Jonas v Fisk: Diverging Views on Bhutto's Death

Did you know that Musharraf's declaration of martial law saved Bhutto's life and that the rounding up of lawyers and human rights activists was the right thing to do? That's what the National Post's George Jonas thinks.

The White House has clout, so Bhutto returned in a triumphal procession to Karachi in November. As anyone could have predicted, Islamist extremists pounced almost immediately, raining fire on Bhutto’s parade, killing and maiming hundreds. They were getting ready to kill and maim thousands more, when Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, deployed troops and locked up hordes of lawyers and journalists, claiming it was necessary to prevent a takeover by the militants of Islam.

Locking up journalists and lawyers comes naturally to strongman, but Musharraf’s concern about militants wasn’t unwarranted. At present, a democratic Pakistan is likely to be a brief prelude to the long, dark night of a Taliban-style tyranny. Bhutto, as it turned out, lived only as long as Musharraf’s emergency measures lasted. When he lifted them under renewed American pressure, she died.

The Independent's Robert Fisk commented today on the "childish coverage" of Bhutto's death and Jonas' simplistic screed is a prime example of that reality.

Not only does Jonas let Mush off the hook, he then goes on to blame liberals for this push towards democracy in other countries. I guess he's never read the neocon PNAC credo.

Pressuring Pakistan to act out America’s fascination with democracy is minimally naïve. So is forcing Musharraf, who perches precariously at the edge of a precipice, to audition for a speaking part in a psychodrama called “elections” that Western liberals believe is therapeutically efficacious against every conceivable malady in the body politic.

I didn't know George W Bush, the mouthpiece for the west's democracy crusade was a "Western liberal". Did you?

Jonas seems convinced that countries over there just aren't suited to a democratic style of government - that they're 'allergic' to it, as his metaphor goes. He's right only up to a point: democracy isn't a system that should be forced on any country, which you'd think the American empire would have learned by know. It does not then logically follow that countries that are currently undemocratic can't ever find a way to make the system work for them. "Childish coverage", indeed.

Stick to Fisk if you want a realistic view of what's going on in the world and in Pakistan at this moment. When it comes to who's really responsible for Bhutto's death, no matter which theory is used to explain it, Fisk nails it:

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a "murderer" were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

According to Jonas, if only Musharraf had kept Bhutto under house arrest in a state of martial law, she'd still be alive today. Only a fool would make Musharraf out to be a hero in this situation.
 

Bhutto's Assassination: The US Political Sideshow

If there's one phrase that exemplifies US politics, it is this: crass opportunism.

While Bhutto's body wasn't even cold on Thursday, presidential candidates from both of the major parties stood over her corpse like vultures ready to feast on the recent kill; birds of prey who would use the reality of her death to pump up their own foreign policy credentials (as if they all actually have any) while making the case against their opponents whom they tried to push aside as they craved more blood and glory.

Crass opportunism at its absolute worst.

Need some examples?

Here's one - after predictably working 9/11 into his commentary on the news of Bhutto's assassination in the immediate aftermath earlier in the day, Giuliani (no doubt corrected by his handlers - certainly not by his conscience) had this to say on Larry King Live while Blitzer was filling in as the guest host.

We'll start off with this tidbit of cluelessness:

BLITZER: ...I want to bring in the Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani right now. He's the former mayor of New York.

Did you ever meet her, by the way, mayor, Benazir Bhutto, over the years?

RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't believe so, Wolf. I know quite a bit about her, but I don't believe I've met her.

Either you met her or you didn't, Rudy. Yes or no. Sheesh.

BLITZER: John McCain was trying to make the point that you need a president of the United States with extensive national security and foreign policy experience. He said today: "My theme has been, throughout this campaign, that I am the one with the experience, the knowledge and the judgment. So perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials, to make people understand that I've been to Pakistan, I know Musharraf, can pick up the phone and call him. I know Benazir Bhutto.

What do you say to that argument he's now making that the American people should trust him...

GIULIANI: (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: ...to deal with national security?

