Iraq, another reason to hire me after graduation

So I'm really not paying that much attention to the '08 election. At least not as much as other people think I am. Its more out of cynicism than actual ambivalence. My area of expertise (ha ha, expertise. that's funny) is in foreign policy, and I don't think the next American president is going to change it very much. American foreign policy since the Cold War has remained fairly static, even as the sphere in which it operates has changed dramatically. Military aid is given strategic countries no matter what regime is in power, democratic appearances are more important than practice for our allies, etc. Some things will definitely change because there is intense pressure to do so. Namely, the war in Iraq.

I will be voting for Obama in the coming election. I didn't vote for him in the primaries because my registration is for Florida and therefore not counted, so I just didn't vote. However, I don't like what he's saying about the US role in Iraq. This excerpt was taken from a BBC article, where I get most of my news. Because I usually like my news to not be ridiculous.

'In his speech at the International Trade Center in Washington, Mr Obama said: "This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century."

Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia Excerpt from Barack Obama speech Read the speech in full [48KB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here

He said the conflict in Iraq must be brought to an end as "the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was".

Mr Obama said that as president he would take the US in a new direction, and a priority would be to finish the fight against the Taleban and al-Qaeda, which has an expanding base in Pakistan.

He said the troop surge policy had actually hurt America's overall strategic interests, by diverting resources away from Afghanistan, just as the situation there was deteriorating.

Mr Obama said a withdrawal from Iraq would allow a much-needed redeployment of troops.

He said sustained co-operation was needed between Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nato to root out al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said.'

Yes, I do think the War on Terror had nearly no gains in invading Iraq, but guess what...it does now. al Qaeda's presence to date is minimal and not really welcomed but an unstable Iraq has obvious consequences for American security. If Iraq fails, again, the blow back would be even worse. There are many many different attitudes towards the invasion going around in Iraq and there is no reason to suppose that the "Americans did us a favor and we're better off" view will be the one to survive. Leaving Iraq entirely will leave many grievances unheard and untended to and the area will be ripe for conflict again and again. We cannot afford to leave Iraq nor Afghanistan without better efforts at reconstruction.

So yeah, another reason why I should be gainfully employed once I get my master's. I'mma rebuild me some nations. Yay Peacebuilding!

Allies or Victims?

I was just reading this article in Newsweek about a little town in Pakistan that is reportedly a place of refuge for terrorists given that is so close to the Afghanistan border. American troops are already in the region taking out as many terrorists they can find.

I may be just a damned Civvie, as Colonel Tigh would say, but I think there are some inefficient methods going on. Approximately 100 people have been killed by American soldiers since 2006, and the inhabitants say that many of them were innocent bystanders including children. The soldiers claim they examine their targets very carefully.

"But in practice their definition of a legitimate target includes those who make it possible for militants to thrive. "If people in those communities are truly concerned about their welfare, they should not harbor terrorists, and they should oppose those who do," says one U.S. official."

I'm not saying that our men and women conducting these operations don't care about taking innocent lives, but I do think there is significantly less value attached to the lives of the locals. When it comes to fighting terror and bringing justice to the still living victims of terrorists (that includes the followers they lie to), the targets should be the ones who are committed to violent action. I don't think its fair to include those who feed and clothe them. By all means, subject them to the necessary legal punishments if a case can be proven against, but don't save any bullets for them.

The term "terrorist" over there is not so black and white in the way we think of it over here. We think of people who deliberately want to kill civilians for political gain. We debate over what organizations actually want to do that, but we have a clear understanding of the defining goal. Over in Pakistan, and many other developing democracies, "terrorist" is used very loosely to include opposition of the sitting regimes. Unfortunately, many western governments don't even try to understand such groups and are happy to go along with the terrorist label. Its always nice to tell the public that you've detained and/or killed a bunch of Islamic terrorists, so why spoil it?

The article goes on, and I love it.

"But Pakistan's new civilian leadership complains that the U.S. strikes—and the collateral damage they've caused—are making the job of pacifying the area harder. At ground level, in mountain hamlets like Damadola, things aren't always as clear as they may seem through the viewfinder of a deadly, high-flying drone.

