Who shot Benazir?

By Capt. Fogg

The short video clip of Benazir Bhutto's last moments shown over and over again on CNN last night does not reveal the exact cause of her death, but two observations are unavoidable: someone was firing a semi-automatic pistol at her from less than 5 feet away and the security personnel, presumably her own bodyguards, riding on the back of the vehicle, took no action other than to duck.

There are reports that police abandoned their posts shortly before the shots and the explosion and although the official story is that she had no bullet wounds, a top aide to Bhutto who helped prepare her body for burial says she clearly showed bullet wounds to the head. Could the shooter have missed three times at point blank range?

Of course the official explanation evokes the al Qaeda bogeyman, but that's just what Musharraf, eager to keep those billions flowing in and himself in power would say if he were somehow complicit. Can this, as a reader commented on Human Voices yesterday, be a false flag operation?

"We in effect helped -- helped -- precipitate this dynamic that led to her tragic assassination,"

said John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN on Fox News Thursday. I find myself in agreement. Having urged Bhutto to return to Pakistan and seek power, may have been another bloody consequence to the Neocon doctrine of creating democracy by toppling dictators. I don't know what will arise out of the current chaos, but history suggests many unsavory possibilities other than a quick return to calm and a restoration of democracy.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Alas Bhutto

By Capt. Fogg

I wonder if Pakistanis are saying "God, I love freedom" today. I wonder when the idiot in chief will realize that elections in a country without stability or where stability exists only in the iron grip of a dictator, don't by themselves make a democracy.

I have no idea what the future holds for Pakistan and I have little idea what the growing chaos will mean for the US, that country's biggest supporter. I have no idea whether the most radical elements in the tribal areas will gain an advantage, or whether that country will long remain an ally, but I suspect that the upcoming elections are not landmarks on the long and tortuous path to modernity for Pakistan.

The only thing I am sure of is that our administration has no idea about how to promote liberal democracy here or abroad nor how to create the security and stability that such a condition needs in order to thrive. I'm convinced that no country so saturated with religious passion can be the host for freedom or achieve the reasonableness freedom requires.

I mourn not only Benazir Bhutto this morning, but for liberty and for peace.

Cross posted from Human Voices

After Musharraf

by Capt Fogg

The White House Chorus may have ended it's performance of What a Friend We Have in Musharraf and our own caped crusader may be scrambling to cover up the heckuva job the Pakistani dictator has been doing fighting "terror" back in the hills with all the money we've been sending him. There's serious worry that with the need to divert troops to maintaining the state of emergency there are even fewer left to keep Osama treed in Waziristan.

The Pakistani Army is demoralized, claims today's New York Times. They are taking casualties in the tribal areas, many have been captured, many have surrendered and the religious extremists (what a polite term for demented barbarians) have been conducting beheadings. The prospect of losing that Billion dollar subsidy from the US can't be helping their mood.

That Bush has outsourced the desultory hunt for Osama to Pakistan; that Osama is in Pakistan because Bush outsourced the attack on Tora Bora to Afghani warlords doesn't do much for my morale either, nor perhaps for the morale of Americans fighting in Iraq for no particular benefit to the US or detriment to the people who declared war on us 6 years ago.

I've been concerned for some time about what will happen in Pakistan and now, at last, some concern seems to have seeped into Bush's fortress of solitude although I expect nothing more than too little and too late.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Forget Iran, Pakistan is the real problem

By Libby

If you want the deep wonkish analysis on what's happening in Pakistan, you should go read all of Cernig's posts but even for those less well versed on the region, like myself, it's clear we have a big problem there. The WaPo sums it up.

The United States now finds itself with few good options and dwindling power to influence events in the nuclear-armed state, particularly because experts believe Musharraf's actions may have ensured his demise as a national leader. The Bush administration has given Pakistan $10 billion in aid since 2001 -- much of it military assistance -- and U.S. officials had warned that Congress may balk at continuing aid if emergency powers were invoked. But some analysts cautioned that if the United States is perceived as withdrawing support for Musharraf, it may increase the risk of a civil war and the shattering of Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hayden gives it wider context.

