You know the will of the people is always the final say in politics. I don't care how despotic the dictator, in the end, the will of the citizens wins out. Take a look at the fall of the Tsars in Russia: you'd be hard pressed to find a more despotic set of rulers than the Tsars,and yet, the Russian people wanted a duma, and they got it. They were still repressed, but it was a repression they had chosen, a fact that has confounded non-russians ever since. Likewise, I think the recent elections that put in PPP and PML-N in power over parliment will confound westerners. Because the will of the Pakistani people is not the same as the will of western leaders. I don't think they are looking to isolate or depose Musharraf, I think they simply want a rule of law. Pakistan simply wants to go back in business. So, efforts to see this as a referendum or a mandate will fail. I think it was primarily because they want to live in a country where opposition leadrs are not assassinated, and where judges rule courts, politicians run the government, and generals conduct the military. This will for normalcy is Musharraf's brick wall. I think he was counting on his people being able to overcome the will of the people. I think he believes he can break the will of the people, so he can run a Junta that controls over all, because people are too fearful for anything else. I think people are scared in Pakistan, but more than scared, they have a will to be something other than a football between America and Wahabbists. If the PPP fail to recognize that, it will be their doom. If Sharif doesn't recognize that it's not about him, Bhutto, or Musharraf, he'll be in exile, soon. His call to restore the Supreme court is a good idea, but any attempts to depose Musharraf would be bad. Instead, this new not-quite coalition government should do everything they can to restore things to the way their people want it: a secular society where business can flourish.
]]>As I'm sure you've heard, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. I don't know who killed her. But, I'd like for you to remember a few things. First, as always, remember who benefits from her death, and who suffers. Second, remember that people follow certain patterns to try to maximize their benefits. Remembere who she truly was, and remember where we are talking about. For those reasons, and many more, I don't believe that she was a victim of Al Qaeda. The only benefit they could reap from this is if they claimed responsibility swiftly, with some kind of "Martyr's tribute". That's always been their style, as well.
No, this plays out as an old-fashioned political assassination. I think Musharraf is the root of any plot to kill her. He stands the most to gain, and it would explain his motives better than any other scenario. I have been saying over, and over that she played into his hands. Well, I don't need to change my tune.
I also blame the US. How so? We helped the arrangements to bring her to pakistan, and we've been propping up Musharraf. But, then again, for our interests, all we need is a stable Pakistan, not a free Pakistan. Bhutto, didn't represent a free pakistan, but it'll certainly be more stable, shortly, if there's no opposition to Musharraf. That's why there's riots. (Well, that, and Bhutto is revered as a Demi-god by her serfs.) People know what this means, and who meant it.
If the US gets involved, now, the only benefit will be to Al Qaeda, The Taliban, and other warlords.
I won't comment more, because i think it's time to listen to the Pakistani people, but as you do, remember that the world doesn't follow our neat little storyline to explain the world. They don't hate our freedom because we are free; they hate our freedom because it comes at their expenses.
]]>Did anybody else notice that Musharraf is going to Saudi? Any idea as to why?
Ever consider that Sharif is still a player? Consider it. Let's hope that Sharif has a better memory than Bhutto.
How about did you see this article in the NY Times? Cuba has the doctors, and they're not afraid to use 'em. Can you imagine how radically America's image would change in the Middle East if we did something similar?
I guess that's too much to hope for. We even screw up the aid we give...Been to Somalia, lately?
I hear that McCain cannot even get arrested in Iowa. He did something like a month and a half campaigning there, and he's got something like 4% of the vote? I'm a bit disgusted at that. Sure, I can't vote for McCain, ever since he traded in his integrity to polish Bush's war, but still, he's the only republican who repudiates torture, and isn't a total jackass on immigration, and....wait a minute...do you think that might be it? He's actually too moral for the Republicans in Iowa. I sincerely hope not. It would truly upset me to find out that the party of Lincoln had become the party of xenophobia, and war crimes.
I don't believe that's the case. I think the bottom line isn't the republican rank and file: it's the party brass. They're still living in the corpulent shadow of Karl rove, and still think that money, sleaze, and smear tactics are a winning combination against virtue, and integrity.
