Bhutto, a follow up.
My heart sang when I saw Tom had written about the assasination of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto.
Suffice to say I see enough substantive discussion amongst people I hang out with over things that aren't remotely as important, the fact that someone was inspired to put fingers to keyboard for this makes me excited.
There is already some discussion on the fact that the police did not request an autopsy of how she died, which could mean a number of things, most of them nebulous and worrisome for Pakistan, women who want political capital in the Middle East and the War on Terror the United States is having.
The debate (how quickly it begins, and how rapidly the New York Times goes into detail about it is astonishing) centers around two actors. One is a security detail (lapsed, we are assured) provided to Bhutto by General Musharraf, and the suicide bomber from an unknown actor (Al-Qeada is presumed).
This does not help General Musharraf, as his government has been on the safe end of a crackdown of rights in the country, and has much to gain from a gagged Bhutto. Most damning of all is that an autopsy was not requested, and might not ever be released. This is important, because it leaves a lot of evidence up in the air. Were the bullets she was shot with from guns that the security detail would use? Of what make were the bullets and do they corrolate to what the Pakistani armed forces use?
According to the New York Times, Bhutto was shot in the head or neck as she was waving to the crowd of supporters from an open sunroof and moments aferwards a suicide bomber attacked a car in her motorcade, killing 20 and injuring 50.
What it boils down to, is was the Pakistani government compliant with suicide bombings, Ie, was this a state job? I doubt it for the following reasons. (It goes without saying I am not an expert.)
1) Pakistan is already under incredible scrutiny from the West. It has little to gain from an assasination of the opposition leader. There is already an assumption that the government there is not on the up and up, so to speak, and so if something goes wrong, the first people you'd look at are the General and his thugs. I suspect the General would prefer to have less media attention on his back and the assassination of Bhutto does not achieve that.
2) Al-Qaeda is an organization which grows and learns from previous terror attacks. A sniper, while not the usual m.o. of the organization, is something which is not out of the realm of possibility, one assumes Al-Qeada not to use conventional forms of assassination, and thus the group might use it. Al-Qaeda could also have colluded with other terror organizations that are less reliant on suicide bombings as a strategy, but that seems less unlikely. Perhaps a collusion with another state actor.
3) Usually, when popular political figures are assassinated, riots occur. I suspect General Musharraf wants a riot like he wants a second rectum.
4) Al-Qeada has already taken credit for the attack, they don't get along with Pakistan, and Bhutto's homecoming parade was crashed twice by Al-Qeada suicide bombers, leaving 150 of her supporters dead.
As interesting and important as all of this is, we can sort out later who did it, though. What remains most important in all of this is that a woman of tremendous resolve and backbone was murdered to make a point. Let us hope the country comes together and condemns this attack universally. The good die young. It is my hope that she's with Gandhi now.
She's missed.
Suffice to say I see enough substantive discussion amongst people I hang out with over things that aren't remotely as important, the fact that someone was inspired to put fingers to keyboard for this makes me excited.
There is already some discussion on the fact that the police did not request an autopsy of how she died, which could mean a number of things, most of them nebulous and worrisome for Pakistan, women who want political capital in the Middle East and the War on Terror the United States is having.
The debate (how quickly it begins, and how rapidly the New York Times goes into detail about it is astonishing) centers around two actors. One is a security detail (lapsed, we are assured) provided to Bhutto by General Musharraf, and the suicide bomber from an unknown actor (Al-Qeada is presumed).
This does not help General Musharraf, as his government has been on the safe end of a crackdown of rights in the country, and has much to gain from a gagged Bhutto. Most damning of all is that an autopsy was not requested, and might not ever be released. This is important, because it leaves a lot of evidence up in the air. Were the bullets she was shot with from guns that the security detail would use? Of what make were the bullets and do they corrolate to what the Pakistani armed forces use?
According to the New York Times, Bhutto was shot in the head or neck as she was waving to the crowd of supporters from an open sunroof and moments aferwards a suicide bomber attacked a car in her motorcade, killing 20 and injuring 50.
What it boils down to, is was the Pakistani government compliant with suicide bombings, Ie, was this a state job? I doubt it for the following reasons. (It goes without saying I am not an expert.)
1) Pakistan is already under incredible scrutiny from the West. It has little to gain from an assasination of the opposition leader. There is already an assumption that the government there is not on the up and up, so to speak, and so if something goes wrong, the first people you'd look at are the General and his thugs. I suspect the General would prefer to have less media attention on his back and the assassination of Bhutto does not achieve that.
2) Al-Qaeda is an organization which grows and learns from previous terror attacks. A sniper, while not the usual m.o. of the organization, is something which is not out of the realm of possibility, one assumes Al-Qeada not to use conventional forms of assassination, and thus the group might use it. Al-Qaeda could also have colluded with other terror organizations that are less reliant on suicide bombings as a strategy, but that seems less unlikely. Perhaps a collusion with another state actor.
3) Usually, when popular political figures are assassinated, riots occur. I suspect General Musharraf wants a riot like he wants a second rectum.
4) Al-Qeada has already taken credit for the attack, they don't get along with Pakistan, and Bhutto's homecoming parade was crashed twice by Al-Qeada suicide bombers, leaving 150 of her supporters dead.
As interesting and important as all of this is, we can sort out later who did it, though. What remains most important in all of this is that a woman of tremendous resolve and backbone was murdered to make a point. Let us hope the country comes together and condemns this attack universally. The good die young. It is my hope that she's with Gandhi now.
She's missed.
Labels: Benazir Bhutto, I am a serious writer and here is my serious writing
posted by James Thomas à Becket | 1:07 AM
2 Comments:
Oh man, why didn't I think of creating a Benazir Bhutto tag? And did you hear about all the crazytown rioting that's going on? Ppl are pissed! I do not know what undead Benazir would want, but living Benazir would probably not want shoot outs and bank robberies.
Yes, I doubt living Benazir would want murder and bank robberies in the wake of her assassination.
I was reading an interview of hers in Time magazine, published December 24th or 28th, and thinking, wow, that interview didn't happen so long ago...
How quickly we can take life for granted.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home