US Interventionism Claims Another Victim
Interventionism can be a nasty business. In the case of Benazir Bhutto, whose return to Pakistani politics was dramatic, polarizing, and suspiciously timed, it ultimately took her life. True, Bhutto played the role of democratic savior and stood to make a significant impact in the upcoming elections, but despite the tragedy of her death, the root of why she returned to Pakistan should not be overlooked.
Benazir Bhutto was an instrument of US interventionism that was playing just a risky a game as President Musharraf has been. The different, of course, is that Musharraf possesses the support of the Armed Forces and Inter Service Intelligence, which, with regards to the reality of the Pakistani political landscape, is immensely significant. There is no question that Bhutto’s distrust of Pakistan’s military establishment was palpable, and given the expedience of her reintroduction to political life, and the entrenchment of the military establishment, one has to seriously wonder what would have occurred had she been successful in unseating the current government given that fact. There is little doubt that the military establishment was well aware of the motives behind Bhutto’s return and, given that, were certainly faced with difficult decisions of their own – even including the possibility of terminating Bhutto to usurp the objectives of those behind her return.
Bhutto’s assassination has plunged Pakistan into a state of chaos, resulting in a decision today by the government to crack down on unrest throughout the country. According to the BBC, 38 people have died in the violence that has erupted since Bhutto’s assassination last Thursday. But beneath such scenes, the wheels of interventionism continue to turn on this side of the globe, with even the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration should intervene in Pakistan to “fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions.” Without Bhutto, US hopes for timely change have been temporarily dashed, but that does not mean that they are out of options. Having alienated Musharraf, they may very well now turn to Nawaz Sharif, who, like any politician in a volatile state, may very likely be open to forming strong ties with foreign interests that are in a position to significantly support his government should he succeed. Then again, given Ms. Bhutto’s fate, he might not.
Ultimately, there should be no confusion regarding the loose employment of the term ‘democracy’ and the reality of what is transpiring in Pakistan. Since 9/11, the use of that term has been bandied about by the United States with regards to those locations that if feels are of significance to its foreign policy objectives. Where the United States is able to enjoy the cooperation of autocratic regimes to facilitate their policy objectives in specific regions they do. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that reality.
Pakistan’s significance is obviously multifaceted. Not only are wilder regions of it home to a variety of militant groups, but it has also been used as a staging ground for Taliban operations since their deposition in 2001, not to mention the fact that the Pashtun belt remains home to millions of refugees, many of which have been used to bolster the Taliban’s numbers.
Then there is the reality that within the military establishment itself there are elements that support those that the United States would see confronted. In fact, the assassination of Bhutto could very well have been undertaken by that very element using militants as proxies. The speed with which the ISI was able to produce evidence that Bhutto’s assassination was undertaken by an al-Qaeda affiliated group is both suspect and, in truth, genius. While it certainly appeared to be far too expediently convenient, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that that convenience plays perfectly into the hands of the very powers that championed Bhutto. Offering up al-Qaeda, in any way, shape, or form, was sure to set off a media firestorm in the Western world, introducing confusion into an already confused situation. Compounding that confusion is also the growing scandal regarding the government’s assertion of how Bhutto died. While her supporters claim that she was shot, a government spokesman has said that she died as a result of her head being slammed against the vehicle she was in as a result of the bomb blast. Adding another layer to the confusion, the militant that the Interior Ministry has claimed was responsible for masterminding the attack has denied any involvement.
If all of that sounds like a contradictory mess then one has to ultimately ask if it’s the product of genuine confusion or manufactured confusion? In situations such as these, genuine confusion certainly does occur, but is usually tempered by the eventuality of informational course corrections. On the other hand, if, in situations such as this, confusion is being manufactured, you’re going to see a continuance in contradictory information being released. The reason for this is to so utterly submerge the event in confusion that answers seem almost impossible to obtain and the public, faced with such overwhelming confusion, will find themselves so mired in it that they will eventually find their focus and scorn diverted.
Diversion, of course, is key to the success of any killing undertaken by the military establishment of any country.
Upon her return to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto exclaimed that she was not afraid of those that sought to stop her democratic vision from becoming a reality. On the day that she returned to Pakistan, her motorcade was attacked, an incident that took the lives of over 130 people. Since that time, her public appearances placed more lives in danger, including her own it should be rightly said, and numerous attempts on her life were also made. Of course, it takes courage to continue in the face of such dangers, but ultimately the reason for doing so has to be seen for what it is. While her death will most certainly make her a martyr of the country’s democratic movement, it should never be forgotten that hers was not a singular campaign aimed solely at delivering true democracy to the people of Pakistan. That, in the end, it came with conditions that were to the benefit of foreign interests, just as much as to the satisfaction of her own ego given the corruption that plagued her past. Ultimately, perhaps it was her ego that allowed her to overlook the inherit dangers of becoming the democratic proxy of foreign interests. And though it might seem a harsh thing to say, that decision may very well have been what killed her.