GIULIANI: I would say that each of us has our own different kinds of experience. I've had foreign policy experience negotiating with governments when I was in the Justice Department. I was mayor of a city that required a significant amount of crisis management and problem solving, where foreign policy issues are something you had to be familiar with. And then over the last five or six years, I've been on 90 plus foreign trips in 34 or 35 different countries. So I believe I have a full range of experience.

But I don't think tonight is the night to be making a political point on my behalf or somebody else's behalf. Tonight is the night to offer our sympathy and support to the people of Pakistan, to the Bhutto family and to work internally in a very, very careful and measured way -- without a lot of political arguments being made on the outside -- to make sure that we help to achieve stability in Pakistan, get them back to that as quickly as possible, and then get them on a track to democracy, again, as quickly as we can, consistent with a stable Pakistan.

I think that, you know, getting it involved in a presidential campaign obviously -- it's -- questions should be asked about it, but you don't want to make too much of a political point out of this. This is a national security issue for them and it has implications for us, as well, since there's this challenge of Islamic terrorism that has us all kind of united here in understanding that we have to deal with it.

See how he snuck in his foreign policy experience along with a vague reference to 9/11 and then made the point that it shouldn't be the issue while her body is still warm, going on to highlight how it actually is an issue?

Crass opportunism.

And he certainly wasn't the only one. Both CNN and MSNBC were quick on the draw within hours of the news of the assassination to present coverage of the presidential candidates' reactions: Hillary's memories of her personal relationship with Bhutto, Obama's dry statement of standard condolences, Biden appearing on both channels saying 'I told you so' since he has been in the forefront pushing for tougher action on Musharraf.

Check out this headline (more crass opportunism) from the Washington Post: 'Clinton, Obama Seize on Killing'.

As if the Republicans acted any differently. Romney used the standard talking point with a mistake and a condemnation of guilt that he then immediately rescinded. Via MSNBC:

"This points out again the extraordinary reality of global violent radical jihadism. We don't know who is responsible for this attack but there is no question that the violence we see throughout the world is violence which is not limited to Iran, excuse me, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- but is more global in nature."

Iran? Whoops. Wrong warmongering point there, Mitt. Note how he blames it on GVRJ (global violent radical jihadism) and then admits he has no idea who killed her. That doesn't seem to matter though. Despite the fact that Musharraf had a lot to gain from Bhutto's death as well (and Bhutto held him responsible, regardless of who actually pulled the trigger*), it's the bogeyman "jihadists" who were immediately judged guilty as soon as the news was announced. The FBI and so-called Homeland Security Department were quick to say they received a claim of responsibility from al Qaeda - a very unreliable one though, but who cares, really? Right? And, of course, the thread running through all of the candidates' reactions was the supposition that only the US can save the world - once again.

Well let's get real here:

1. Bush has backed Musharraf to the tune of billions of dollars since 9/11 after which Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if Mush didn't cooperate in the GWOT. And how has that worked out? Hint: He signed an agreement with the insurgents in Waziristan to take the pressure off of them so they could keep supplying fresh bodies for the Afghanistan war.

2. Bush and all of his preciously tough Republicans dropped the ball on Afghanistan after they dropped tons of bombs there to pursue his misadventure in Iraq. As a result, NATO has been left to clean up the mess. And how has that worked out? Hint: there isn't one week that goes by without NATO begging for more troops while the situation stagnates in the hands of the warlords and the corrupt Afghanistan government. Did I mention the countless number of civilians who have died as a result - not to mention the troops?

3. Bushco then came up with a secret deal with Bhutto to bring her back to Pakistan - setting her up as a sacrificial lamb.

4. Mush 'cooperates' by declaring martial law and rounding up all of the lawyers and human rights activists who he claimed were the real threat to so-called democracy in Pakistan.

Robin Wright in WaPo confirms what those of us who have been following Bhutto's return knew all along:

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.

Condi - worst.US.secretary.of.state.ever. Her faint efforts at 'diplomacy' (in between her shoe-shopping trips and photo ops) have left a trail of murder and mayhem throughout Asia and the Middle East. No doubt, she will be given a Presidential Medal of Freedom for the heckuva job she's done on the neocons' behalf. Her modus operandi has simply been to let them all kill each other so they can sort things out later - somehow - while the US government swoops in for the spoils. That is the American Way™.

