Making Sense of Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination
December 27, 2007
Today’s appalling news of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was quite a blow. I’ve been following the news on and off all day through my RSS reader, my Twitter Feed and through conversations with friends abroad.
Let’s get one thing straight: Bhutto was no angel. By many accounts, she was one of the most corrupt leaders ever to rule a South Asian nation. In the National Review’s excellent symposium on the topic, Mansoor Ijaz wrote:
She was a terribly conflicted person who deep in her heart wanted to save Pakistan from its evils, but was unable to put her personal lifestyle choices aside in doing so. And she — God Bless her — married the wrong man.
But despite her personal foibles, her renewed role in Pakistan’s leadership would have been a boon to the interests of the United States and our allies. She was openly pro-Westernization. She promised to allow American troops to look for Bin Laden and his cohorts throughout Pakistan and vowed to combat nuclear proliferation.
When it comes down to it, I think Andrew Sullivan has the best analysis:
Al Qaeda is taking responsibility and they have every reason to hate her, but a little skepticism is always in order, when it comes to their pronouncements. The assassin was a suicide bomber, but he shot her first, and shot her in the neck. If you were part of the military or ISI, it would be in your interest to shoot Bhutto to ensure she was killed and then blow yourself up both to associate the murder with Jihadists outside the military and to destroy the evidence.
Until we know more, it seems to me that al Qaeda’s responsibility is actually the more optimistic scenario. If Islamists within the military or ISI did this, then we have the possibility that this is the beginning of something more ominous than the surface event. The collapse of Pakistan into a Jihadist nuclear power is the great nightmare. Here’s hoping that however grim this news, the worst isn’t yet to come.
Here are some other excellent resources and background on the subject:
Andrew Sullivan has a very good point. She was not given the security she requested for, and now she is killed. At least after the first attack, they should have given her the best security possible.
the Washington Post’s Parade section had a cover article of her entitled “I Am What Terrorists Most Fear”-Is Benazir Bhutto America’s Best Hope Against Al-Qaeda?
In the interview, Bhutto mentioned her hopes of reelection on Tuesday. Her advisor Talat Masood, a retired general. foresees the country breaking in half as Pakistanis are forced to choose between the military and the terrorists, if democracy under President Bhutto doesn’t work out. Despite her ambition and corruption, the Post explained that it would be great for America if she were the one in charge of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and keeping an eye on the border to Afghanistan. They went on to say that as a controversial female leader attempting to move the Middle East toward the moderate, she was a prime target for both terrorists and the government in place. Many attempts had been made on her life already.
Their timing was freaky to say the least.
And how much notice does a newspaper need to write a disclaimer at least?