Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Pakistan Riots Continue;
Clinton: 'An inside job?'
Rehman: "A Cover-up"

Violence continued in Pakistan on Saturday, as did a virtual shut-down of the country, with most shops and businesses shuttered.

In the US, Sen. Hillary Clinton provoked controversy when she said, according to Newsday: ' "There are those saying that al-Qaida did it. Others are saying it looked like it was an inside job -- remember Rawalpindi is a garrison city," she said. '

She added that Pakistan's

' "feudal landowning leadership," led by Musharraf, has protected al-Qaida to preserve its tenuous grip on power. '


The Pakistani elite has a lot of landlords in it, but has diversified. The officer corps is no longer primarily from the landlord class. There are new industrialists and entrepreneurs.

The reason that the military has been reluctant to finish off the Pakistani Taliban in the north (which in turn hosts some al-Qaeda remnants) is because the Taliban are a useful way of projecting Pakistani power into southern Afghanistan. The Pakistani security establishment views the Karzai government as too beholden to Tajiks and as too close diplomatically to India and Iran. The Pakistani military thus has the difficult balancing act of containing the Pakistani Taliban inside Pakistan (so that it does not spill over onto Peshawar or Islamabad) but keeping it sufficiently alive that it can be deployed against Afghanistan.

In any case, it seems pretty clear that if Clinton wins the presidency, she is going to have bad relations with Pervez Musharraf, assuming he is still around in 2009.

Meanwhile, Clinton's suspicions were underscored by Bhutto aide Sherry Rehman, who said that she saw bullet wounds in Bhutto's head. She disputed a government report that Bhutto died from being thrown against a lever of her sun roof by the blast of a suicide bomb. She told CNN, "It's beginning to look like a cover up to me . . ." Apparently PPP leaders suspect that Bhutto's bullet wounds might point back to involvement by Musharraf's security forces (did he use a standard police or army firearm?). A mere suicide bombing would apparently be easier to reconcile with the government's allegation that a jihadi group was behind the assassination. The warring narratives about Bhutto's death therefore appear to have a CSI sort of forensic concern behind them. Different physical evidence would point in different directions as to perpetrator.

Mobs roamed Karachi for a third straight day on Saturday, continuing to set fires and attack federal government property. AFP reports,, "On the second day of official mourning for the slain opposition leader, most people were unable to buy food or petrol, with almost all shops, fuel stations, banks and offices closed down." In Karachi, food remained scarce, with vegetable markets closed and farmers unable to bring shipments in from the countryside.

The province of Sindh also continued to suffer disturbances on Saturday.

Over 40 persons have been killed in the three days of violence throughout the country, and scores injured.


In Peshawar, PPP wokers continued to stage protests. Most of the city was closed, and the streets were deserted except for the protesters.

An angry crowd set fire to the cable company, leaving Lahore, Peshawar and other major cities without access to the internet. International phone calls also became harder to make.

The Pakistan People's Party will meet Sunday afternoon Pakistan time to choose a successor to Bhutto and to decide whether to contest elections, and when.

13 Comments:

At 6:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he is speaking, he is lying.

That is what Pakistanis think of Musharraf, aka Busharraf.

 
At 7:25 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

If the jihadi Mashud's incriminatory phone communications were indeed intercepted by the government, then why isn't a Pakistani army division headed towards him right now?

 
At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did then Clinton attached Obama for the same comment he made about Musharaf?

Abi

 
At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The CSI aspect of the investigation is overstated. The government has got itself in a bind making the silly claim about the sunroof as cause of death. This has nothing specifically to do with the Benazir assassination. 'Suicide Bombing' has been a preferred official explanation for all kinds of violence in Pakistan for its easy acceptance by Western media and establishment. It began with a car-bombing of french engineers in Karachi subsequently reclassified as a 'suicide bombing' when the initial explanation proved too embarassing for the government.

Secondly, it would be meaningless whether it was a standard police issue, or standard army issue gun. Both are a common enough possession, especially in the Pakistani northwest. Also, some of the people who infer government training from the fact that it was somehow a very expert shot are stretching and squeezing space and time respectively. The killer was standing no more than 10 feet away; a life size target doesn't necessarily require 'military training' at such a close distance. But most importantly, Musharraf doesn't command the kind of loyalty which would lead anyone to go and blow themselves up for him. That does not preclude the possibility however that some elements of the military working independently could assist such an attack.

As for your analysis of the Pakistani Taliban, I'm afraid it is about 3 years out of date. You are correct about Pakistani Army's balance-of-power strategy, but if it present it won't 'finish off' the 'Taliban' (many of them are mere tribesmen, with no Taliban affiliations) it is primarily because it can't. As Musharraf is well aware, a full scale assault could very easily lead to secession of the North West with repercussions for Baluchistan's own separatist movement. Neither can he afford a mutiny as many in the military's rank and file aren't too keen on fighting this war either (hence the surrenders in droves).

