Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

By Damozel  |  At the moment, all that is really known is that she was killed, possibly by a suicide bomber and possibly by gunshot wounds. (CNN)    A number of others died as well. (CNN)  

Bhutto, 54, was being driven from the rally in her bulletproof vehicle when she asked that the rooftop hatch be opened so she could bid supporters farewell, according to several aides, including one who was sitting next to her.

As she leaned her head through the hatch, between three and five gunshots rang out, aides said. Bhutto sank back into her seat, just as a large bomb detonated to the left of her vehicle. Those inside the car said her face was badly bloodied. It was not clear whether she'd been hit by bullets or shrapnel from the bombing. She lost consciousness, aides said, and never regained it.

The explosion, apparently by a suicide bomber, killed at least 20 people outside the car, and injured many others. Police were investigating whether the bomber was also the gunman. One possibility was that the assailant fired the shots and then, after being tackled by security officials, detonated the bomb.  (WaPo)

The Pakistani elections are scheduled 12 days from now.  Additional turmoil occurred  in Islamabad, when "a rooftop sniper opened fire on supporters of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif leaving four dead and at least five injured." (WaPo) 

The blogosphere has of course been rocked by the news.  Taking the same line as Matt Yglesias (thinks the event bodes ill for Pakistan and the world in general),  I see no point in commenting much further at present on what is still breaking news.

From The Telegraph, an excerpt from what I thought was rather a caustic obituary:

Her glamorous good looks and fluent English led to a sustained love affair with Western politicians and journalists, many of whom had known her at either Harvard or Oxford   For those with the standard Western prejudices against the Islamic world, she had the added assets of a pronounceable name and a tolerant religious outlook.... She was seen to greatest effect on the campaign trail, when she was renowned for her hectoring speeches and raucous  motorcades. Face to face she could appear somewhat haughty, not unlike her role  model Margaret Thatcher.   

In Pakistan she was often far less popular than her foreign press made out. To her opponents she was more English than Pakistani, more Western than Eastern. Her Urdu, although fluent, was ungrammatic,     while her Sindhi, her family’s mother tongue, was almost non-existent.   

It was also said that she lacked a coherent political philosophy and tended to dissipate her energies on party politicking.

Here's some of what's being said by some of the power bloggers I regularly consult (not necessarily agree with, of course).

Charles at Mercury Rising sharply rebuked  the New York Times for its coverage.  For an interesting sidelight indeed, see his comment below.

In the report of her death, this is the language they used:

the dance of veils she has deftly performed … stirred as much distrust as hope …her persona as a female Muslim leader….controversy… polarizing figure …turbulent tenures… acted imperiously and impulsively…. deep questions about her personal probity…big ambition…showed how she could aggrandize….flourishes led questioning in Pakistan about the strength of her democratic ideals in practice…distrust…back-room deal-making …believes she is the chosen one…dished out favors to constituents and colleagues…ruled the party with an iron hand, jealously guarding her position … marriage to Asif Ali Zardari was arranged by her mother…accusations that the couple had illegally taken $1.5 billion

Let’s see: snotty, wildly sexist, religiously insensitive, and a personal smear, all while the body is cooling.

The correct translation is that she was a powerful woman in a country which doesn’t accept women, she was a politician with all of a politician’s narcissism, she was relentlessly smeared but nothing was ever proven, and she understood loyalty up, loyalty down.

While November, Phoenix Woman at Mercury Rising invited readers to look under Bhutto's halo,  with respect to the shooting, she tersely remarks: "Well, Musharraf got his wish.  He might live to regret it."   

Strong words from The Moderate Voice, where Shaun Mullen avers that Bhutto's blood is on Bush's hands.  At the end of the day though, Mullen thinks her assassination will make little difference here in the US. 

Let’s put a few things in perspective before we mourn the passing of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated by a gunman prior to a suicide bombing today that took upwards of 20 lives at a campaign rally in Rawalpindi. An earlier attempt on her life killed 140 people in October shortly after she returned from exile.

It speaks volumes that:

* Bhutto, who herself was duplicitous and corrupt as the leader of this troubled nation, nevertheless was seen as a vast improvement over President Pervez Musharaff.

* The Bush administration not only has thrown in its lot with Musharaff as its key regional ally, but has repeatedly helped prop up his repressive regime, pouring billions of dollars into a rat hole that has become a safe haven for the very terrorists both nations profess to want to eradicate, while claiming that great strides are being made in heartland of the Global War on Terror.

* Other than obligatory tut-tutting, the assassination will have no impact on the U.S. presidential race. Foreign policy generally and the U.S.’s deeply troubled relationship with Pakistan specifically are pretty much non starters in this topsy-turvy campaign season.