Villagers in Damadola say it's hard to say no to men with guns, especially when many of those men are your neighbors and relatives. It's even tougher in Pakistan's tribal areas, where the Pashtuns' ancient ethical code requires that every visitor be treated hospitably. "Even if a bloodthirsty enemy comes to your door you have to welcome him," says a gray-bearded villager named Bakhti Gul. He can't help adding: "Especially those who are chased by the U.S." His nephew was among the victims of the most recent Predator attack, early on the morning of May 14. The young man had joined the militants, Bakhti Gul admits, but only after an earlier Predator strike on a nearby madrassa had killed more than 80 of his schoolmates.

"Could the villagers of Damadola save themselves by simply not "harboring terrorists," as the Americans say? Mohammed Abdul Mateen, a retired science teacher who left Damadola several years ago but visits frequently, agrees the militants are destroying the place, but says the Hellfire attacks only increase their strength. "Soon the last educated villagers will be gone, leaving an illiterate people in the hands of narrow-minded mullahs," he says. Kids in once quiet Damadola are now terrified by loud noises, which could signal an incoming U.S. spy plane. "The land under our feet is on fire," says shopkeeper Haji Omar Shah. "Where can we run?" Since mid-May, villagers say U.S. choppers and drones have been flying over Damadola regularly, swooping low to the ground. They're sure more trouble is coming."

Oh Newsweek, this almost makes up for your earlier article on Islam. =-)

Srsly, we gotta start talking development

Its Spring Break and what am I doing with my down time? Working on my personal pet projects. I'm from THE spring break destination, Miami, so I don't have a whole lot of motivation to go back for my vacation. Plus, I'm a college student, and I'm too broke to go anywhere for spring break even if I wanted to. On to the blogging it is then!

Last semester, I did a project on poverty and violence, does one cause the other? I answered no, poverty does not cause violence (including terrorism). However, impoverished places provide a feeding ground for the violent. If you are poor, you are not more likely to be a terrorist, but your community is more likely to be plagued by violence because it does not have the structures available to protect it.

This article from Brookings about Weak States does well to note that the strenghtening of states such as Afghanistan and Iraq requires a lot more attention to development than is currently being given or even talked about. Here's my favorite bit highlighting the specific goals that should be kept in mind for strengthening these weak states:

" In its last year, the Bush administration can lay the foundation for a comprehensive strategy to shore up weak states and prevent them from sliding into failure. Important components of such a strategy include:

• Prioritizing poverty alleviation. There is a strong relationship between poverty and state weakness. Poorer countries tend to be weaker ones, in part because they are more vulnerable to conflict. The United States must complement the Millennium Challenge Account's focus on "good performers" with parallel strategies to reduce poverty in the world's most challenging states.

• Targeting performance gaps. The United States should tailor assistance to the specific vulnerabilities of individual states. In failing states, the immediate requirement is to couple increased security with swift economic, political and social progress. In less acutely vulnerable countries, we should target each nation's particular performance gaps.

• Expanding U.S. assistance and leveraging non-aid instruments. The United States should increase overall assistance levels to support a wider cohort of weak states and combine development assistance with democracy support, market access, peacekeeping and security sector reform.

• Strengthening our civilian agencies. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates observed last November, our nation cannot rely on the U.S. military alone to revive fragile and war-torn states. Beyond boots on the ground, we need the wingtips and Birkenstocks of diplomatic and development professionals. Congress should support the administration's request to increase the professional staff at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

• Establishing partnerships. The United States cannot by itself build weak states' capacities. We must join with our allies, international institutions and developing countries to craft and implement effective strategies to address one of this century's most pressing security challenges."

The bit about expanding US assistance and leveraging non-aid instruments I feel is a bit ambiguous. Tying aid to good political behavior can get dangerous, because often times, "good" behavior really means the behavior that best suits the stronger state(s) and not necessarily the people. We can all come up with great examples across the world over the past 50 or 60 years where the US has supported oppressive regimes because they were in our best interest for strategic purposes and economic as well. Pakistan and Iran are my personal favorites.

Pakistan's Elections

Well, my brain is dry. And when I say dry, I mean, its resources are being diverted to non-blogging areas. So the posts may be sparse for a little while, but they'll pick up again soon.

Soooo....Pakistani elections anyone? Yeah, in the office, some people were "betting their life savings" that Musharraf would win. Good thing that person later declared their life savings were nothing. I think that the only reason the PPP won so many seats is due to increased international supervision. If the Americans weren't looking over his shoulder, we'd have seen much different results. I am not hopeful that this is indicative of a better and more democratic order. Actually, I'm more afraid that the international community is just going to groom themselves another puppet who will serve the international community's wants and needs before Pakistan's. That means not labelling everyone who disagrees with you an extremist *cough every government over in that general region cough*.