Meanwhile, cable news commentators were tripping all over each other on Thursday to proclaim that news of Bhutto's assassination will now make the GWOT the number one issue in the US election again. I doubt it. This event is just another blip on the American news scene that will soon be overshadowed by whatever the networks pick up on next. According to the most recent polls, Americans are more concerned about domestic issues now like the economy and health care and the Iraq war has dropped off as the main bone of contention in the country - mainly because the meme that the so-called surge is working has medicated the maddened masses. Conveniently calmed by the "there hasn't been another 9/11" mantra, terrorism against America has become a miserable memory (unless you're one of the many radical right pants-wetters like Michelle Malkin and her ilk who think Islamic terrorists are behind absolutely every bad thing that happens.)

Through all of the Bush years, it seems the American public has kept as much distance as possible from the fact that its country is involved in 2 major wars - only getting really upset when it seemed that military glory was not to be found in Iraq. There appears to be a limit on the amount of outrage that can be sustained by a people whose country has been completely fucked over by an administration that continually violates the constitution and breaks laws with impunity enabled by a congress - whether Republican or Democratic - that does absolutely nothing to punish the boy king and his dangerous, cunning jesters. That outrage died earlier this year. It shouldn't be allowed to RIP.

It is truly unfortunate that it's taken Bhutto's murder to once again shine a light on the situation in Afghanistan. But you certainly can't take it for granted that the US government will actually do anything about it - not those in power now or those who are running to lead the next government. Both parties are too busy balancing their interests (ie. warmongering lobbyists) with their political ambitions and fortunes. In the meantime, those who might actually provide a different plan of action are considered too 'fringe' to take seriously - the Ron Pauls (not that I'm endorsing his platform) and Dennis Kuciniches of the world. No. Just stick with the status quo. That, as well, is the American Way™.

Pakistan continues to exist in turmoil. Bush-backed Musharraf still rules with impunity. al Quaeda remains protected. bin Laden is a faint memory. More people will die in Afghanistan in an unwinnable war. But hey, why miss an opportunity to tout yourself as the next US superhero who can spread American-style democracy around the world?

Crass opportunism. It might win elections, but it doesn't win any peace - for anyone. It's all a very deadly, staged sideshow and it's not about 'democracy'. It's about power.

Related:

* Musharraf failed to protect me: Bhutto in e-mail

Justin Raimondo: Election '08: The Collapse of the 'Frontrunners'

The Nation: Another Death in Rawalpindi
 

Bhutto Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto, courted by the Bush administration to bring democracy back to Pakistan, was murdered this morning by a gunman who shot her twice and then blew himself up, killing 20 more people.

The Independent reports: "Suspicion for the blast fell on resurgent Islamic militants linked to al Qaida and the Taliban who hated Bhutto for her close ties to the US and her support for the war on terror."

No one has claimed responsibility at this point and the fate of the January elections is now up in the air.

Bhutto's return to Pakistan was not without controversy since she had left the country having been convicted of corruption charges (which were dropped by Musharraf this past October) only to return with the encouragement of Bushco to help deal with Musharraf's failures.

Related:

In September, Bhutto penned a piece that appeared on the Huffington Post site: "Why I'm Returning to Pakistan", selling herself as Pakistan's great hope for the future and ending with "I didn't choose this life. It chose me."

The Guardian offers a chronology of her political life.

Coverage from The Pak Tribune, The BBC and Pakistani Bloggers.

The WaPo has Bush's reaction (text and video).

The initial financial impact: U.S. stocks fall sharply, unsettled by Bhutto death; Dow falls more than 100 points amid thin trading, heightened geopolitical risk while Loonie up after oil rises following Bhutto killing in Pakistan.
 

