Musharraf has lost credibility and support. Sharif will/can not run. Bhutto has been killed. Who will fill Pakistan's leadership vacuum?
Bhutto returned demanding democracy in the face of danger. Her bravery has gotten her killed. The Bhutto's have lost a father, two brothers, and now Benazir, all to political violence.
Bhutto has insisted to be given more state security. But has been continuously denied in the face of numerous assassination attempts. Mushareff did not allow for her to campaign via the media, and as a result she was forced to take to the dangerous streets of Pakistan to garner support.
12 comments:
A little research into Bhutto's past, past performance, and the her origins of importance, do not mesh with our opinion of the good she would have done for Pakistan. Hell, she wansn't even a step in the right direction. Unless expedience is still the name of the game. She was our backup? LMAO!
Not sure, but maybe better she is gone.
While I was concerned about her corruption and cronies I'm convinced that an elected secular leader in Pakistan would be preferable to a leadership vacuum that has led to an increased crackdown on the people of Pakistan.
Had to do a crash course on Pakistan and so far am of the opinion that peace and stability are neither part of the history or culture of the area, especisally dating from the Muslium invasion. I was sleeping when they obtained nukes. How the hell did that happen?
Looks like the son and father might head up the party?
I hope the heck we have some serious covert operations goin on over there.
The father was executed while he was in office. The 19 year old son is taking over leadership of the party.
Let's hope we don't interfere with their elections too much. The last thing they need is another reason to hate America and a loss of credibility for an elected official. Maybe some covert ops in Waziristan.
Yes, thanx. Ment the husband. Sorry for being vague. Latest is that the US is ready to go in and protect the nukes. Have two minds on this. One, to hell with them all, kill whomever it takes for stability. The other, I wish to God people could have some peace.
Incredibly brave? I honestly don't get it. Was she also stupid in the sense that she honestly believed she could survive. Was she a willing sacrifice? I have the impression she was just seeking power.
dw, I have no doubts regarding her want for power but to leave a life of luxury and reintroduce herself into Pakistan's violent political environment holds an element that travels beyond simple power hunger. The woman had an immense amount of courage whatever her past corruption. She was as great as she was awful, brilliant, charismatic and brave as she (and her husband) were corrupt.
Corruption and courage aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
"She was as great as she was awful, brilliant, charismatic and brave as she (and her husband) were corrupt."
I understand that, and is not unique to her. But I wouldn't dare try to elaborate on it. What bothers me is acknowledging men and women of caliber regardless of their humble or not so humble beginnings. My point is that American interests are my interests. And, like your above analyisis of Bhutto, so can be applied to nations. Like America. Even so American global interetsts are focused upon stability and peace even if that can be defined as a selfesh interest. Considering the nature of the world, even our selfesh interests benifit many. Stability is the name of the game. Instability gets people killed, like Bhutto.
"Let's hope we don't interfere with their elections too much."
Not sure what to think there. Wish sombody had interferred with the Palistinian elections. aAlmost seens that democracy is any Islamic nation will give legitimate power to theocratic fanatics.
subadei, What is your opinion of what the Mush should do? He's no saint but he also wants stability.
BTW, if you are a Viet Nam vet thanx for your service. Sounds like you had a taste of 'old fashioned war'.
dw,
thanks but I think you've mistaken me (not a veteran, I'm afraid) for my blog partner in crime, Munzenberg who served in the Australian military.
As to your question regarding Mush two weeks ago I'd have said a stable dictatorship backed by the military is preferable to an unstable, corrupt though democratically elected regime teetering on the brink of yet another coup.
The latest events and the increasing suspicion that Mush, if he wasn't directly complicit in Bhutto's murder, apparently Let It Happen On Purpose. Which baffles me. Certainly he rids himself of a political rival but at a great cost as he galvanizes Nawaz Sharif's base, creates a martyr and boy prince ready to "heroically" step up and assume the reins.
I can't really say what he should do but I think it's obvious what he shouldn't have done.
Jacob, am sorry to have raised an arguement and not follow through in a response. (got bogged down elsewhere) Truth is I have no great understanding of this and think in terms of 'power. I can easily guess the moderate or liberal response to my mindset.