Whaddya think?

No hearting of the Huckabees

So what to do today? Hmm...How about tear apart a presidential candidate's article for Foreign Affairs magazine? Yes. That sounds like a good idea. Spotlight on: Mike Huckabee.

I have issues with Huckabee outside of his article, America's Priorities In The War on Terror. Like sticking to a very silly promise made to an American comedian that he would be your vice presidential running mate. Stephen Colbert is awesome, and it might have been a little funny early on in the race, but keeping it up so far into it already isn't funny. Its like the guy doesn't take his candidacy very seriously. Anyway...Mr. Huckabee's opinions appear to be all too common in American politics and regular American discourse.

"The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism."

No, the challenge is actually supporting the very present viable moderates who we have chosen not to listen or even report very much on.

"The potential for such moderation to emerge is visible in the way that Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq have turned against al Qaeda to work with us; they could not stand the thought of living under such fundamentalism and brutality."

First of all, working with the Americans doesn't mean you're progressive. Second, there may be some peaceful Sunnis working with us, but there are just many who are working with us because they don't want the historically oppressed majority Shia to gain ground in the new Iraq. Sectarian violence is going both ways, we shouldn't judge which side is better based on who's more willing to work for us. That is a very very common mistake in American foreign policy.

"We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope."

Right about lack of freedom being a breeding ground for terrorism, but not poverty.

"If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms."

Now that's just scary. We shouldn't even be thinking about the next invasion we undertake, because there should not be another invasion period.

"I support providing the Turks with actionable intelligence to go after the PKK with limited air strikes and commando raids but would prefer to train and equip Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK and rid themselves of this menace. I regret that it took the deployment of 100,000 Turkish troops to the border with Iraq, and the PKK problem becoming a crisis, for the Bush administration to give the issue the attention it deserves. We should have put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including the Kurdish authorities, to deal with the PKK earlier. Our special envoy on the issue, retired General Joseph Ralston, quit his post last October out of frustration over the passivity of both the U.S. and the Iraqi governments. Some crises cannot be averted; this one could and should have been."

Does this guy know anything about the Kurds?

Huckabee also goes on to describe how he agrees with Bush's plan to contain Iran and how he wants to continue with it while keeping the military option on the table yet bringing in other options as well so we're not stuck with only the military. I don't agree with this idea of "containing" Iran. Mostly because that's trying to fit a round peg into a Cold War square hole. The best article I've read on this issue is here, I've also blogged about that one before, here.

Then fun of all fun, he goes on to Pakistan, criticizing the government for not fighting Al-Qaeda hard enough. Well, if the US would've had a better strategy in Afghanistan, then Pakistan might not have had to concentrate its limited efforts on the spill-over and influence of the Taliban in Waziristan. He's right to criticize Musharraf where he does, but his chief criticsm seems to be that Musharraf bending over far enough for the US. Its just indicative of an overall view that the world's allegiance should be to America because America and global security and interest are one and the same and that is just ridonkulously arrogant.

In short, Mr. Huckabee has jerkface politics, and unfortunately, his views aren't all that unique.

Sycophantism and Waziristan Part III

Fresh on the heels of Robert Gates' statement that the US was ready to send troops into Waziristan, Dr. Ahmed talks about the dangers of favoring a military option in Waziristan, especially in light of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan in Part III of his interview with The Globalist.

"I would say that the United States should be very cautious — and should send its finest diplomats to have good relations with the tribal chiefs, through jirgas. They should meet them, show them respect, listen to them.


The United States needs to realize that it cannot make the mistake, whatever it does, of sending in troops, because that will do two things: It will consolidate all the tribes against the United States — and also push even those wavering into the local Taliban camp. The local Taliban are already dominating the tribal areas — and now, they are spilling into the settled districts of Pakistan.


Action in the tribal areas will also inflame all of Pakistan. Even those who are seen to be pro-American, like President Musharraf, have warned against any U.S. military action in Pakistan."

Sycophantism and Waziristan "Part Deux"

Soon to come on this blog, more discussion of religion and destruction as I am writing a short paper about it this week. It should be fun. In the meantime, enjoy more discussion of my awesome professor.

Here's a quote from Dr. Ahmed's interview with The Globalist Part II where he answers a question about Waziristan and modernity. The answer I think is applicable to many societies who have said they have no wish to modernize.