So since Bush declared ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq, 3709 more troops have died in Iraq, we’ve become one of the torture nations, North Korea went nuclear, and Darfur’s genocide continues. Thousands of Burma’s monks are in jail and Turkey’s threatening to invade Iraq to go after a Kurdish terror group. Our seaports are as secure as a new Orleans levee and possession of Pakistan’s 30 to 80 nuclear warheads may be up for grabs. Bush pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia, just as Osama demanded he do.

We've been propping up Musharraf for a long time now with our tacit support for his brutality and with billions in US aid for military purposes. Otherwise, the White House has pretty much ignored the potential for just this sort of disaster in favor of beating the war drum for bombing Iran -- a two bit country that couldn't do much damage even if the Ahmadalooney really had a couple of nukes to throw around.

Musharraf declared martial law and suspended elections based on the rising threat of terrorism on the border. I continue to think that the driving strategy behind the "Bush Doctrine" is to do the same to us.

What, me worry?

by Capt. Fogg

Bush's speech before the UN today was all about human rights violations in Iran and Burma and Syria and Belarus, but unless my hearing is going, I didn't hear any concern for the crackdown on the opposition to Pervez Musharraf in recent days. Perhaps that was not a proper venue, but the concern remains over incidents like that in Islamabad yesterday where police broke up a protest outside the Supreme Court which is hearing a case challenging the constitutional validity of General Musharraf's dual role as president and chief Army officer. Leaders of two political parties have been jailed and are being held incommunicado.

It's disturbing enough that Condoleezza Rice expressed concern over the arrests in this nuclear armed country that contains both moderate and extreme elements including Taliban and perhaps Osama bin Laden. So unsettling indeed that our embassy has issued a statement calling the arrests "extremely disturbing and confusing for the friends of Pakistan," and calling on the government to free the detainees. Our moral superiority in such matters, of course is severely wounded by our denial of habeas corpus to perceived enemies at the whim of our own government and suspicion of election tampering in the last two presidential contests.

Accusations, explanations and justifications are flying around from various factions too numerous for me to comprehend and the concerns of the US have been rebuffed by Pakistan's Foreign Ministry:

"If the U.S. Embassy is confused, it would be well advised not to make such statements,"

said spokeswoman Tasneem Aslam. That doesn't do much to make me feel better and I'm sure it makes Dr. Rice feel as ineffectual as she is.

Dictator and treader upon human rights that Musharraf may be, and possibly worthy as some of his opposition may also be, there are worse who would like to depose him and al Qaeda in Pakistan is a far less dubious reality than al Qaeda in Iraq. Will his attempt to stifle opposition play into the hands of the worst of that opposition? Pakistan's Daily Times worries about it and who's to blame the rest of us that understand even less of this complex and fragile situation from worrying? The only thing that will help me sleep tonight is knowing that George Bush and his administration are on duty.

Cross posted at Human Voices

Karzai and Bush - payback's a bitch

By Libby

I didn't get around to blogging this story on the Bush-Karzai summit but I thought this photo said it all and fortunately Cernig picked it up and wrote a brilliant post about it. You should read his analysis but here's the key quotes from the pre-summit.

1. "The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated. The Afghan people have suffered. Terrorists have killed our schoolchildren. They have burned our schools. They have killed international helpers."

2. "We are not closer (to catching bin Laden), we are not further away from it. We are where we were a few years ago."

3. "So far, Iran has been a helper (in the fight against terrorism)."

That would explain the sour look on Georgie's face. He's accustomed to the kowtowing Maliki as his foil. Karzai effectively said, eff you, it's your problem -- live with it. That happened a couple of days ago. Now today, Pakistani president Musharaff bagged out on Karzai's peace summit and the latest breaking news has Musharaff contemplating declaring a state of emergency because Obama mentioned he might be willing to chase down terrorists on the Pakistan border.

