Yet another charlie-foxtrot of our (partial) construction.

Ahh, the reduction of Tora Bora! What would have been! What could have ben.

Thanks W!

Because this happened in Rawalpindi, which is essentially a garrison city, suspicion will fall heavily on the military as having been involved, perhaps by LIHOP (letting it happen on purpose). It would be very difficult for Islamist militants to pull this off in Rawalpindi without help from the authorities.

If they really did get past security, that's still a major embarassment for the military and for Musharaf. It's no surprise that PPP supporters are already blaming Musharaf, and I'm quite sure they will continue to blame him. I don't see any possible result in the short term but renewed martial law. Elections? Give me a break.

Don't forget this is the second attempt. The first time, Benazir Bhutto blamed dark forces in the Military. Why say 'Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda'? She didn't!

So much for the commentators who assured me that Pakistan was so stable after Obama made his inflamatory comments about going into Pakistan if Musharraf did not do our bidding. Obama defended by saying -- correctly -- that he was just explaining openly to the American people what everyone else knew was the policy and which many had said more tactfully without the open affront to Pakistan's sovereignity. What I don't get is why Frank Rich now thinks that Obama's blunder was the start of a 'brilliant' new policy.

The one thing that is reasonably certain is that the minutia of domestic US politics had little, if anything, to do with this.

Musharref is able to protect himself from this sort of thing, and certainly there is no shortage of radicals who want him dead. So the most charitable interpretation is that, following a previous attempt on Bhutto's life, the military tacitly allowed this 2nd attempt to succeed.

On September 11 and again today (as well as several times in between) the immediate thought which occurs is that a political system in this country in which the executive and his (or her) government is selected on the basis of who projects the best, who is the nicest person, whose "ground game" is most effective during the primaries, and whose commercials are most effective results in a government that is obsessed with elections and re-elections, the only thing they can do, and not in effectively managing the resources they have and meeting their responsibilities to the country.

On September 11, then, the President was doing what presidents do: he was doing a photo op to support a re-election campaign three years away. When told that the country was under threat he did nothing because that is not what presidents do anymore.

Today, he is in Crawford, Texas. He may, or may not, make an appearance, but it is of no moment. His administration has no real policy in Pakistan other than to hope that some general is in charge so that people who might want to use it, do not get their hands on the nuclear weapons at the Pakistani government's disposal. If they "supported" Benazir Bhuto to share power it was based on nothing but the hope that such an agreement would dampen the efforts by people who want to kill us to get the means to do so.

This is not a policy. Hoping for the best is something I can do as a private citizen. The President of the United States has many more tools and far more responsibility than do I but chooses instead to clear brush. I do not begrudge a person his vacation, especially at this time of year, but if he can interrupt his vacation to interfere with the Schiavo family's travails, he can return to Washington and summon the national security council and people of both parties who have thought about this, to put the United States on a course that will better insure against Pakistan's disintegration.

I do not have the answer. If I did, I would ask to be part of this process. But there are people who know the area and know what to do. None of them are named George Bush, Dick Cheney or Condoleeza Rice, but they are out there. Do something, Mr. President, and I would be willing to pay someone to clear your brush for you.

When in a pinch and always in the interest of the few instead of the many, the right uses assassination against popular representatives from the left who won't be intimidated -it almost never goes the other way. It's a cowardly and shameful trait inherant to the right wing of any society since time immemorial. At times like this, I might even venture the possability that it's this tendancy for violence on the behalf of the few that defines the right wing at it's most basic level.

mr. wagner,
sounds like you're blaming bhutto for her death. bad benazir, bad.

The US military should take decisive military actions against Al Quaida wherever they are. Period.

It doesn't matter if the US pushes for an election or not. The most important decision to be made right now is by the PPP leadership. Will they contest the election (assuming it's not postponed)? With votes set to be cast in less than two weeks, they've just lost their leader, and there is no clear successor who's anywhere near as popular. She was polling very well and was almost certainly going to be prime minister. At this point, if the PPP decides to boycott the election, then you'd have Pakistan's two largest political parties, the PPP and the PML-N, on the sidelines. If the elections went ahead, they would not be legitimate.

As for suspicision falling on the military because Rawalpindi is a garrison city, there have been several suicide bombings in that city before today's, including some that have claimed the lives of military personnel. So, while I wouldn't discount the military's involvement, I don't think the fact that it occurred in Rawalpindi implicates any particular person or institution.

Financially corrupt as she was, Benazir's assassination is a tragedy.

We should learn: unless a politician has a strong, popular, local base, s/he cannot return from exile to transform a society. The day is gone when educating local elites in Western universities will allow them to become leaders. Instead, the "revolt against the West" (Barraclough) means this is a stigma against them.

And, obviously, the US cannot end terrorism and anti-Americanism by dropping bombs and kicking in doors with armed troops, that is self-evident.

Instead, we should be thinking long-term.

E.g., just one example: heavily fund 1,000 Western professors to teach in universities throughout troubled areas. Pay them well, recruit some of the best. It'll have far deeper impact than bringing students here. To often, they want to stay and enjoy the Western lifestyle (or rely on the US military/CIA to knock off their opponents and put them in power), rather than returning home and doing the hard work themselves of building a political base and working within their system.

Barth, thank you for your post. I'd love to chip in with you to pay someone to clear that damnable brush. Hope is not a policy, you are so right.

Has the stage been set to send U.S. troops into Pakistan?

Hassan Chop -- It's one thing to attempt (most were unsuccessful) suicide bombings against general targets of no particular importance, it's quite another to assassinate the former PM and leader of the main opposition party during a campaign event. Obviously security ought to be extremely tight at the latter event. I don't think there is any question that if this was not a case of LIHOP, it was a case of truly frightening incompetence. The perpetrator(s) had firearms as well as a bomb. There's no way anybody should have gotten that close to Bhutto.

I venture to say there's scarcely a person in Pakistan who doesn't think the military was complicit. Certainly that's what Sharif is now implying, and Bhutto's top lieutenant has said so quite explicitly.

who benefits?

Musharaff.

The military dictator who dissolved the supreme court and seized power the month before. The same guy protecting Osama Bin Laden.

hmbnancy wrote on December 27, 2007 2:40 PM:

Has the stage been set to send U.S. troops into Pakistan?

----------------------------------------
Good question but we are talking about a part of the world where anything involving US forces would just raise more questions. Local fundamentalists would just say that the assassination was all a ruse by Musharaff and Bush working together to give US forces a larger footprint in the area, rightly or wrongly. We are talking about a region that seems to run on conspiracy theories. Any US action would have to covert only, with no visible footprint at all.

We will probably never know until maybe years in the future. Hopeful people propose so that filth can dispose. An assassination is easy to do. Just find a dumb patsy.

So, it now seems like she was killed by shrapnel and the bullets never hit her at all. At least that's the word from the interior minister of Pakistan.