As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
we’re living in one big tragedy. a very confusing, misunderstood, unexplainable, tragedy.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Has anyone heard about Bhutto’s email blaming Musharraf for her death, if her death occured?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I was a medic in the military and she very well could have died from blunt force trauma to her skull, in which it would have given her internal bleeding, and the gun shot wound that has been reported, to her neck, could very well have not been fatal-although I doubt that highly- that blast from the explosion would have to have been extremely strong. But I have my issues, as to her autposy..that being:
In Islam you are to be buried within 24 hours of death-but in this circumstance, how could they have performed a complete and correct autposy within in that time.. We have some of the most skilled doctors in North America and it would have taken a bit longer to determine exact cause of death, imo.
But I really think that she knew she would be killed and accepted that outcome. In the eyes of many she is now a martyr..and martyrdom has its upside, I guess.
Matt, I am curious to your opinion to the upcoming election. Do you think that they should postpone it so that the PPP can put forth a new nominee, in the face of her assassination?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Matt:
“As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers.”
Yes!
I was kind of suspicious when all of a sudden the news was talking about the danger of insurgents getting their hands on Pakistan’s nukes, but then I remembered this, and found it convenient that the US is all of a sudden gravely concerned about the safety of the Pakistani nukes.
weiiirrrrdddd…
December 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[quote comment="36740"]Matt, I am curious to your opinion to the upcoming election. Do you think that they should postpone it so that the PPP can put forth a new nominee, in the face of her assassination?[/quote]
I realize that I am not Matt, however I have been in touch with some people in Karachi, and there is talk of them postponing the elections for that very reason. This has me very concerned in light of the fact that the current favourite is Asif Zadari (Bhutto’s husband). There’s also the younger sister Sanam, but she lives in London and has had very little to do with politics. However, its the Bhutto name that means something. Its like “Kennedy”. At any rate, I am quite concerned about the prospect of AZ becoming the new leader of the PPP. Anyone who was in Pakistan at the time of Bhutto’s terms as Prime Minister knows the kind of person Asif is (and though I do not know him personally, I know a few people who do, or did at one point), and the man is without integrity. God help us if he becomes the new leader of that group. The problem with postponing the elections is that they will only be stalled for a short while, which puts the pressure on the PPP to find someone, and find someone fast. That means that its unlikely that they will find someone appropriate.
My second comment specifically relates to US interventionism and the nukes. The current unrest in Pakistan isn’t just going to go away. This kind of violent tension is just the kind of conflict that would lead NATO and the US to insist on bringing in foreign troops to secure the NWFP area and the nukes. If that is the case, then the rest of the country will be up in arms at such blatant western interference. Which will only make the situation there more volatile. I know this is a pessimistic stance, but I think that Bhutto’s reemergence into politics was just the beginning and her death doesn’t change the US government’s desire to control the Pakistani arsenal, it just means they will have to find another way.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Xarcadia- no thank you. Your vioce is respected ( well at least to me! ) I did some reading after your post on her death and found, just be reading articles alone on him, that alot of people have little to no respect for him at all. He does she *shady* and I think that he would be a horriable person to represent the PPP. But I am not over there.. I had the same issues with Ahmad Karzai. He appears to be a puppet for the US, but thats my opinion.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
ack.. I meant to type Hamid.. I need coffee
December 30th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Matt - do you think the attack on the motorcade in October was staged by Bhutto herself?