"However the people of Waziristan living in Karachi are as modern as you and me. But back home in their own region, they preserve their own custom and tradition. It is a conscious choice—and has nothing to do with “barbarians living in caves.” They opted for preserving their identity and a culture. They said this preserves our freedom. That’s what they treasured above all. They said, “We have seen what you have done to Pakistan, what modernization means to Pakistan — corrupt police, corrupt revenue officials, corrupt politicians.’ So they said, ‘We have seen all this. What are you going to give us that is different? Why do you want to modernize us? Leave us alone.’"

Also described in the article is how the war on terror has pushed different governments into becoming military states leaving huge vacuums of power open to radicals like the Taliban to step in and "restore" a sense of law and order that is governed by at the very least civilians, if not with the complete blessings of the entire society.

Dr. Ahmed goes on to say that there is indeed a way to bring stability back to Waziristan, but its a tricky one that involves engaging a tribal system rather than abolishing it:

"...The Americans, who seem to be on the war path if newspaper reports are to be taken seriously, have no idea of this type of [tribal] administration. It is a colonial administration and Americans are not a very colonial people. The Americans are used to a mayor who is elected for a fixed period.

In Waziristan, when I was the political agent, I was accountable to no one, except for my own reputation. That is not a very acceptable concept in the West. A 21st century solution has therefore to be found which is informed by the past in which diplomacy and a shrewd understanding of the nature of tribal society often averted death and destruction while meeting the objective at hand."

Sycophantism and Waziristan

Yes it is time I start blabbering on about my awesome professor again.

Dr. Ahmed, the professor I am privileged to work for along with some other fantastic research assistants, has just been featured in an article for The Globalist talking about US covert action in Waziristan, relating a bit to yesterday's post about Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Waziristan is a province in NW Pakistan and is the favorite location for presumed bin Laden hide outs it appears. According to the BBC, the Pakistani government has been aggressively pursuing Al Qaeda and Taliban activists and looking for tribal allies to push Al Qaeda and the Taliban out.

In the past, Waziristan cooperated with the Americans in pushing the Soviets out of the region, and had a favorable view of Americans. But after the war was won, and the Americans had left, something began to change. Dr. Ahmed describes:

"Initially, Americans had a good reputation. After all, it was because of the Americans, especially the CIA, that the Afghans won the war in Afghanistan. The CIA, working with the Pakistani intelligence, was able to provide weapons to the Afghans and especially the “Stingers” to shoot down the Soviet helicopters. Afghans remember that Ronald Reagan had called them ‘freedom fighters.’

But not long afterwards, Afghans looked at their land and said, ‘My god, look at the devastation, we are destroyed, our homes are destroyed. One-fourth of our people have lost a limb or a leg because of the Soviet’s brutalities. Our homes have been uprooted; there is starvation in parts of Afghanistan.’ And they thought, ‘our American friends will help us.’

But the Americans just walked away. That was the fatal error. When the United States walked away they left a vacuum. The warlords came back, along with local rivalries — and this time the king of Afghanistan was no longer there to act as a unifying force. It was just an implosion of society. In that vacuum, we saw the emergence of the Taliban. In that anarchy and chaos, emerged Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the stage was set for 9/11."

The Danger Continues

The latest edition of The Economist has explored the question of Pakistan as the most dangerous nation in the same way Newsweek did a few months ago. The opinion piece, The World's Most Dangerous Place, does good to recognize that the threat of Islamic extremism in Pakistan is a relatively new crisis. One need only look at the ideas of Mr. Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, to see the kind of progressive movements and ideas that have come forth in the country.

In contrast to the Newsweek article, the focus of this piece seems to point to Pakistan as a dangerous nation to its people instead of as a danger to American interests. Like Lamis Andoni's blog response on Post Global, the article also points to how external forces have also contributed to Pakistan's instability.

So, ironically, America's support for Mr Musharraf, justified as necessary to combat extremism next door, has fostered extremism at home. Similarly, in the 1980s America backed General Zia ul Haq, a dictator and Islamic fundamentalist, as his intelligence services sponsored the mujahideen who eventually toppled the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. In the process, they helped create what Miss Bhutto called a “Frankenstein's monster”—of jihadist groups with sympathisers in the army and intelligence services. The clubbable, whisky-quaffing, poodle-cuddling Mr Musharraf is no fundamentalist. But the monster still stalks his security forces.

Happily, the author does offer a bright spot, seeing a solution to all the crises.