Maybe you would concede that 'power' is the bottom line when all else fails. The key is knowing when a matter is potentially dangeroues enough, and unresolvable and that 'power' is necessary. That always means collateral damage and a media frenzy. But I can't deny the points you make about Palistine and Hamas. I only disagree with our mainstream perspective, of which you seem to share.
subadei makes semse to me on the surface. But we cannot allow a nuclear power with a population of ignorant Muslims that are subject to radical leadership to have self determination. Ignorant means uninformed and uneducated and being told who to blame for all their woes.
Why is it so hard for so many to understand that the word 'enemy' defines something that is not necesarily deserved nor created. They just exist by reason of diverse beleifs and competetion for power and one's own sense of what stability, or security means. Stability is also something an enemy works against when he is the weaker element in an internal conflict. Also it seems important to understand that the underdog and the oppressed are not necessarily the good guys by any civilized standard. In fact they may be oppressed to hamstring their hostility. The Declaration of Human rights makes it damn hard to justify winning any war. So what now? Especially when the West are the only elements that honestly respect human rights. We gotta give a handicapp to clear and presant dangers so as to avoid direct or indirect responsibility for the harm of innocent people?
Theor are no innocents in war. Just non combatants that are either in the way due to circumstance, or in the case of the Muslim sociopaths, in the way by design.
Off topic there but relevant my thinking.
While I do believe that at particular times and circumstances the presence of a dictator may be beneficial for world safety, I can find little reason to support Musharref.
His very presence is the source of instability in Pakistan. If the argument is about the radical element of Islam within Pakistan being the source of instability rather than the people rioting, then I think my case still is fundamentally correct. Musharef has failed to stop radical elements in Pakistan and has used over $11 billion US dollars intended for that fight to bolster his military's strenght against India.
If a free and fair election in Pakistan was held today it is clear that moderate forces would overwhelmingly prevail. The forces of radical Islam in Pakistan only occupy a small percentage of the population. All of the moderate candidates are criticizing Mushareff for failing to go after radical Islam. That is part of the reason why Bhutto was killed. There is no reason to believe that the Pakistani military would release their nuclear arsenal to terrorist groups. After all, those are the people they have pledged to fight - besides the fact that the military needs those missiles to counter India.
Essentially, I do think that in certain circumstances there is a legitimate place for the "power" that a dictator can wield. However, as far as Pakistan is concerned I believe the path to stability is an election. An election will certainly yield to a moderate victory. This victory will quell the domestic riots and turmoil within Pakistan. This victory will in all probability bring about a bigger fight against radical Islam - after all, radical Islam killed Bhutto. The Pakistani military would never intentionally lose control of their nuclear weapons. If anything, they would tighten their control away from civilian government - making it even less likely to fall into the hands of extremists.
Pakistan implicates Baitullah Mehsud in Bhutto assassination
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/pakistan_implicates.php
Gonna show my hand here. Pakistan is a potential nightmare for the West. A gold mine for the Brotherhood and their ilk. The Mush is incompetent and will seek his own interests? The moderates are also nieve/ignorant and too incompetent to deal with radical elements without Wetern help. The wolves smell the blood and their nukes could turn their nstion into a proxy aysemetrical warzone? I see a potential field day for the Lib's if they can spin all things relevent to our wars long nuff to secure the presidency.
LOL I have worked many past years in construction. You work hard but it pays well. Point is you need skills. The rule of thumb for many is to be dishonest about your skill level asnf experience. Just secure the job at all costs and play it by ear from there. What do ya got to lose by simply telling the truth and not getting hired. If you see my point.
I don't think you addressed any of my points from my previous post.
As much as you might call it a gold mine, the vast majority will never participate in any "brotherhood." The moderates have been killed by radicals and overthrown and murdered by the military. I don't think they're naive as to Pakistan's reality. I never said that radicals could be tackled without the West's help. But the point is that with the West's help Mushareff has failed to act. The moderates seems like they will - for their own safety.
Your post is full of talking points that fail to consider Pakistan's reality.
Post a Comment