Musharraf Declares Emergency Rule

In an effort to avoid giving up his military chief status, Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule. Bhutto, whom Britain and the US held up as the next great hope for Pakistan (despite the fact that she left the country embroiled in a corruption scandal a few years back and is waiting to see if those charges will be dropped) was out of the country visiting relatives in Dubai and has apparently flown back. ABC reports that she is "sitting in an airplane at Karachi's airport, waiting to see if she would be arrested or deported".

Musharraf has taken control of the media and phone lines have been cut in Islamabad.

As for the Supreme Court, which was to decide next week if Musharraf had actually been eligible to run in last month's elections while he remained chief of the army:

"Seven Supreme Court judges immediately came out against the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. Police blocked entry to the Supreme Court building and later took the chief justice and other judges away in a convoy, witnesses said.

And does this remind you of anyone?

A copy of the emergency order obtained by The Associated Press justified the declaration on the grounds that "some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive" and "weakening the government's resolve" to fight terrorism.

Sounds like echoes of Bush and Cheney to me. Ironically though, their so-called ally with nukes is now a loose cannon. That's what happens when you take the "unitary executive" theory to its limits - it turns into dictatorship. Fine example they've set, n'est-ce pas? (Although a part of me thinks they're both sitting back drooling secretly over Musharraf grabbing so much power while they still have to put up with a pesky, "obstructionist" congress and Supreme court decisions that they don't like in the US.)

More as this develops...

Related:

Pakistan Tribune coverage.
PakTribune News Wire Service
Pakistan Times
Pakistan Daily Times
Pakistani bloggers

This Pakistani blogger is providing continual updates including news of rumours that Musharraf is under house arrest.

UNCONFIRMED RUMOR: Some sources are now reporting the that Pres. Musharraf is under house arrest and that Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS) General Ashfaq Kayani has taken control of the Army and thereby the country. This would explain why all announcements re: the state of emergency have simply stated that they were by order of the “Chief of Army Staff,” with Pres. Musharraf’s name ommitted. I repeat, this just a rumor. I have other sources who claim to have just spoken with Musharraf refuting the rumor. (Updated 11:15am US EST/8:15pm PST)

The Times of India nails Washington's weak response.

WASHINGTON: Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf's has defied the advice of his American benefactors in imposing martial law and Emergency, but Washington appears set to finesse the situation yet again because of what it sees as the overall US interest in the so-called war on terror.

The first sign that Washington is ready to wink at Musharraf's crackdown came when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stopped short of condemning the development and instead described it as "highly regrettable."

She told CNN that the United States does not support extra-constitutional measures [ha ha, ya right -catnip] and urged restraint on all sides and a "swift return to democracy."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Bush administration was "deeply disturbed" by the developments while offering words of support to the Pakistani people.

"The United States stands with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism," McCormack, who is accompanying Rice on her visit to Turkey, told AP . "We urge all parties to work together to complete the transition to democracy and civilian rule without violence or delay."

But the statements fell well short of the kind of condemnations Washington routinely issues against countries, excepting vassal states, that suppress democratic rights, indicating that the administration was already finessing Musharraf's crackdown.

There was no word from Rice or her underlings about the arrest of the chief justice and his associates or about the crackdown on the media.

read on...

 

9/11 - 6 Years Later

This man - this incompetent, criminal opportunist - is set to speak to Americans again on Thursday. And who would have guessed that, 6 full years after the attacks of 9/11, the topic of his speech would be war with Iraq? Certainly not the neocons who seized on the horrors of 9/11 as an excuse to illegally wage war on that country. They thought it would be a cakewalk. Many of them are now tremendously frustrated that their dreams of pillaging Iraq's oil have not yet been fully realized. "Blood and treasure" was a phrase used throughout the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker the past two days. Why was I reminded of pirates?

And what of the Afghanistan war - the so-called just war waged after the 9/11 attacks? It's been quietly forgotten. When Petraeus was asked how his plans for Iraq might impact the GWOT, he basically said that figuring that out was not his department - that it was his job to focus solely on the Iraq war. He couldn't (or wouldn't) answer how the concentration of American troops might affect the US military's inability to deal with conflicts in the rest of the world and at home. His responses reminded me of the warnings given before and after 9/11 about US intelligence agencies not working together to deal with possible threats. And we all know what the result of that failure was.