But, enough about that. Here's a thought for the republicans: become the party of Nixon, if you cannot be better than that. Nixon, when faced with a worse threat, in the form of China, and The USSR didn't start attacking them. He negotiated. He practiced the civilized art of Statecraft. He got treaties secured. Those treaties did more to see the end of the cold war than anything else that was done, including all of Reagan's reign. Reagan was lucky. Nixon actually did the work. I could respect a party that got behind Nixon's foreign policy. I cannot respect a party that's only too eager to fall behind Bush, the Lesser's legacy.
]]>
Ok, I'm not going to say anything more about Pakistan, because I've found this. I think it's better for Pakistanis to have their say than another westerner commenting on the slow-motion tragedy they have going on.
I might have a stray comment or, two, but, really, click the link, and read a few blogs. They might not have newspapers, radio, or TV, but the people will be heard.
]]>This isn't necessarily about Pakistan, but did you check out the Lawyer hucking smoke grenades back at the Soldiers as pictured on the cover of the NY Times, and Washington post, today? Where are the lawyers like that in the US, huh? Here's a guy who's so committed to the constitution and to the law that he's willing to literally fight for it, even if it's against a whole army, and he's armed with nothing more than his suit and tie! He's a good thirty or forty feet away from the throng, and standing tall. You want a hero? There's a hero.
But one more line about Pakistan: in all the other news, did anybody notice that Musharraf claims to now have an accord with Baitullah Mehsud (including an exchange of hostages)? Again, it's obvious: the real deal cut by Musharraf was with Taliban and warlords, so that Musharraf retains power, and the Taliban owns the western third of Pakistan.
Ok, is anybody reading my little observations about Pakistan? Because, if not, my point has been made in spades, so I can shut up now, except little one sentence blurbs. But, if people want to know my take on it, I'll point out, again, how right I am on the topic. That's not a huge brag, because, as far as I can tell, it's been friggin' obvious that this was headed towards martial law, and that Bhutto was getting played by Musharraf. It was right in our faces that there has been a deal cut, but it wasn't the one we know about between Bhutto and Musharraf. The deal was between the Army, Musharraf, the "insurgents" and possibly Condoleezza (though she would've been superfluous, so I don't think so). One more time, consider the particulars; Musharraf is freakin' HATED by his people. It's illegal for him to serve as president or PM. Bhutto is worshipped by about half the people in Pakistan, even though she'd be a dictator, as much as Musharraf, and it's illegal for her to serve just as it would be for him. Sharif, the guy who got shut out of this whole deal is the closest thing to both a legal and liked candidate to be either PM or president, and he is the only one of the three that hasn't played ball with the Taliban, either with or without the ISI (Pakistan's CIA). So, a back-room deal is cut where-by Bhutto will return, Sharif is sent away, Musharraf will get just that modicum of legitimacy needed to get him to this point where he can declare martial law, suspend elections, and continue running the country. Notice how that great defender o' democracy, the esteemed Dubya, isn't saying bupkis about it, as well? So, if you go back, you'll notice what set me off on talking about this was a statement or two about invading Pakistan, that Obama made back in August. Can you see now why I thought that was hopelessly naïve? What would be the point? It's pretty clear that Musharraf is all about retaining power, as was Bhutto, except Musharraf fooled her. It's Iraq, only with the added bonuses that 1. the strongman really does have WMD's and we know this, and support it. 2. This guy really does have a reason to like Al Qaeda, probably does have some vestiges of that organization in-country. And 3. we're already publicly in bed with this guy. We go after Al Qaeda, and we have to go after Musharraf. We go after Musharraf, and we open the country up to warlords on a Darfur kind of level.
So, if you ask me, the politically savvy thing to do, here, for the US, is to back off. Quit with the pro-democracy rhetoric, you're fooling no-one. If we wanted to support democracy, we'd be helping the counter-revolutionaries in Iran, and helping Sharif back to Pakistan, and pressuring Turkey to recognize an independent Kurdistan, and partitioning Iraq, and cutting off some of the aid we send to Israel, until they quit killing children, and bulldozing villages, and we'd be sending troops to the Sudan, and Burma, and Indonesia, instead of Iraq. What we want is a stable, pro-USA bloc in the middle East. For that, we could flat out give Musharraf Pakistan, Give India what they want, in the way of nuclear treaties, and promise non-interference to Iran and Turkey as they take Kurdistan apart.