Barry Rubin in his interview with Harpers also repeats the nonsense about military involvement: 'Some claim that such firing is not typical of al-Qaida and the Taliban and points to the Army'.

Now al-Qaida is supposed to have a rigid MO -- any divergence from which 'points to the Army?' Curious leap of logic, wouldn't you say?

His analysis of the so-called 'Pakistani Taliban' also recycles all the prevailing shibboleths, while simultaneously erasing 4 years of pretty brutal military action (and Israeli style collective punishment, such as mass demolition of homes, documented by Amnesty International) in Waziristan. This could perhaps be explained by the fact that he conducts most his interviews in Islamabad, where people generally tend to be as well-informed about the western flank of the country, as the average Disneyland visitor is about Alaskan politics.

 
At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton: Pakistan's ' "feudal landowning leadership," led by Musharraf, has protected al-Qaida to preserve its tenuous grip on power. '

The Bhuttos, with Benazir's son now heading the PPP, are also descendants of a feudal landowning family, in Sindh.

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger David Seaton's Newslinks said...

Andrew J. Bacevich has about the best summing up of the situation in today's LA Times
Here is a snippet:
"Only as Musharraf's power waned did the United States actively press Pakistan to get onboard the democratic bandwagon. First, the Bush administration promoted a bizarre power-sharing agreement between Musharraf and Bhutto. When that shotgun marriage failed, it insisted on elections as the way to shore up the government's legitimacy. Now an assassin has demolished these carefully laid plans, possibly thrusting Pakistan into unprecedented turmoil while leaving Bush tied to a partner who increasingly invites comparisons to the shah of Iran. Faced with the prospect of "losing" Pakistan, what should the world's sole superpower do? Despite Musharraf's flaws, should Washington back him to the hilt as the only alternative to chaos? Or should Bush commit the United States without reservation to building a strong democracy in Pakistan? To pose such questions is to presume that decisions made in Washington will decisively influence the course of events in Islamabad. Yet the lesson to be drawn from the developments of the last several days -- and from U.S. involvement in Pakistan over the course of decades -- suggests just the opposite: The United States has next to no ability to determine Pakistan's fate.(...) At the beginning of his second term, Bush spoke confidently of the United States sponsoring a global democratic revolution "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Ever since that hopeful moment, developments across the greater Middle East -- above all, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and on the West Bank -- have exposed the very real limits of U.S. wisdom and power. Now the virtual impotence of the U.S. in the face of the crisis enveloping Pakistan -- along with its complicity in creating that crisis -- ought to discredit once and for all any notions of America fixing the world's ills."

I really believe that the comparison, Musharraf/Shah of Iran is quite apt. I wish the United States would stop trying to ride all these tigers before somebody sets off and a-bomb in the "homeland".

 
At 12:28 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

DAWN has broadcast imagry showing both gunman and bomber. I have only seen stills, but there is a video clip, too, apparantly released by the Pak. Interior ministry, http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Controversy-over-Bhutto--s-death-deepens/255804/ and http://www.deccanherald.com/DeccanHerald.com/Content/Dec302007/foreign2007123043930.asp?section=updatenews

The shooter holds what looks to be a revolver, and from the range he's shooting from, I find it difficult to believe his 3-4 shots missed. Clinton's comment that it could be an inside job is credible; and clearly, the Musharraf government has zero credibility.

 
At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I watched the video it appeared to me that Bhutto's head was the first one to move followed by her bodyguards at the rear of the car.

While the bodyguards were clearly "ducking", bending at the waist, as if responding to a sound, Bhutto's head was snapped forward as if struck and occurred prior to the bodyguards ducking motion.

Could the bullet or projectile arrive at its target prior to the time it takes for someone to hear a sound, realize that it is gunfire or at least dangerous and duck?

Because of her position in the open sunroof of the car, Bhutto could only "duck" in a vertical position by dropping into the auto's interior.

I think the video shows that the back of her head was stuck as it was forcefully pushed forward into the open sunroof of the car in which she was traveling and is not a ducking motion at all.

 
At 2:18 PM, Blogger hmbnancy said...

As to the video of Ms. Bhutto's last moments and whether she died striking her head on the sunroof of the car in which she was traveling, I have the following observations to lend to the discussion.

While Bhutto's head appears to have been pushed forcefully forward in a rag-doll like motion, those of her bodyguards appear to be a conscious "ducking" motion.

Interestingly, Ms. Bhutto's head moves forward prior to the "ducking " motion displayed by the bodyguards at the rear of the car.

It appears to me, watching the video, that Bhutto's head is stuck and jerked forward and is not a ducking motion. Additionally her forward motion occurs prior to the others who were not struck.