Yet Pakistan's plight is not yet hopeless. Two things could still help arrest its slide into anarchy, improbable though both now seem. The first is a credible investigation into Miss Bhutto's murder and the security-service lapses (or connivance) that allowed it to happen. Mr Musharraf's willingness to let a couple of British policemen help the inquiry is unlikely to produce this. Every time a bomb goes off in Pakistan, people believe that one of the country's own spooks lit the fuse. Until there has been a convincing purge of the military-intelligence apparatus, Pakistan will never know true stability.

Second, there could be a fair election. This would expose the weakness of the Islamist parties. In the last general election in 2002, they won just one-tenth of the votes, despite outrageous rigging that favoured them. Even if they fared somewhat better this time, they would still, in the most populous provinces, Sindh and Punjab, be trounced by the mainstream parties. An elected government with popular support would be better placed to work with the moderate, secular, professional tendency in the army to tackle extremism and bring Pakistan's poor the economic development they need.

And the final awesome conclusion.

Sadly, there seems little hope that the security forces will abandon the habit of a lifetime and allow truly fair elections. The delay in the voting—opposed by both main opposition parties—has been seen as part of its plan to rig the results. The violence that has scarred the country since Miss Bhutto's assassination may intensify. The army may be tempted to impose another state of emergency; or it may cling on to ensure that the election produces the result it wants—a weak and pliable coalition of the PPP and Mr Musharraf's loyalists.

For too long, Mr Musharraf has been allowed to pay lip-service to democratic forms, while the United States has winked at his blatant disdain for the substance. The justification has been the pre-eminent importance of “stability” in the world's most dangerous place. It is time to impress upon him and the generals still propping him up that democracy is not the alternative to stability. It is Pakistan's only hope.

Danger could be my middle name, but its John...

Thumbing through the Washington Post website, I discovered a discussion from November 2007 about Newsweek's labelling of Pakistan as the most dangerous nation. A nice little host of panelists weighed in on the issue, and I found a lot of it to be very interesting.

The most pessimistic came from Ali Ettefagh who declares that Pakistan is not a country, but "a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state". (Yikes!) He even goes so far as to say this:

Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India -- and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.

Even more yikes.

First of all, the man barely answered the question. Second, oh my gosh are you crazy? Third, this isn't etch a sketch. You can't just shake it up and erase the whole thing when the lines don't look right. A re-thinking of how to approach institutions and political systems in Pakistan is a lot more reasonable than that.

I found Lamis Andoni's piece to be a lot more pragmatic, and it actually stayed on topic.

Pakistan today is a reminder to all countries, especially to the Muslim world, of the danger of blindly choosing security and military measures over institution-building. Extremist groups that employ distorted Islamic ideologies to achieve their own ends cannot be dealt with by repression and force. Pakistan is a witness to the failure of such policies, and to the danger of blindingly following Washington's whims.

I hope we can remember this as we try to provide stability for Pakistan in 2008. Let us hope that the elections will bring in a servant to the people of Pakistan and not a gussied up American enforcement agent. Its an overly optimistic hope, but maybe if we keep that as a goal we'll find something closer to it than what we have now.

And yes, the title of this post is in homage to Mr. Izzard. Who else?

Ominous Thoughts

Here's a bit from a Washington Post article about Pakistan's prospects in 2008.

"The country has already suffered so much. Can't we honor Bhutto's legacy by making peace?" said Muddassir Masood, 33, who works in the cellphone industry. "But everyone has an agenda now. Bhutto's party wants the election held because it will get the sympathy vote. The government knows that and wants to put it off. But as always, this is politics in Pakistan, and as always, it is the Pakistanis who will suffer if there is street violence."

Zia Kazim, 59, a pilot with Pakistan International Airlines who was having New Year's dinner with his wife, a hotel owner, said he was relieved that the couple's two adult children are living in Richmond, Va."There will be violence if the election is held on Jan. 8 or violence if it's postponed. Basically the country is stuck in quicksand," he said. "Things in Pakistan are, unfortunately, only getting worse."

The Heir Apparent

I understand that family relationships and lineage can be very powerful elements in the societies (yes, I made it a plural) in Pakistan, but there is a point when culture becomes a mask for corruption. As you may have guessed by now, I am definitely against Bhutto's 19 year old son becoming a successor to her position in the PPP. My gut also tells me her husband is not a very good man, not a bad one, mind you. Just not a good one. Of course, I have no proof of that, but I'm sure the proof exists.

