“Long live Bhutto.” Those were former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s last words before being shot twice and absorbing a suicide bomber’s blast, crushing her skull against the roof of her car. As I write this, Bhutto’s body is being carried above the heads of hundreds of screaming men, many falling to their knees in emotional agony.
Benazir Bhutto, who had returned to Pakistan in order to challenge the dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf, was traveling from a rally when her days as a mortal were over, and her days as a martyr began. Despite Bhutto’s claims that no true Muslim could kill her because of her female status, it was those who profess to be true believers (extremists), who made the final judgment.
This leaves Pakistan, a nuclear power, in a tailspin. And it is still unknown if the country will recover. Many questions now arise. Who exactly is behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto? What is the intent of the assassin(s)? What is the future of Pakistan? What should be the policy of the United States? (Ron Paul fanatics can ignore the last question.)
After watching the explosion, which ultimately led to her death, my first instinct was to go online and see who Americans and media outlets believed was to blame. They can be categorized in a predictable manner: Bloggers blamed Bush, major newspapers and news magazines placed blame on Bush and Musharraf, and CNN blamed Musharraf. This was interesting. All of these people and mediums (with the exception of maybe the bloggers) know that President Bush’s administration was not involved in the assassination, as they helped Bhutto return to Pakistan. For some, this logic was never applied. Instead, Bush was to blame because he did not provide American military security, or he gave too much/not enough aid, or he supported a dictator. These distractions are nothing more than fabricated diversions from the true transgressor, Islamic extremists.
I will concede that there is plenty of blame to go around. Musharraf should have known that the death of Benazir Bhutto is his worst nightmare, as he now stands to not only be remembered in history as a loser dictator, but also as the man who couldn’t keep a nuclear country stable. Bhutto herself is to blame as well. I don’t enjoy criticizing someone who can’t respond, but the question must be posed: What was she doing sticking her head through the sunroof of an armored vehicle? She had already lived through one assassination attempt and still felt it necessary to be seen? I suppose we learned our lesson with JFK, and the Pakistanis will learn theirs.
I do believe that al-Qaida, or a group sympathetic to them, was responsible for the death of Benazir Bhutto, as she made it clear she would use all her power to rid the country of terrorists and lawless tribal thugs. Also note the signature move: a suicide bomber.
For Osama bin Laden, the death of Bhutto could be even more significant than the symbolic fall of the twin towers and a hole in the Pentagon. Al-Qaida needs a new battlefield as the surge in Iraq continues to be successful (notice the downplayed media coverage), and Afghanistan forges ahead. Frankly, I don’t know why bin Laden hadn’t targeted Pakistan earlier. This is a country that has the second-largest population of Muslims in the world, who by the way carry with them a culture of anti-Americanism. The government has always been unstable, and oh yeah, they have “the bomb.” If bin Laden is as smart as we think he is he will continue to disrupt elections and finally overthrow the government, making Pakistan the new Afghanistan.
Musharraf needs to hold elections as soon as the Pakistan People’s Party, Bhutto’s party, has offered a new candidate. Considering infant representative governments tend to be personality driven, it is more important to offer a symbolic leader who may not construct policy, but will support the people’s will by virtue of the power of office. Bhutto was effective because Pakistanis could rally around her name – this must be true for the next leader. There is no reason to overzealously hold elections, as the country is already up in arms and an election may only intensify these feelings of animosity. It is advantageous to act once and get it right than to make a mistake and give al-Qaida another opportunity to agitate the populace.
The United States should not have any physical presence in Pakistan, only public encouragement for elections. Unless of course Musharraf is ousted and extremists take over, which is far from happening at this point. We should continue giving aid, perhaps requiring a more stringent record of how the money is spent. While Musharraf is inadequate, leaders who can secure WMDs are hard to come by.
[email protected]