In order to duck or react to a loud gunshot or dangerous noise, Ms. Bhutto would have had to drop vertically for the safety of the interior of the car and she could not duck and make her position safer had she not been struck from behind by a projectile.

That and the delay in reaction time between herself and the reactions of her bodyguards appear to me to be due to being stuck vs. ducking.

 
At 5:43 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

hmbnancy--most guns shoot bullets faster than sound (1130 Feet/Sec) and arrive at their target before the sound of their firing. At the very short distance between BB and her killer, the bullet would still hit her head before its firing's soundwaves. Your notice of the time lag between BB's movement and her guards illustartes this time lag--of course, there would be a very brief time lapse between hearing the sound and making the move to duck, nanoseconds.

It will be interesting to see how Clinton uses her accusation (correct, IMO) that agents from Pakistan's security services are responsible on the campaign trail because she's really broken with her MSM handlers and BushCo over this.

 
At 6:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rice got Bhutto killed. Bhutto had no business being in Pakistan but for Rice. Rare indeed does a government policy end in so spectacular a failure as having the bloody brains blown out of a former and potentially future head of state before millions of onlookers. It was in the name of the State Department's "Freedom and Democracy" agenda that Rice first conceived of the purely cosmetic notion of having the telegenic and politically pliable Bhutto pose as the duly elected spokesmodel, for what was to remain a brutal, military tyranny directed by the US to root out, torture, and exterminate every deemed pro-Taliban/Al-Queda lifeform in Pakistan from lizard up. Even in an Administration infamous for using plausible gullibility to exonerate its members from personal responsibility and guilt for catastrophic failures, surely this last, in a long, long line, of world historical blunders should compel that rarest of occasions in the Bush White House, a resignation for failure. Rice has got to go.
As one looks back on the unremitting gross blunders of this White House, the offical media narrative designed to minimize personal liability has always featured the supposed rivalry between the Pentagon and State for control of America's agenda abroad. The subvertion of the State Department by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and their neocon cohorts in the Pentagon with respect to the prosecution and management of America's ridiculous "War on Terror" and the fraudulent Iraq War is well documented. The horrendous fiascoes, and more importantly, the personal embarassment, which resulted led to the political necessity of re-establishing some semblance of authority and control to formulate and implement foreign policy at State. Thus, the Department was butressed with the appointment of a man with undoubted gravitas and authority, and with a long record of dirty deeds for further credibility, to work beside Condoleeza Rice, namely John Negroponte.
In contradistinction to the Pentagon's eternal reply to, what LBJ onced complained of, was for every foreign policy conundrum, specifically "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!", and its blind faith in Musharaff and the Pakistan military to keep things in order, Rice's State Department appeared to be the only entity on the face of the planet to take seriously the Bush alibi and mantra of "Freedom and Democracy". And no where was America's insistence that all of the blood spilt and money spent was done for "Freedom and Democracy" more utterly exposed for the ugly truth of its detestable hypocrisy than in Pakistan. In cruel contrast to all of the sanctimonious talk of reversing America's traditional support of the most vicious of tinpot dictators and their tyrannical regimes with Bush's Born Again inspiration for freedom-lovin' people all around the world, oft-quoted to justify our recent relish for criminality, there stood the spectre of our active support for General Pervez Musharaff, our "most important ally in America's War on Terror", with his guns and ammo, tanks and torturers, who toppled a civillian government legally elected in a peaceful and ordered way by a nation of 170,000,000 people. Yet, even he was aware of the bad optics of it all. Thus, he claimed, he promised, he decried, he re-promised, he swore, he warned, he guaranteed, he apologized, he excused, and for over 8 years, he sat on top. But at the end of the day, when he had played all of his cards, with an American ace in his back pocket, he was still in danger of being trumped by his enemies, and far worse than any fantastical Taliban or mythical Al-Queda conspiracy, stood his greatest enemy: the people of Pakistan. Thus, he suspended, he declared, he abolished, he imprisoned, and in the end, he assassinated. And with that ace still in his pocket, he continues to sit on top.
Dr. Condoleeza Rice, once a limp academic and present Bush sycophant, after suffering personal ignominy and public ridicule for her strangely dyslexic command of her portfolios, took over the reigns of the State Department. She disappointed no one with a repeat perfomance of utterly ineffectual stewartship, her chief accomplishment being little else but the accumulation of frequent flyer points. And so in watching the time run out in this her last stint in the vainglorious sunshine of power and celebrity, where shopping for shoes or scolding a clerk made her more headlines than her foreign policy, she seized a last chance for redemption and gratitiude from her host ego, George Bush, by thinking up a way to put a smiley face over the glowering scowl of Musharaff, in the vain hope that the hopelessly naive, i.e. the people of Pakistan, would fall in love with its perfect makeup, its perfect hair and its oh so western love for conspicuous consumption. That face was Benazir Bhutto.