The immediate upshot of Bhutto’s assassination will be that it gives Musharaff a convenient excuse to postpone parliamentary elections scheduled for next month.  (TMV)

At PoliGazette, conservative blogger Michael van der Galien, is horrified that his fears have been validated by events.  He also has a go at Bill Richardson.  He says pretty much what I thought and still think. At this stage there isn't a lot else anyone can say with any degree of certainty.

This is truly horrible news. Many - including myself - had hoped that Musharraf could work out some power-sharing deal with Bhutto, which would enable them to bring stability to Pakistan, while slowly democratizing the country nonetheless.

The question is, of course, who’s behind the attack? Extremists? If so, Musharraf has a very good reason to step up the war he has been waging on them the last couple of months. If not… well, it could theoretically be that Musharraf himself is involved. In Pakistani politics we can’t rule anything out. But, I have to say, it seems to me that assassinating Bhutto would be a very stupid move: if he’s behind it and the world finds out about it some way or another, Musharraf will lose all the support he had.

As it is, the suicide bomber delivered a horrible blow to the democracy movement in Pakistan. Musharraf and members of the opposition / Bhutto supporters should try to calm things down immediately.  (MVdG)

At Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat is not alone in predicting the cancellation of the elections that are scheduled for next week.

At Digby, DDay says, "I actually write quite a bit about Pakistan, usually with the headline "Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update."  This is why."   The link is definitely worth a read.  Otherwise, DDay says:

[T]he fallout will certainly tend toward autocracy. I don't expect there will be parliamentary elections now, or a return to normalcy with restoring independent media or the judiciary. I just heard a Pakistani professor on NPR say "there are people who support the dictatorship and don't like her, and (Pervez) Musharraf will not be able to escape complicity," and I'm really glad that was said. Let's remember that Musharraf instituted the state of emergency to stop just this type of violence, and lifted it because he thought there was relative safety. Musharraf has a long history of standing by idly while politicians are killed, including at least a few by his own security forces. After the assassination attempt on Bhutto earlier this year, Musharraf claimed that he would take control of the security detail.
 
Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are seen in this country as popular opposition leaders more than in Pakistan, where their corruption problems were well-known. But clearly, somebody perceived her as a threat. And now a real democracy movement may rise to break the dictatorship.There are riots throughout the country and the police is out in force.  This is very bad. (DDay)

At Donklephant, Justin Gardner says:

This attack and death of the opposition might make Musharaff crack down on extremists within his own borders more, but somehow I doubt it. They seem to be doing his bidding now. That’s not to say he wanted this by any stretch of the imagination, but since he has been running the country like he’s a dictator it’s certainly not inconceivable.

Well Pakistan, this is your chance. You can see what people will do to stop a more democratic government from gaining a foothold. Will you let this deter you or will you push towards a more just and fair republic?

Crooks and Liars just says (so far) that "this is a very delicate situation."

At The Swamp, Frank James sees Bhutto's death as a major setback for the Bush Administration, but a welcome development for those who wanted her dead (the extremists who pervade Pakistan and al Quaeda).  The Bush Administration  " pushed to end her exile and have her return to Pakistan in an effort to put Pakistan on the track of elections and democracy." (FJ)   

Now all is uncertain. What's also uncertain is Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's response. Earlier this year he invoked emergency rule for much less.

There's been no official response yet from the Bush Administration. President Bush is at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. for the holidays.

An event this major in a nation that is as vital an ally as Pakistan has been in the war on terror obviously requires a major response from the president....(FJ)

You can watch at PoliGazette a YouTube video of George W. Bush also saying about what you'd expect quite forcefully.

"The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

At The Newshoggers--which I always find insightful on foreign policy issues---Fester considers the probability that al Qaeda was behind the attack as it is apparently claiming.

Let's speculate on the assumption that this claim of responsibility is true --- what would be the motivation? Is it a simple defensive move against a prominent politician and leader who has made strong anti-Al-Queada statements? Or is there something else that could be going on?

If it is not only a defensive move against a probable power broker after the probably postponed/suspended elections, then what else could Al-Quaeda have been seeking? I have two ideas. The first is an audacious attempt, and most likely terminally dumb idea for Al-Quaeda in the Northwest Frontier Province and tribal areas, to force a social systempunkt similiar to the Samarra mosque bombing forced in Iraq where the society fragments along pre-exisiting fault lines and civil war ensues. There are early reports of chaos and disorder already. We'll know more in a couple of days if these riots do not calm down. If this is the goal, then it is a dumb goal from the long run viability view of Al-Quaeda as it gives the state legitimacy to wage total war , which is its core competency against the group(s). 

The other, and smarter goal if this was an Al-Queada attack may be a civil space shaping operation. If Mushareff continues to crack down against Western aligned, middle class, indepedent political oppositions, then the only source of legitimate opposition is in the religious organizations. Islamists are not that popular in Pakistan but there active, and implicit support would increase if they become the only viable opposition to an unpopular and foreign backed military ruler. It would feed into the Al-Queada meta-narrative against rulers in Islamic nations that are propped up by the United States. 