December 30th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Im not Matt ( to echo Xarcadia ) but I read that some have thought that she did have that planned. I believe that I read that on MSNBC site. But imo, which I am sure is not as awesome as Matt’s, I dont think that she would.. but who knows anymore?! With all the stuff that I have been reading it would not suprise me one bit. If the PPP is allowed to bring a canidate forth that is intellectual and can hold the peoples passion-regardless of qualifications ( as it is they have nominated Benazir’s 19 yr old son as chairman of the PPP), well I am sure that they will win the election.. It might be a bit premature on my part to say so, but they will have the “sympathy” vote and that can have so much weight in the Mid East.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:09 am
[quote comment="36740"]In Islam you are to be buried within 24 hours of death[/quote]
Isn’t that contrary to the idea that a person could still be alive and should be given time to wake? I don’t know, I’m not the field medic, I’m just making an observation.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Proxy. A wake is a western tradition. In Islam we don’t tend to have wakes. Plus it is tradition to bury individuals without a coffin, and just a shroud. So if they were alive when they went in, they probably wouldn’t be much longer. These days they do tend to have coffins though, and I am not sure how that plays out in the whole idea of someone waking up. I imagine these days that sort of thing doesn’t happen very often.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 am
[quote comment="36753"][quote comment="36740"]In Islam you are to be buried within 24 hours of death[/quote]
Isn’t that contrary to the idea that a person could still be alive and should be given time to wake? I don’t know, I’m not the field medic, I’m just making an observation.[/quote]
Well there are sure signs of death. No pulse, no breath, flat ekg etc..these are things that are checked before you are buried or even prepared for burial. Even in remote villages where there is no machinary that could be used, you can still check for pulse and breath..etc.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:28 am
hopeforchange: my response is completely off topic. But They could have checked for pulses back in the middle ages too, but people often buried alive. There are certain conditions where your heart becomes virtually silent as does your pulse and breath indiscernible. Thats why they had to come up with all sorts of inventions for the non-deceased to let the saxon know that they were still alive if they were accidentally buried. Sorry for the off topic post.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:03 am
And as Xarcadia said, a “wake” is a western tradition and was used for the purposes of a misdiagnosis of death. That was why they had a open coffin laid out in the parlour of their homes. That was the intention of a homes parlour, if I am correct. In the Islamic countries wakes are not held, but here are the steps to a proper Muslim burial:
mmediately after death:
The body must be kept covered at all times.
Only people of the same sex should touch the body if at all possible.
The attendants should wash only excess blood, ooze or excrement from the body. There is a ritual washing of the body performed by same-sex Muslims as soon as possible.
As Muslims believe that there is still “an awareness” after death, post-mortems are disliked and if they are necessary cause great anxiety for the family.
Burial:
Muslims are always buried and never cremated.
This should take place within 24hours. The body is placed in a deep grave, facing Makkah. Coffins are not always used and the body, which has been placed in a shroud, is put directly into the ground.
Muslims believe in Heaven & Hell, and that the soul lies in the grave till Judgement Day.
December 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
[quote comment="36756"]hopeforchange: my response is completely off topic. But They could have checked for pulses back in the middle ages too, but people often buried alive. There are certain conditions where your heart becomes virtually silent as does your pulse and breath indiscernible. Thats why they had to come up with all sorts of inventions for the non-deceased to let the saxon know that they were still alive if they were accidentally buried. Sorry for the off topic post.[/quote]
So off topic and sorry guys!
You are correct, but they didnt have the knowledge to check for a pulse correctly, this was taught in our field classes) pulses skip ( as mine does ) and can be hard to detect.. but lack of breath and a body expelling itself is a sign of death or near death…and those are signs that they also looked to and for. As I said some pulses are hard to detect, in cases of people who are over weight or have a weak pulse etc..
December 31st, 2007 at 12:51 am
I don’t claim to have an understanding of the current events in Pakistan, nor should anyone not directly involved. What I do believe is that Pakistan is on the fence post, the neutral party being pulled by both arms by the western and muslim ideologies. Although the developement of a true democracy in Pakistan is important, I don’t beleive that it is the paramount concern. The main concern at this time is an ostracized Musharraf turning to other anti-west establishments (such as Iran) for support, either offically or worse… unoffically. Pakistan is not an Afghanistan or an Iraq. Pakistan is an established nuclear power with the means and (unfortunately) the will to use nuclear weapons if they see it fit to destroy its enemies. The west can not afford to loose this ally or at least this neutral party to the extremist world. Diplomacy and patience is the only thing that can be done to prevent further tragedy.
I consider myself an atheist, but the only thing I find myself doing is praying that this does not become this centuries Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:38 am
Keep you friends close and your enemies even closer !
December 31st, 2007 at 7:05 am
last two comments: what up?
uncertain: are you insinuating that Musharraf will use nuclear weapons against western nations that don’t tread lightly with them? Would you consider that Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif are all puppets to an American policy? That is Musharraf has outlived his usefulness; Bhutto bucked her backers; and Sharif is the latest flavour of the month?
Several of the Presidential candidates have made Pakistan part of their recent campaign platforms - what’s in it for the future President?
Kevin: do you consider Pakistan an enemy or an ally?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
uncertainfuture - “Pakistan is an established nuclear power with the means and (unfortunately) the will to use nuclear weapons if they see it fit to destroy its enemies.” -
Ummmmm, only one country has shown the will to use nukes against another country, and it wasn’t Pakistan.