Therefore, as only the truly empowered and enrich can do, with nary a care or concern for principles, or victims, Condoleeza Rice began to play house with real people, a Paris Hilton on steroids. In collusion with Negroponte, her chaperon, and Gordon Brown, her footman, the plot was hatched: foist a corrupt and reliable figurehead upon a gullible electorate, get it voted in by hook or crook, ensure it abides by any marching orders emanating from DC, and keep it happy like a Digimon Pet with regular feeding and affection until we can can all flee the jurisdiction this January, 2009 with our amnesties, pardons and most importantly, our contracts intact.
Yet alas, this 54-year-old smiley face came with wrinkles, and to be rude, specifically $1.5 billion-dollar wrinkles, tucked away in various Swiss bank accounts, chiefly embezzled from the horrendously impoverished people of Pakistan. Let no one dare doubt the plaintive professions of love for her people, the regular declamations of the evil of Musharaff, the tireless tirades against the terrorist Taliban, versus the nice Taliban of yesteryear she supported when last in power, all voiced in that perfectly cadenced politician's cant, bred by the best bastions of olde English imperialism: Oxford AND Cambridge. Nothing could keep her back from running to Her People in Their Time of Need. But what money don't buy, she don't need. Hence, the awkward need for an amnesty from a compliant judiciary. For Condy, it would just not do to have Benazhir's trademark glasses and many flounces of fabric flying over who gets the top bunk with an Islamabad hooker in a Pakistani correctional facility ("The people of Pakistan demand I get it!"). Enter Musharaff.
From Vietnam, through Iran to Iraq unto Pakistan: as every deposed US-backed dictator in the history of the post-WW II world would ruefully report, once that proverbial American ace in the back pocket is withdrawn, you may as well pack your bags and start googling all countries with air conditioning and no extradiction treaties. Musharaff knows as well as any corporate shyster how to do "the Google", but he would much rather stay at home than absquatulate to a foreign jurisdiction. Hence, "one amnesty coming right up, Ms. Rice." Presto, the National Reconciliation Ordinance, shoved through an obeisant legislature and soon to be ratified by a "new and improved" Pakistani Supreme Court. And in keeping with the spirit of the matter, Musharaff expanded the amnesty to cover not just the "innocent" Bhutto, but heavens to betsy, everyone everywhere who at anytime embezzled funds from the people of Pakistan, the vast majority being former members of his military. For some, can a silver lining have a silver lining?
Yet in spite of all of these machinations, truth has a terrible way of interfering with the plans of mice and men, ...and women. The woman Rice lured to return to Pakistan to save the day for George Bush and his idea of Freedom'n'Democracy is now dead, possibly murdered with the silent instigation of Rice's rivals in the Defence Department, and by the Pentagon's undoubted Man of the Moment, Musharaff. She is now far more useful to everyone in death than ever in life.
Bhutto was never as popular as her own press releases alleged. Indeed, local polling put her rival, Nazwar Sharif, ahead. Revelations concerning the much vilified amnesty, which legalised grand larceny upon some of the poorest people in the world, knocked down her numbers, and fatally destroyed any legitimacy she might have otherwise held. Furthermore, suspicions concerning both her collusion in an American-brokered deal with Mushraraff, and her ultimate loyalty in Bush's silly "War on Terror", alienated much of her base. She would have lost the election, if and when it would ever had been held.
Ms. Rice has failed in her mad experiment to revive this Pakistani Frankenstein to decorate the already politically dead corpse of the Musharaff regime. She failed with 911, she failed with the Iraq War, and now, most dangerously, she has failed in Pakistan.

-Neocynic

 
At 11:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been to Rawalpindi a bunch of times and it is NOTHING like a garrison city, as H Clinton says.

Even Islamabad, which is better guarded, is poorly secured.

As a former resident of Pakistan I'm highly familiar with the various types of attacks there. (having been a target of them myself!)

This attack has all the fingerprints of religious radicals. Probably not Al Qaeda, literally, but almost certainly sympathetic to them.

That doesn't mean it wasn't partly an "inside job" since the Pakistan security forces are full of religious zealots. But, most likely, any insiders were rogues rather than an institutional effort. I wouldn't put such a thing past the ISI, but they would have done it differently.

Traditionally, the immediate knee jerk response was to blame India and then Israel and America -- and spin conspiracy theories involving all three!

Maybe it's a tiny sign of progress that this hasn't happened yet! ;-)

 
At 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Karzai government in Kabul seems too close to India and Iran, could it be because of Pakistani subversion makes them a little stand offish? The whole history with the Pashtunistan thing causes mistrust across the Khyber by both countries.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home