, wall them out and let them fight each other while the US focusses on Iran.
“It was strategically wrong for the US to ally with this country as it is the most violent, unruly, extremist and homicidal Muslim nation in the world, far more so than Iran or Saudi Arabia.”
Yeah! because it would be SO much better to have a “violent, unruly, extremist and homicidal Muslim nation” armed with nuclear weapons NOT be an ally and under a leader who, while not ideal, at least keeps the militant islamists at bay.
Brilliant.
Pingback:aftonbladet