Someone needs to explain this to me. I'm an optimist, I WANT to think there's a truly progressive party in Pakistan with a reasonably uncorrupt leader. I really want someone to point out a bright side, so where is it?

If it were the case that her son, Bilawal, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, were to hold temporary positions in the party until the time comes to elect a new chairman, that would be fine with me. But that's not what's happening. As Witte from the Washington Post points out:

The selections mean that the Pakistan People's Party, which casts itself as the voice of democracy in Pakistan, will stay in family hands for a third generation.

What I don't understand is how the PPP can be so pro-democracy and yet almost acts like Bhutto was a queen nominating an heir to the throne. Apparently she had even put it in her will that her husband would succeed her. And the heirs seem to be jumping at the chance to create a dynasty, more so her husband. The PPP has to wait for Bilawal to complete his studies before he can become the new chairman.

I also find Bilawal's comment, from the same Post article, about the position fairly interesting, and a little fatalistic:

The young man representing the newest generation of Bhuttos -- who added the famous name for the first time Sunday -- noted that chairmanship of the party is a position "that often is occupied by martyrs."

Speaking briefly but forcefully at the press conference, he said he would strive to honor his mother's legacy. "The party's long and historic struggle will continue with renewed vigor," he said. "My mother always said, democracy is the best revenge."

Oh and, btw, the kid hasn't even grown up in Pakistan, and he's studying at Oxford. As if he wasn't going to have a hard enough time being so young and in charge of such an important organization, he has to deal with the fact that he's pretty much an outsider.

He's younger than I am too, which makes it even more crazy. Way to make other people feel over the hill, no one has died and left me a political organization. =-(

Soapy Soapy Time

Recently, someone sent me this message about Ms. Bhutto, and I got his permission to respond to it via this blog.

"Lets not forget that Bhutto is perhaps the only person more corrupt then Musharaff. Thats why onlt like 6% of the population supported her."

I will concede that Bhutto more than likely had an element of corruption, but I honestly cannot say how much. However, I think I can safely say that she was NOT on the same level as Musharraf. Remember, Musharraf is the one who came to power via a military coup in 1999. He was a military leader from the git-go who got lucky when the US was looking for allies in the war on terror.

Although, the argument could be made that Musharraf has had more opportunities to be corrupt because he's been in office much longer than Bhutto ever was and has enjoyed much more power.

As far as her supporters, I can't find any information on the percentage of the population, but from all the sources I've read, it is accepted that she enjoys significant grass roots support. If we all agree that elections in Pakistan are a sham, then its no use looking at the percentage of the population that has voted for her party, the Pakistan People's Party, in the last elections.

I don't think Bhutto was the most effective leader, or would have been the most effective, anyway. But she was dynamic in her ability to gain populist support, and bring important issues of democracy to the forefront of Pakistani politics. There is no question in my mind that she believed she was doing what was right and good, and she was going to do it no matter who opposed her. I may not have agreed with what she did or would have done in office, but I have to respect and admire her determination and courage. It is very sad that she was not the most competent of politicians to begin with, but its even more tragic that this is how she has come to an end.

And that is my soap box moment. Thank you all for coming.

Hmm...No

According to the BBC, the Pakistani government has issued a statement saying the official cause of Ms Bhutto's death was "a knock on the head" from ducking into her vehicle and not bullets or shrapnel.

That's totally ridiculous. It goes against the testimony of many eye witnesses who have said she was shot twice before the suicide bomber's explosion went off. It sounds to me like the government is trying to play down the event, hoping that the martyr mystique will dissipate.

I don't think ascribing her death to a "knock on the head" is going to do it.

Oligarchical jerkfaces.

Benazir's Life Part III

What happened?

After a rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Mrs. Bhutto got into her bulletproof vehicle and then popped her head through the roof to wave at the throngs of supporters. The Washington Post reports:

She raised her torso through the hatch, and several gunshots rang out, an aide seated next to her said. Just as Bhutto sank into her seat, a large bomb detonated outside the vehicle. The left side of Bhutto's face was badly bloodied, aides said, but it was not clear whether she'd been killed by bullets or by shrapnel from the bombing. She lost consciousness, and never regained it.

The explosion, apparently caused by a suicide bomber, killed at least 20 people outside Bhutto's car and injured many others. Police were investigating whether the bomber was also the gunman. One possibility was that the assailant fired the shots and then, after being tackled by security officials, detonated the bomb.

Who was behind this?

