I know it is not sexy, but could the assisn have been a lone nutter? It has happened before.
When there is good reason to believe terrorists were after her, it’s a little hard to buy into the idea that a single nut got to her first.
Does it matter that much whether it’s a lone nutter or an extremist group, or even Musharraf, in terms of the destabilizing consequences? No matter who’s pinned with the blame, each faction will continue to believe that its preferred demon was behind the assassination, and will act accordingly.
So they’re saying now she hit her head on part of the sunroof mechanism and died of a fractured skull. I read it could have occurred either when ducking or being thrown into it by the force of the explosion.
Musharraf is hoping that, too. I’m of two minds about it. A revolution might be just what Pakistan needs right now. OTOH, there’s no guarantee the democrats would win it. And however it ends, while it’s ongoing it would threaten U.S. access to Afghanistan.
And, if any unrest develops to the point that control of the nukes becomes uncertain, how long will India sit there with its fingers crossed before it tries to take control of them itself?
I think those who are trying to define her either as a hero or a villain are missing the point. She was complicated. She may have brought some positive change, but she would have brought some negatives with her. She was a member of the highest-ranking caste, and her leadership style and priorities reflect this. Her alliance with the poor of Pakistan was one of usefulness and convenience (shades of Hugo Chavez); we’ll never know if it was merely temporary or if her heart was actually in it.
Which means, perversely, that this assassination may be the best thing that ever happened to her, in terms of influence and legacy. A human being is a complicated and difficult thing; a symbol is not. And that’s what she’s turning into now, right before our eyes: a symbol, imbued with extraordinary power. Whereas her own (numerous) failings may have interfered with her ability to carry out her (ostensibly) honorable agenda, now she is merely a banner, a bloody standard, which can be wielded by those who share the agenda but not her litany of flaws.
<tinfoil hat> Given my observations above, perhaps she arranged her own martyrdom. </tinfoil hat>
(Not really. But we should begin the countdown to the appearance of those assertions.)
Why would any government, however desperate, use nukes in a civil war? You’d be destroying the country you’re trying to control; and nothing would be more certain to turn public opinion against you.
If the “bad guys” (from India’s point of view) look like they’re going to win, or even get their hands on the nukes temporarily, India has reason to sweat. Not because of the threat of the Pakistani factions nuking each other, but because of the threat of them nuking India. Richard Reeves made this point a while back, during a different Pakistani crisis (I need to look up the cite).
Seems India has a lot to worry about here. Say a faction gets hold of a nuke or two and announces that they’ll obliterate Dehli unless India gives up claims to Kashmir. The faction wins great popular support for “liberating” Kashmir, and India has its hands tied.
Regarding this, I notice there’s an equally interesting discussion going on simultaneously in another thread in a different forum. See especially this post for some background on the situation from somebody who’s actually, y’know, there.
You’re too young to be so jaded, marshmallow. Which doesn’t make you wrong of course, but it is likely to make you bitter.
As for an old geezer like me, I’ll take hope wherever I can find me some. If not, what’s left?
She (and her family) were corrupt. Despite her Harvard and Cambridge education, she was an autocrat . Would she have offered something different to Pakistan? I doubt it. Pakistan is, and always will be,poor, backwards, and ignorant-as long as it embraces reactionary islam. Am I sorry she was asassinated? yes-but she knew the risks she was taking. The sad thing is: Islam is so opposed to women’s rights, that she could have been totally honest-yet some imam would have told his followers “kill her-she is an offense to the koran”-and they would have followed her.
cough
Sure it would. Play that scenario out for next October.
Two candidates. One Republican represents the old order. A Democrat represents some kind of change, though not necessarily as much hope as some would like.
The Democrat dies in an assassination.
Do you really think we wouldn’t have a few riots? How many cars have to be lit up in a nation as big as ours before it looks like rioting?
IMO, in answer to the OP.
People will believe what they want to believe. Some will fault Al Queda. Some will fault Musharraf. Things will be tense.
I will also predict that the press will continue to play to fear since it sells papers and gets more ratings than sober response and journalism.
And all I can hope is that cooler heads will prevail than the talking heads I see on TV asking banal questions to get canned answers that help amp the “but they have NUKES!” response…
and somehow… tomorrow still comes.
What on Earth are you talking about? She was no autocrat when she was prime minister. Probably corrupt, but she never got her day in court, in Pakistan or anywhere else.
What? You know they’re not going to convert en masse to some other religion, and how is the Islam in Pakistan any more “reactionary” than that in Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
What on Earth are you talking about? She was no autocrat when she was prime minister. Probably corrupt, but she never got her day in court, in Pakistan or anywhere else.
What? You know they’re not going to convert en masse to some other religion, and how is the Islam in Pakistan any more “reactionary” than that in Egypt or Saudi Arabia? And how is Pakistan any more poor, backwards or ignorant than India?
I’m not convinced you even know what “Autocrat” means, but
a) What the hell does it have to do with where she went to school?
b) How is an elected Prime Minister an “autocrat”?
c) On what actual evidence do you base your claim?
How does Pakistan, or how do Pakistanis, “embrace reactionary Islam?” How many of them do this? In what ethnic groups is it most prevalent? Can you in fact name ANY ethnic groups in Pakistan?
And doesn’t it strike you as strange that a “reactionary Islam” kind of place elected a woman as their PM, and appeared ready to do so again?
Just saw on CNN: Bhutto’s will (updated just before she returned to Pakistan) was read out at a big People’s Party meeting today. It stated her wish that her husband succeed her as party leader – but he immediately handed off the job to their 19-year-old son. 
Maybe the thinking was that he’s too young to be suspected of corruption. This story, however, says father and son are to be co-chairs. Also, the election may be postponed two months.
I shall keep my eye out for him, and his new retinue of bodyguards.
I have to say, his speech was pretty amazing, coming from a 19-year-old. But his dad will be Regent, and I doubt that will go down well with the electorate.
Now Sharif is saying he’s back in the election. A canny move, I think, as Musharraf will be pleased with its apparent legitimacy, and Sharif can attempt to surf the pro-democracy backlash. Unless Musharraf either declares another state of emergency, which I suspect is only a matter of time, or cancels the elections, which looks likely.