If you're wondering how the presidential candidates are reacting, CNN will tell you.  Giuliani "was first out of the gate with a statement." (MyDD)   At Talk Left, Jerlyn discusses candidate reactions.  Joe Scarborough on MSNBC seems to have decided that this event will help Giuliani and Clinton (The Carpetbagger Report).     The Carpetbagger Report has kindly transcribed---and passionately queried---Scarborough's remarks:

You know, in the past, uncertainty on the international stage has usually helped Republicans in general elections, but since we’re talking about primary battles, the question is how this event is going to change these contests. On the Republican side, you’ve got the press release from the person who it’s going to help most. There’s no doubt Rudy Giuliani will be helped by this, this terrible situation. And he’ll be helped because, uh, we’ve seen his poll numbers evaporate over the past few weeks and a lot of people have talked about his personal life, but equally damaging to Giuliani’s standing among Republican voters has been the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate has come out and said that Iran is a less dangerous place than we expected; Iraq has been stabilized, for now, by the surge, and that does not help Rudy Giuliani because, as we’ve been saying every morning for the past six months, he’s talking about 9/11, talking about how we need a tough leader to face down the threat of terrorism, and that’s exactly what we’ve seen come out of the Giuliani camp this morning.

“Expect to hear that, and expect this to have a positive impact — this terrible, terrible situation — to have a positive political impact on Giuliani’s campaign, because when Americans see these images flash across the screen and understand that this just occurred in the most dangerous country on the planet, that has nuclear weapons, the most unstable planet [sic] that has nuclear weapons, suddenly they understand uh, that it is a dangerous situation. And that helps Giuliani. […]

“The Musharraf. The Musharraf question and the test of leadership for the 2008 election, and that question is, who do you want in the White House when the news comes at 2 a.m. in the morning, that Gen. Musharraf has been assassinated and that al Qaeda may be getting their hands on nuclear weapons? Who is ready? And, of course, Rudy has, what is it, ‘Tested, Ready, Now’? You’re going to be hearing a lot from Rudy Giuliani over the next several weeks about how he is that man.”(The Carpetbagger Report).

I'm thinking that these bloggers might be very mistaken in assuming that the average American even knows who Benazir Bhutto is (or was).  Unless the candidates who believe this event helps their platform can educate them, or unless something happens to make the average voter feel threatened, I'm thinking it might have very little effect (?)

Wonkette pretty much sums up how I feel about the current calculations.

MEMEORANDUM ON THE WAPO ARTICLE IS HERE.

Comments

[fester]

Damozel --- Thanks for the link and very kind words --- everything that I wrote in the linked post is at this point pure speculation, so take it with a mountain of salt.

Fester

[Michael van der Galien]

"Other than that---besides having a go at Bill Richardson---he doesn't say anything that won't have crossed your mind if you have been following the situation. But of course at this stage there isn't a whole lot else anyone can say."

Thanks for the link and... yeah, there really isn't much any one can say right now. We can speculate but I don't see how that's useful for readers.

Good round-up.

[On a Limb with Claudia]

I cried when I saw this. You were right. And it is so very very sad. I suppose there's a martyr now. But her poor children... her poor people... I feel the tears press. There's a photo at MSN of her, her father and Indura Ghandi - all assassinated. How sad.

[damozel. admin.]

As quoted by Michael van der Galien, my note on his piece sounds a bit ill-natured. I didn't intend it to be. I think that other than the obvious, anything at all---as Fester points out---that one can say can only be speculative. (PS. I agree with MvdG about Richardson's bizarre comments.)

It IS very sad, as Claudia says. I'm not surprised though---which is also very sad.

[Charles]

An interesting sidelight, Damozel. The quotes I supplied were in the NYT version on the Truthout site. When I went to the NYT site, they were gone. Scrubbed.

I want to point out something. People accuse Bhutto of being corrupt. (a) She was never convicted of anything, (b) Her accusers were people like Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf, both of whom have also been accused of corruption, and (c) There are different standards for probity in Pakistan that in the US. In the US, it's evidently fine to dispense favors amounting to tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to political donors and business cronies, while using one's position in government to fix the pothole in front of a relative's home is a major crime. In Pakistan, the reverse used to be true, though Musharraf has managed to legalize everything and anything.

I think that the attacks on Bhutto now that she's dead are tasteless, and very likely wrong.

[Charles]

Update: The Bhutto article in its uncut ugliness is still available at the IHT www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/27/asia/27pakistannyt.3.php?page=1

[Charles]

And a final update. I have done a piece titled Who Was Benazir Bhutto?

phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/who-was-benazir-bhutto/