Mrs. Bhutto herself said on numerous occasions that the attempts on her life were helped by the Pakistani government. They may not have initiated any of the attacks, but they did little to prevent them or protect her. For the attacks themselves, she put the blame on extremists.

From the same Washington Post article:

Although no group has claimed responsibility for Bhutto's killing, Western leaders immediately pointed to the Islamic extremist groups operating with increasing intensity in Pakistan, including those with links to al-Qaeda. Musharraf also blamed Islamic extremists.

What does this mean not only for Pakistan, but for the US?

Mrs. Bhutto was considered a crucial partner in creating a stable and democratic Pakistan that would be able to expel terrorists who intended to use the country as a base. A stable Pakistan would also benefit American interests in neighboring Afghanistan.

From a different Washington Post article:

Without Bhutto, Musharraf has virtually no major political allies willing to take positions widely unpopular in Pakistan but critical to U.S. interests. A Pew Survey last summer found only 15 percent of Pakistanis had a favorable view of the United States.

Bhutto's assassination during a campaign stop in Rawalpindi also puts in doubt prospects that an election can produce a credible government, former policymakers and analysts said.

"More broadly, this is a major loss because the elections scheduled for early January had the potential to move the country forward," said Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Despite her past failures, she was still a legitimate leader who could have worked with Musharraf and the army to have an accommodation in Islamabad."

The State Department called on President Musharraf and others in the Pakistani government "to do everything they can to create the conditions on the ground to have as free and fair and transparent an election as possible," Casey told reporters. "No political system can last long without having legitimacy in the eyes of its people."

The United States is particularly concerned about the potential for initial demonstrations to become open-ended protests against the Musharraf government. U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson is also reaching out to other opposition parties and civil society groups to urge calm, U.S. officials said.

Benazir's Life: Part II

How did we get to the situation in Pakistan today?

It seems that the War on Terror was the best thing to ever happen for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The alliance with the US gave him international legitimacy and solidified his power.

As the BBC describes, Musharraf awarded himself another 5 years as president in 2002 together with the power to dismiss an elected parliament. Parliamentary elections in the same year saw a hand over from military to civilian rule with the election of a civilian prime minister. Even though Musharraf had promised to relinquish his military role, he was very slow at actually doing it.

The big hullaballoo came in October 2007, when he won the support of most parilamentarians in the presidential elections.

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the winner could not be formally announced before it had ruled on whether General Musharraf was eligible to stand.

In early November, the general pre-empted the Supreme Court's ruling on his eligibility by imposing emergency rule and dismissing judges opposed to his candidacy, a move that received widespread condemnation in the international community. The new Supreme Court then confirmed President Musharraf's right to stand, clearing the way for him to become a civilian leader. He quit his army post soon afterwards.

Lawyers took to the streets in protest, generating such iconic photos as above, of men in western suits rioting and being beaten.

Why she came back.

Mrs. Bhutto returned to Pakistan from exile in Dubai to oppose Musharraf's actions and push for a true democracy. She called for Musharraf's resignation numerous times and urged the people to protest. On October 18th 2007, she arrived in Karachi. On her way to a homecoming rally, two bombs exploded near her motorcade, killing at least 130 people. The following is from a BBC report on her return:

When she first stepped onto Pakistani soil at Karachi airport Ms Bhutto was overcome with emotion and burst into tears.

Many PPP supporters have been bussed in from outlying areas by the party - a show of organisational strength which the ex-prime minister hopes will boost her chances of a return to power, correspondents report.

The BBC's Damian Grammaticas in Karachi says that despite being away for eight years, Ms Bhutto is still enormously popular as a scion of Pakistan's pre-eminent political dynasty.

About 20,000 troops and police have been deployed in the city to oversee Ms Bhutto's arrival amid threats by Islamist militants to assassinate both her and Gen Musharraf.

Gen Musharraf had asked Ms Bhutto to delay her return until the Supreme Court decided whether he was eligible to serve as president for another term.

During her time in Pakistan, she was placed under house arrest, and was under constant fear of attacks.

Benazir's Life: Part I

Who was Benazir Bhutto? Part I

Mrs. Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state. She was elected to the office of Prime Minister of Pakistan twice, the first time in 1988 and then again in 1996.

She came from a very prestigious and political family. Her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was the President of Pakistan from 1971 to 1973 and the Prime Minister from 1973 to 1977. Zulfikar was executed in 1979 under the leadership of General Zia ul Haq for the charge of attempted murder.

She was educated at both Radcliffe and Harvard.

