Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was recently assassinated following a political rally in Islamabad. Ms. Bhutto had recently returned to her home country from self-imposed exile to lead a political party dedicated to democratic reforms and generally opposed to the government of President and former army Chief Pervez Musharaff.The Manifest takes special interest, as should all Westerners, in the events in Pakistan. As detailed in a former post on the situation in Pakistan, it is noted that the Islamic nation is, for all intents and purposes, the flashpoint of unrest in the world today. Pakistan is the "powder keg" of the early 21st century in the same manner as the Balkans were in the early 20th. The assassination of Bhutto could have many of the same ramifications of that of Archduke Francis Ferdinand.
A major difference, however, is that the Bhutto killing is a bit of a "whodunit." Al Qaeda has taken responsibility - at least a group claiming to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. If this is the truth, then it is the best possible scenario in terms of being beneficial to the West.
Don't misunderstand - I am not claiming that the assassination of Bhutto is a good thing. It is a major tragedy for her family, for the nation of Pakistan, and for the movement of democracy in the Muslim world. However, in the interests of peace and security in the West, most all parties agree that stability and a gradual move to democracy is preferable to radical change that could lead to a Taliban-led revolution. And nobody, save Al Qaeda, wants the Taliban with nukes.
This means that, for the time being, the best policy is to support Pervez Musharraf's hold on the presidency, and insist on orderly parliamentary
elections. Musharraf, while walking a very thin tight rope in semi-opposing Islamic radicals in his country, has nonetheless been effective in preventing Pakistan's WMD from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Long known as an opponent of Pakistan's most influential political parties, it could be expected that all sides would jump at the chance to blame Musharraf for Bhutto's death. Any rational thinking person can understand this accusation is ludicrous. Bhutto as prime minister was not real threat to Musharraf. In fact, the Pakistani president would probably have much rather had Bhutto and her party in charge of parliament than his other chief rival, Nawaz 
Sharif. Sharif was originally disposed in the coup that General Musharraf staged to gain control of the government. Sharif heads an Islamic party that supports Sharia-style governance. One does not have to make a big leap from Sharif government to a Taliban government. There was no guarantee that Bhutto's party would have won a majority in parliament, and the likely outcome would have most likely have been a power-sharing arrange between Bhutto's quasi-secular party, and Sharif's Islamic party. Sure a split in parliament could have only increased Musharaff's influence in the presidency.
When I first heard news of Bhutto's assassination, my first thought was that she was killed by her own party. Dogged by corruption charges (which may have been partially true), being a female in a society with made up of at least 50% Islamic fundamentalists, and her distinctly un-democratic control of her political party could have contributed to other leadership wanting her out of the way. Perhaps killing the party leader - and then pointing fingers at the government - could produce a tidal wave of support in the upcoming elections, allowing the party to easily sweep Sharif's party.
Sharif himself was among the first and loudest to publicly decry the murder, and to point a finger at the government. This also seemed to me to be a red flag. Sharif's Islamic party would be radically opposed to a female prime minister, and strongly advocate a regime of Sharia law. By killing the leader of the opposition - an opposition which coalesced around the personality of Bhutto - then Sharif could very well remove the obstacle that would have caused a power-sharing arrangement, leaving a one-on-one battle with Musharraf.
I suspect that either of these scenarios could still be true, but at the moment it seems that we should take Al Qaeda at its word. And back to my point that this would be the best outcome. Musharraf ordering Bhutto's murder would have been a disaster. Should proof be produced, he would be chased from office, and the country would fall to Islamic radicals. Should Sharif have ordered the murder, he would have gained support of the Taliban elements in the country, even moreso that he currently has, and most likely of swept into power. Al Qaeda will definitely have support within Pakistan for what they did, but there will also be outrage among many Pakistanis who might otherwise be indifferent.
As cold-hearted as this sounds, civil war within the Islamic world (which is the kind that Al Qaeda has been waging since the invasion of Iraq) is much preferable to a united front attacking Western interests and homelands. If any good is to come from the tragedy of Mrs. Bhutto's murder, it would be a sizable portion of Pakistanis turning on Al Qaeda/Taliban in the manner that has happened in many of the provinces of Iraq. That may be the best answer to solving the problem of the Pakistani powder keg.
elections. Musharraf, while walking a very thin tight rope in semi-opposing Islamic radicals in his country, has nonetheless been effective in preventing Pakistan's WMD from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Long known as an opponent of Pakistan's most influential political parties, it could be expected that all sides would jump at the chance to blame Musharraf for Bhutto's death. Any rational thinking person can understand this accusation is ludicrous. Bhutto as prime minister was not real threat to Musharraf. In fact, the Pakistani president would probably have much rather had Bhutto and her party in charge of parliament than his other chief rival, Nawaz 
Sharif. Sharif was originally disposed in the coup that General Musharraf staged to gain control of the government. Sharif heads an Islamic party that supports Sharia-style governance. One does not have to make a big leap from Sharif government to a Taliban government. There was no guarantee that Bhutto's party would have won a majority in parliament, and the likely outcome would have most likely have been a power-sharing arrange between Bhutto's quasi-secular party, and Sharif's Islamic party. Sure a split in parliament could have only increased Musharaff's influence in the presidency. When I first heard news of Bhutto's assassination, my first thought was that she was killed by her own party. Dogged by corruption charges (which may have been partially true), being a female in a society with made up of at least 50% Islamic fundamentalists, and her distinctly un-democratic control of her political party could have contributed to other leadership wanting her out of the way. Perhaps killing the party leader - and then pointing fingers at the government - could produce a tidal wave of support in the upcoming elections, allowing the party to easily sweep Sharif's party.
Sharif himself was among the first and loudest to publicly decry the murder, and to point a finger at the government. This also seemed to me to be a red flag. Sharif's Islamic party would be radically opposed to a female prime minister, and strongly advocate a regime of Sharia law. By killing the leader of the opposition - an opposition which coalesced around the personality of Bhutto - then Sharif could very well remove the obstacle that would have caused a power-sharing arrangement, leaving a one-on-one battle with Musharraf.
I suspect that either of these scenarios could still be true, but at the moment it seems that we should take Al Qaeda at its word. And back to my point that this would be the best outcome. Musharraf ordering Bhutto's murder would have been a disaster. Should proof be produced, he would be chased from office, and the country would fall to Islamic radicals. Should Sharif have ordered the murder, he would have gained support of the Taliban elements in the country, even moreso that he currently has, and most likely of swept into power. Al Qaeda will definitely have support within Pakistan for what they did, but there will also be outrage among many Pakistanis who might otherwise be indifferent.
As cold-hearted as this sounds, civil war within the Islamic world (which is the kind that Al Qaeda has been waging since the invasion of Iraq) is much preferable to a united front attacking Western interests and homelands. If any good is to come from the tragedy of Mrs. Bhutto's murder, it would be a sizable portion of Pakistanis turning on Al Qaeda/Taliban in the manner that has happened in many of the provinces of Iraq. That may be the best answer to solving the problem of the Pakistani powder keg.
No comments:
Post a Comment