So, the best choice we've got, in my opinion, right now, is to back off. Try to get at Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and placate the American people by saying that we've got them on the run, and reduce the troops in Iraq, even though that'll mean civil war, out in the open. We had an opportunity back in July and August, and we blew it, so now, it's best to let it play out. This will get very, very ugly
Wow. I try to stay informed about Pakistan, and I daresay I do a better job than many Americans, but this bit, I did not know: Benazir Bhutto is somewhat implicated in her brother's death. In 1996, while she was prime Minister, Murtaza Bhutto was gunned down by police outside of his home in Karachi. He was an opponent of hers, that much I knew, and I knew that she blamed the Intelligence agencies, much as she blames them now for the bombing and shooting at her, but I had never heard that she was implicated in calling out the "hit". Now, it may just be malicious gossip, but her accuser is his daughter, Fatima. That's fairly heavy. If Benazir really did, then, that casts a whole new light on her return, now. It would mean the attacks on her would stand a much better chance of being understood. The deal would be something like this:
She forms the ISI (Interservice Intelligence) in order to gain control of the outlying provinces, especially Waziristan. They cannot do this, and so, she commissions them to assist the Taliban in doing it (so far, we're in the 'known" territory) but, then, she moves them into a domestic terror role. I knew she used them for some "black ops", but this would ratchet it up to political assassination. Here's where it gets sticky: at some point she loses control of them, and they become independant operators. Now, if that happened before Murtaza is killed, the reason they're after her now is because she would represent a threat to their authority in the outer provinces. But, if it happened afterwards, like Fatima is alleging, that means they're not exactly out-of-control, but rather, they're trying to protect the country from her. See? Sticky, very very sticky. Any way that you look at it, Benazir is corrupt, and hardly the bastion of democracy she'd have you believe, but the question is how corrupt? All her talk of how suicide bombers are against islam, and how she's going after "terrorists" kinda alters if you really consider her more of a returning warlord than a returning Aristocrat. I always considered her an Aristocrat. But, if she was ordering assassinations? She moves more into the "warlord" camp. If that's true, then Fatima is right that Benazir is "...the most dangerous thing to happen to (Pakistan).
]]>See, this is what kind of mess we're in....
Musharraf has assumed command. Funny, but it's going just like I thought: the deal with Bhutto seems primarily to be a deal with the Taliban. Don't believe me? Read the reports: you've got troops being moved into Waziristan, but then, being ordered not to attack, meanwhile, Musharraf is talking about "negotiations" while the tribal leaders are saying "We'd like to negotiate, where's musharraf?" and key people (all non-Taliban, natch) are dying. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless Musharraf has a deal through Bhutto with the Taliban.
Strangely, you'll note that neither America nor India is complaining.
Meanwhile, you've got Turkey sorting out Sorties against Kurdistan, and the US congress declaring that Turkey's responsible for genocide....fifty years ago. Meanwhile, Iran is defending against Kurd attacks in Iran, and we're declaring the Republican Gaurd a terrorist organization.
Starting to see the deck of cards for what it is?
This might help: if we support the Kurds, we'll lose Iran, and Turkey. If we lose Turkey, we lose our main supply route in Iraq. if we lose Iran, we're set up for them to get into a war with both us, and Iraq. If that war happens, It's very likely it'll become a multi-national battle, stretching from Turkey to India. If we give up the Kurds, they'll be overtaken by the Turks and Persian, most likely to be oppressed and their resources taken. But, the southern part of Iraq will be peaceful, but Afghanistan to Pakistan might just turn on us.
In other words, we're looking at conflict any way we turn. This is why it's called a quagmire, folks.
The ONLY route I could see, from the beginning was to side with Moderate muslims, from the Students in Iran to Sharif in pakistan to the turks. This would still mean turning our heads to some truly obscene violations of human rights (the Kurds are pretty much screwed) but it might just keep us from destroying ourselves over there.
It just baffles me how anyone thinks we're going to get out of this with any less damage than that.....
]]>