Ryan Crocker, acting like a CEO addressing concerned corporate shareholders about their investments in Iraq (and that's really what his testimony was about, wasn't it?) could only parrot Petraeus by admitting he was "frustrated". He spoke with a chilling, distant, business-like indifference about the plight of the actual people - the Iraqis - whose fate is in his hands. No "timelines, dates or guarantees". Nothing.

And neither man could admit that the counter-insurgency strategy that's been implemented has also been practiced (most likely by accident since the official Petraeus manual hadn't been written yet) in Afghanistan - that of working with the locals while not making the much-needed connections to the federal government. The result? War lords back in power. The Taliban continuing its oppression. Karzai crying crocodile tears over all of the civilians NATO and the US military keep killing in air strikes - air power being used because there are not, and never were, enough troops on the ground. Opium once again the number one cash crop driving Afghanistan's economy. But, on this anniversary of 9/11, Iraq was the focus.

Petraeus, claiming he didn't have any sort of political agenda, was basically a two-trick pony: the problems in Iraq are being caused by al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran - convenient targets considering the Bush administration's fearmongering of late. And, as was pointed out to Petraeus, the fact that the Sunnis are rebelling against AQI in al Anbar is not so much about the fact that they've suddenly been won over (in the "hearts and minds" game). The opposition to AQI came about because their people were being raped and slaughtered. The US military seems to have no problem with supporting the Sunnis, especially since they can execute whomever they like without following the rules of war. And while Petraeus heralds this so-called triumph, the political reality of supporting the Sunnis is actually counter-productive to the concept of "national reconciliation" that both Petraeus and Crocker admit has not moved along as expected. Well, what do they expect when neither of them said one thing about the absolutely rampant corruption in al Maliki's government along with his dictatorial actions to shut down any investigations about the wrongdoing?

Shades of Afghanistan once again.

And while Petraeus hopes that touting so-called progress at the micro level is reason enough to convince congress, Americans and the world that the occupation should continue, the Bush administration is placing serious roadblocks to dealing with players in the region, like Iran and Syria, at the macro level - using threats, intimidation and sanctions as a macho form of cowboy diplomacy. How has that worked out so far?

Meanwhile, Karzai is once again trying to negotiate with the Taliban while they refuse to do so with foreign troops in the country and Musharraf pulled out of attending an Afghanistan peace conference in August. As a result of Musharraf's continual inability or reluctance to deal with insurgents in Waziristan, the US government is now placing its hopes in the return of the corrupt Benazir Bhutto. (The NYT has more on Pakistan's current political situation.)

On all of these fronts, there is no coherent and comprehensive policy except the continued push by the White House to assert its executive powers (made up as they go along while shredding the constitution in the process) against the American people.

“Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.”

-James Harvey Robinson, Amercian historian (1863-1936)

The dangerous fawning of the Republicans who place their party and president before their country is still on display this week, despite the mountains of evidence that have proven that the choice to invade Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that execution of that and the Afghanistan war are massive failures. And they, along with corporatist Democrats who believe they owe their fealty to members of the military industrial complex - including lobbyists for foreign governments like Israel which is now under an even greater threat as a result of the regional destabilization - have sold out their constituents; doomed them to more funerals and the human and financial costs of dealing with the wounded coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan while still creating a hell overseas that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly imagine. Token visits to safe areas like the green zone or tours outside those boundaries under extremely heavy guard do not provide them with an adequate sense of reality. They'd do well to spend time with some of the 2 million refugees, within and outside of Iraq, to really understand exactly what they have wrought. Maybe then they wouldn't keep fiddling while Baghdad and Helmund province in Afghanistan burn as a result of their rash decisions.

So, on this day while America and the world once again mourns for those killed on 9/11, who is mourning for the hundreds of thousands who have died due to the need for revenge that followed that day 6 years ago?

And the question that once again hangs in the air is simple: Was it all worth it?

And who has been held accountable? Keith Olbermann offers "No truth, no consequences":


Where is the mass rebellion?

Update: The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

And so it begins...