In a move guaranteed to hurt everyone and help nobody, someone has assassinated Benazir Bhutto.
So what are the predictions? Will this consolidate Musharraf’s power and enable the Taliban to continue operating in west Pakistan? Will there be civil war? Or will Bhutto’s martyrdom push a Bhutto ally into the leadership race? Will Nawaz Sharif be able to use this to his advantage?
Or are we headed towards nuclear war?
Boy oh boy. We’re living in interesting times, and it really may be a curse.
sorry.
My guess is it will strengthen the Taliban and a civil war is imminent. It’s very hard to see how Musharraf can hang on now. Even if he didn’t have her killed according to the reports he’s getting the blame.
My roommate is from Pakistan, and he is very upset, but we think this will strengthen the democratic forces in the country and will undermine any pro-Taliban elements. Bhutto’s supporters are pissed off right now and they will start a purge of anti-democrats. Things will be a bloody mess for several days, but this hurts Musharraf and her other opponents more than it helps them. She just became a very powerful martyr and strong rallying point for democrats.
The best thing that Musharraf could do is allow an independent investigation of the attack (i.e. allow the FBI or Scotland Yard to conduct the investigation) and then resign. His days are numbered, and he needs to realize it now. The longer he tries to hang on, the longer the violence will continue. The country is still upset over the dismissal of the Chief Justice and the majority wants democracy.
The best thing the Taliban could do is lay low. They will gain no political capital from this.
I am not sure what you mean by civil war. Civil strife, definitely, but that is a different animal from civil war. The opposing sides are not based on regional differences, but political ones.
Sharif will probably see the best opportunities from the fallout, as long as he can stay safe himself.
The wild card is the military. They are still a powerful political force, but have not been openly supporting any candidate. They are currently Musharraf’s ally, but that could change very quickly now.
There is a chance that her perceived martyrdom will strengthen the democratic movement. Let us hope that this is the case.
But if it slips out that Musharraf’s people did it (and there are rumours already, according to the BBC) then the pro-democracy crowds could attack and weaken the apparatus of the state, allowing the Islamists to gain further footholds.
Whatever happens, this is a terrible day for Pakistan and South Asia in general, and many people will die.
Anyone else see this coming a mile off?
How did Benazir become Nenazir?
The ‘B’ key and the ‘N’ key are right next to each other in the ‘qwerty’ keyboard.
He’s already on the move
There are also reports that he will boycott the upcoming elections and called for Musharraf’s immediate resignation.
Unfortunately it seemed like a certainty to me for a while now. I think she knew she was taking the ultimate risk. Go for the win one way or the other either as a political savior or as a martyr. She rolled the dice. This actually may be the only way for her goals to be achieved.
It could easily go the other way though. As you say jjimm, lots are going to die. That is really the only certainty here.
“The opposing sides are not based on regional differences, but political ones.”
I guess that makes it more inconvenient.
You can contend with a live candidate, but with a martyr? This will be a hell of a thing to watch. Any bets on how quickly Bhutto becomes a rallying point for ideals she might not have supported had she been alive? She’s a martyr and I believe she probably stood for a just cause, but martyr’s messages have a way of changing after their death. I predict that this will get very bloody very fast.
Oh, and would anyone mind if a passing mod fixes the typo in the thread title? I was confused for a moment, and I suspect others will be too.
Unfortunately, yes. A civil war would probably be less messy.
And a factual question. Why does CNN seem so intent on blaming this on the Taliban/Al-Qaeda? Has anyone actually claimed responsibility? My gut feeling is that this was done by an independent terrorist group with no other aims than to spread terror, and their success was in no small measure due to the lack of security by Musharraf.
In related topic, has any group been identified as being behind the bombing that occurred in October when she arrived in country? I am not seeing anything definitive.
In fairness that’s all you need to be deemed “Al Qaeda”. There are the “official” ones trained at Al Qaeda terror camps (many in Pakistan itself, of course), but Al Qaeda is really an idea: as long as you subscribe to the ethos of Islamist mayhem, I get the impression that Osama and his boys will be happy to allow you to claim membership, even if they’ve never heard of you before. And of course, the western powers capitulate with this too, as it helps reinforce the simplistic boogeyman image they like to warn us about.
Once again we reap the rotten fruits of US foreign policy meddling in the affairs of other countries. Bush encouraged Bhutto’s return against the better judgement of Musharraf and encouraged lifting the state of emergency which was protecting Bhutto. The US may promote democracy and human rights, but stability is far more desirable with less bloodshed of innocent lives.
Most civil wars are not based on regional differences, e.g., the civil wars in England, Ireland, Spain, Angola, Rwanda, …
That’s what a true civil war is – political, not sectional. In American history, the Revolution is a better example than our so-called Civil War.
The palimpsest of fallacies and errors in this comment will be difficult to untangle.
I think you’ll find that Bhutto also wanted to return from exile, contest free elections, and lift the state of emergency. She was aware of the risks and perfectly willing to face them.
The rotten foreign policy here is not pressuring Musharraf to lift martial law, but supporting him so strongly in the first place. Musharraf has always been a losing bet.
Musharraf’s judgment has always been turned to self preservation, nothing else.
The state of emergency had nothing to do with protecting Bhutto.
Not difficult – there was already one attempt. Bhutto knew the risks, and said so, when she returned to Pakistan.
Bullshit. The previous “stable” regime of Musharraf and his thugs was by no means desirable in any way. If US foreign policy was wrong, it was in the support of Musharraf in the first place that the error occured.
The Flying Dutchman, I presume you see the glaring inconsistency between your statement about stability, and your support for the Iraq conflict?
I also think it’s ridiculous to apportion any blame at all to the US in this circumstance. Bhutto may have received tacit or direct encouragement from the US and others to return to Pakistan, but it was her choice.