« Nepalese monarchy voted out | Main | Giuliani backer doesn't "necessarily" advocate genocide of Muslims »

December 29, 2007

Something is amiss here. First, we learn that Benazir Bhutto was shot dead before the suicide bomber blew himself up near her motorcade.  Then, we hear she died from shrapnel wounds caused by the bomb. Then, we're told she died from a skull fracture from hitting her head against the sunroof of her car during the bomb blast. And all of this within the 24 hours after her death.

So, what really happened? I think the media has been too quick to buy the official story (or stories in this case) the Pakistani Government put out. An assassination by Pakistani Islamist terrorists might be exactly what happened, but, then again, it also might not. After all, Bhutto had an impressive number of enemies, including everyone from Al Qaeda and the Taliban to Pakistani president Pervez Musharaff and basically everyone in his government  to several members of her own tragic family.

Bhutto's aides and friends claim the Musharaff Government is hiding something. Wonkette agrees.

On the future of democracy in Pakistan, Passport has an important post. Some highlights:

This is not to say that Bhutto was the second coming of George Washington. Schooled at Harvard and Oxford, she was an eloquent English speaker who could charm a FOX News anchor or a Georgetown cocktail party. Bhutto called passionately for a restoration of democracy in Pakistan, and showed incredible courage in the face of repeated death threats. But the former prime minister was never quite the democratic savior she presented herself to be. A feudal landholder who appointed herself head of her political party for life, Bhutto was corrupt and largely incompetent when she was in power.

The question of who should rule Pakistan, however, was never about just one woman. Nor should it be about one man. Investing U.S. hopes in a single leader who tells us what we want to hear is shortsighted, even risky. It's a mistake the United States has made far too often in its history, most tragically in Iran under the Shah. Instead of hitching its star to any particular individual, America should support the Pakistani people's right to elect their own leaders and hold those leaders—rather than us—accountable if they fail.

Supporting the democratic process and accountability for elected officials instead of individual people we can either conspire with or push around once they're in power? Gee, what a nice change that would be. But, that would essentially mean giving up on the short-sighted, amoral, realist foreign policy we're pursued since...well, since we've conducted foreign policy.

UPDATE: 2:18 AM CET.

Word has it Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal, an Oxford University student, may be her successor. When I read that, all I could think was poor kid.

This photo of Bilawal Bhutto at his mother's funeral really is worth a thousand words.

Photo: Declan Walsh / Getty Images via Time.

December 29, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c035a53ef00e5507634328834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What really happened in Rawalpindi? What happens now?:

Comments

There are far too many pieces in play and notions that point to the Musharaff Government being involved somehow. That, I think, is the most troubling fact after the matter of losing an incredible Democratic force on the world stage that followed what she believed in.

I certainly am not qualified nor educated in the subject enough to say anything definitive, but I will certainly comment from an outsiders perspective that Musharaff's Government and it's focus on maintaining power and military status raises concerns and questions.

Even if they had no part in this it, they should be investigated in depth. The level of transparency would also benefit them and potentially placate accusations and concerns of their involvement in this issue.

If they refuse to do so, the public image suggests two things. One is of guilt and involvement in the assassination which would spell doom for Musharaff's reign.

The other is the relationship the government or forces within the government have with Al Qaeda or had in the past. It could directly or indirectly involve Musharaff and the government in this issue.

Given the history of the organization within the country and neighboring states, it does not necessarily translate to Mursharaff and his close advisor's playing a role in the act. This could be the government cleaning house internally to ensure no evidence or accusations can stick despite the fact the leadership may or may not have had anything to do with it. That idea still leaves the possibility some forces in the government played a role.

It will be interesting and very important to see how it plays out.

My thoughts are with my friends in Pakistan.

Posted by: Michael Miner | Dec 30, 2007 12:53:27 PM

Post a comment