Time.com remarks that her political career was marked by "great populist spectacles and little governmental achievement". The article goes on:

However, in the final analysis, her career was an almost tawdry cycle of exile, house arrest, ascent into power and dismissal, much sound and fury and signifying little. Jailed and then exiled after her father's fall, Bhutto returned to campaign for office in 1986 after Zia's military government gave in to international pressure to slowly restore democracy. (Despite his dictatorship, Zia was a key ally of the West, supporting the Mujaheddin against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)...

Zia's death in a plane crash in August 1988 helped to further loosen the military strictures around the country, and Bhutto became Prime Minister by December of that year. As a ruler, Bhutto got few favorable reviews in Pakistan. Her government passed no legislation except a budget during its first 14 months in power. Much of its energy was squandered feuding with the opposition. Among the first acts of Bhutto's party after coming to power was a campaign to bribe and threaten legislators in Punjab. The goal: to overthrow Bhutto's nemesis, Mian Nawaz Sharif, Punjab's chief minister, a wealthy industrialist and a close associate of Zia's. Worse yet, her Cabinet stank with corruption scandals, including allegations against her husband Asif Ali Zardari and her father-in-law Hakim Ali Zardari, who was chairman of the parliamentary public-accounts committee. With so much fractiousness and scandal, Bhutto's first government lasted only until August 1990, dismissed by the country's president for "horse-trading for personal gain." Soon after, in November 1990, Nawaz Sharif, campaigning on an anti-corruption platform, became Prime Minister.

Bhutto returned to power in 1993, after Sharif was felled by his own corruption scandal. "This is my victory. It is a clear and decisive victory," she declared after a bitter name-calling campaign between herself and Sharif. But despite her claims, she did not have a working majority in parliament and had to wobble through her next few years in office as head of a fractious coalition, beholden to contentious blocs of power. At the same time, Pakistan owed huge amounts to the International Monetary Fund as part of servicing its enormous $28.6 billion in foreign debts. Bhutto had raised taxes, which raised the level of discontent in the country. But even so, her government did not collect enough revenue. In an effort to appease the IMF, Bhutto gave up the finance portfolio she had held since retaking the government. "The debt servicing is breaking our backs — debt that I didn't incur," she told TIME. "But as Prime Minister, I have to pay it back." Rumors soon spread that her government would be dismissed. "Rubbish," she said. But that is exactly what happened. Soon, Nawaz Sharif was Prime Minister again.

What's this about corruption charges?

From the BBC's obituary for Mrs. Bhutto, her husband, Asif Zardari, was accused of stealing millions from the state. Many speculated that the downfall of her government was the alleged greed of her husband. Even though none of the 18 charges against him could be proved over the 10 years spent in court, he nonetheless spent 8 years in prison.

Mrs. Bhutto herself was charged with 5 corruption cases, none of which she was ever convicted, and finally amnestied in October 2007. She was convicted, however, of failing to appear before the Supreme Court in 1999, but this conviction was later overturned.

Soon after the conviction, audiotapes of conversations between the judge and some top aides of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were discovered that showed that the judge had been under pressure to convict.


Ms Bhutto left Pakistan in 1999 to live abroad, but questions about her and her husband's wealth continued to dog her.

She appealed against a conviction in the Swiss courts for money-laundering.

During her years outside Pakistan, Ms Bhutto lived with her three children in Dubai, where she was joined by her husband after he was freed in 2004.

What's up with all the deaths in her family?

As mentioned above, her father was executed in 1979. But her two brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, were also assasinated. BBC reports:

Her brother, Murtaza - who was once expected to play the role of party leader - fled to the then-communist Afghanistan after his father's fall.

From there, and various Middle Eastern capitals, he mounted a campaign against Pakistan's military government with a militant group called al-Zulfikar.

He won elections from exile in 1993 and became a provincial legislator, returning home soon afterwards, only to be shot dead under mysterious circumstances in 1996.

Benazir's other brother, Shahnawaz - also politically active but in less violent ways than Murtaza - was found dead in his French Riviera apartment in 1985.

Rest In Peace

As some of you may have already heard, Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani Prime Minister who returned to her country to help the push for a true democracy has been assasinated.

I didn't know very much about Pakistan before I started working for Dr. Ahmed, but as I became better acquainted with the crises, I admired Benazir Bhutto. Her story is absolutely amazing, and she is my new hero. The world could not only more women like her, but more men as well.

I'll write more as I throw myself head first into the news.