Wow. Musharaff is so freaked out by an off hand statement by a second place Democrat that he has to cancel out on a party organized by the guy that just pissed off our Imperial Leader two days ago. If the White House didn't write that one, they certainly couldn't have aksed for better. I think we safely put Musharaff on the kowtow list.

Tinderkeg meets match in Pakistan

By Libby

While our "serious" Beltway pundits and journalists have been endlessly obsessing about such vital issues as John Edwards hair, you have to go to the foreign press for such trivial matters as the state of affairs in Pakistan, which is about to explode. I just posted on this at the Detroit News and Cernig already posted an excellent analysis last night so I won't repeat the obvious points on this here other than to recap that Pakistan actually does possess WMDs, big ones as in nuclear weaponry, and if the Pakistanis successfully depose Musharaff, those nukes will be in the hands of a bunch of people who hate us for supporting a military dictatorship that has been actively oppressing them.

The only additional thought I have on that for the moment is, if this plays out to our disadvantage there's not a whole hell of lot we can do to counter the threat while all our military assets are tied up in the Decider/Commander Guy's "central front" in the war on terror - otherwise known as the Iraqi civil war. It seems to me this could lend some new urgency into Congressional action to take command out of our Feckless Leader's hands.

If ever there was a time for bi-partisan solidarity, the time is now before this administration's foreign policy blunders blow us all up.

[thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link]

Operation Catch 22 -- get Osama

The consensus around Blogtopia seems to be that Cheney's recent visit with Musharraf was to strongarm him into accepting covert CIA operations inside of Pakistan in order to finally honor Bush's promise to get Osama dead or alive. Funny, it seems like just a couple of weeks ago, our military strategists were saying getting Osama wasn't that important. Oh wait -- that was just a couple of weeks ago.

My friend Michael van der Galien sees this as a good thing.

It’s now 5.5 years ago that Osama Bin Laden attacked America - and the entire free world. He is still safe. He is still alive. His organization is regaining strength, not just in Pakistan but also in Afghanistan. If those facts aren’t a source of inspiration and, yes, encouragement for terrorists worldwide, I don’t know what is. He has to serve as an example: that terrorists, no matter how rich they are, no matter how well they hide, will be hunted down and held responsible for their crimes.

Meanwhile, Capt. Ed predicts great consequences for future military operations in that theater.

Expect a much greater latitude in American action across the Afghan/Pakistani border from this point forward -- a new policy that will cripple the Taliban's expected spring offensive, and perhaps force Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to flee their safety zone.

I'm afraid I have to take issue with both. I'd agree with Michael that Osama's continuing at-large status is inspirational to AQ and other terrorist organizations but as Gen. Schoomaker pointed out, we've been down this road before. Taking down Saddam was supposed to change everything and it changed nothing - at least not for the better. Neither did taking out Saddam's sons or Zarqawi accomplish anything. Thus, I see no reason to think that taking out Osama at this point would discourage the AQ. If anything I believe runs the risk of making a martyr out of him that would serve as inspiration to terrorists for generations to come.

And as far this signaling a greater latitude in US cross border operations, I'd have to point out that there's a great deal of difference between covert CIA teams and overt operations by US troops. Granted the CIA mission is not all that covert, what with all the leaking going on about the operations, but still it's a far cry from air strikes or armed troops marching across the border.

Covert teams could operate unnoticed, but overt operations would most certainly set off the tinder keg that is waiting to explode in Pakistan and surely destablize Musharraf's already tentative hold on his government. Are we really prepared to babysit yet another civil war in yet another country simply to bring in a symbolic boogeyman for no other reason than to save the administration's politcal skin? I know I'm not.

In the end, we're in a hell of a mess. Bush's botched handling of the so-called war on terror has left us with no good options. At every turn, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. It seems to me our best solution, late though it may seem, is to immediately impeach this White House and start fresh with a new Commander in Chief. At the very least such an unexpected move might confuse our enemies and buy us some time to think our way out of this miserable morass.