Following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, the myth-making is heading into overdrive — depicting the late Bhutto as having been a dependable friend to America, a voice of democracy and the face of salvation for Pakistan. I doubt that was ever true. There are many reasons to deplore her murder and mourn her death — but these do not necessarily imply that if she had survived and returned to power, that would have been the beginning of a better era for Pakistan, or a safer era for America. Bhutto was charismatic, determined, and courageous, and I don’t doubt that she wanted to end Islamic terrorism both inside Pakistan and emanating from it. But the gap between her words and her record was disturbing. When she actually held power as prime minister — not once, but twice — her brand of government, fraught with nepotism and corruption scandals, did not do much to help her country, or end the forces fueling terrorism (or stop Pakistan’s nuclear bomb program and network, for that matter). Rather, it was government of the kind that can give democracy a bad name.
Way back in 1988, I interviewed Benazir Bhutto in her hometown of Larkana, Pakistan — where her father is buried. She was then busy with the campaign that led to her first stint as prime minister, and there was plenty to admire in her determination and humor. She had just given birth to her oldest son, she was working 18-hour days, and in answer to a warmup question she confirmed to me with a laugh that she had indeed enjoyed a girlhood passion for romance novels — but had no time anymore for anything but newspapers.
Her politics, and priorities, however, were worrisome. Among her campaign slogans was “Socialism is Our Economy,” and her plans for Pakistan included the tired old brand of patronage and state-planning that had by then beggared the subcontinent for decades — and lends itself, anytime, anywhere, to corruption and the erosion of democratic rule. On questions about then-Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, the complex politics of Pakistan, and the Kabul-based Soviet-backed terrorist activities of her brothers (one already murdered at the time, the other killed since) she ducked and weaved in ways that left me worried enough to write at the time: “Ms. Bhutto leaves it far from clear that a new Bhutto administration would bring better times for Pakistan and its allies.”
It is possible that this third time around, Benazir Bhutto might have risen to the job. That is now moot. In the wake of this hideous assassination the questions facing those who believed in her, and those more skeptical, have become the same. What now?
For Pakistan, there are no simple answers — what was already a volatile and highly dangerous scene has become even less predictable. But there is one glaring message wrapped up in almost every piece of commentary on Bhutto’s murder, and it is this. What happens in the politics of Pakistan today is enormously important to the wider world because Pakistan is a country infested with terrrorists and armed with nuclear weapons. Those bombs are quite a prize for anyone who might seize power. Thus does America now walk a tightrope in its dealings with Pakistan.
Meanwhile, we have the flip side of this horrifying arrangement right next door to Pakistan, in Iran — which already has the kind of terror-dedicated government we fear Pakistan might get. Tehran’s regime is busy providing itself with everything needed to make nuclear weapons. And thanks to America’s latest National Intelligence Estimate, with its myopic conclusions, bizarre wording and patently political agenda, the Bush administration seems to have simply scrapped any serious intention of coming between Iran’s mullahs and the bomb.
That is a terrible mistake. And while we deplore the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and brace for the aftershocks in Pakistan, and recite the reasons why it matters so much, the deeper message we ought to be taking from all this is that Pakistan has so far been a cakewalk compared to what we will be dealing with if Iran gets the bomb.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
2 Comments
1. Bill Bradley:Thanks, Claudia.
But as I’ve been pointing out ALL YEAR LONG …
Pakistan, the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, is an accident waiting to happen.
I don’t recommend tunnel vision, actually.
Dec 28, 2007 - 10:14 pm 2. Alex Reed:The tragic yet preventable death of Benazir Bhutto has unleashed a whirlwind of anger and violence in her homeland, and a similarly chaotic torrent of verbiage from the media. In both cases, and as usual when chaos prevails, reason has guided neither events in Pakistan, nor coverage in the Western media.
Claudia’s post here stands out as a clear-minded analysis of the realities of the situation. Hers is one of the few voices of reason not swayed by fanciful thinking about Bhutto and the situation in Pakistan. Such is sadly not the case with the coverage provided by the vast majority of her journalist colleagues.* The instances of, let’s say it, fantasy analysis are far too numerous to detail here. Besides, I’m tired of looking at the crummy side of the coin. So, for examples, pick up the journal/paper/TV station of your choice, and prepare for throbbing temples. I want to look at something else.
Benazir Bhutto need not have lost her life to such savagery. This is the greatest tragedy of all. In my view, she is currently the most prominent victim of the Cult of Denial and Wishful Thinking so ardently adopted these last years by the U.S. State Department and intelligence establishments, and ennobled by the CFR-Brzezinski-Gates Iran report, its spawn, the Baker Iraq Study Group report, and, most recently, the odious Iran NIE. She will not be the last victim. When people responsible for government policy live in denial of reality, especially patently dangerous reality, and act on the basis of the fantasy they have constructed in order to indulge and preserve that denial, that wishful thinking, disaster always, always ensues. Such a denial of reality always harvests a multitude of victims. Reality will come and kill you every time. One need not look far back in history to find a host of proofs of this axiom.
Benazir Bhutto, aside from anything else, was a deeply courageous woman whose inspirational leadership created new hope for the future of her country. What she may have achieved for her people if given another chance to govern is a page of Pakistan’s future that will remain unwritten. Her assassination leaves us with a question that must be asked. Have we so many in the world of her mettle and brilliance that even one should be allowed to be foolishly, needlessly sacrificed on the alter of the Cult of Wishful Thinking? Did it not register in the wee minds of any of the intellectual wonders in Washington who hatched the plan of having her return to Pakistan to run for office, just how much the Islamist/Taliban/Al-Qaeda factions hated her? They’ve tried to kill Musharraf, what, nine times, so far? And the Islamists hated Bhutto a thousand, thousand times more than Musharraf. Convincing her to go back to Pakistan and run for office was a death sentence. In a just world, the entire State Department establishment, starting with Condi Rice, and much of the “intelligence” community, would be fired. Were I Celestial Sovereign of the Universe, unemployment would be the least of their worries — though nothing could compensate the world, Pakistan, or her family for the loss of this brave woman. However, in this deluded administration, who has the guts or the wisdom to chuck these bureaucrats out en masse and save the world? And, yes, I say “save the world” advisedly. Thus far, their rash, delusion-based démarches have done nothing but bring the world closer to a war that would bring planetary annihilation. A nuclear trifecta has been empowered by this and other gross diplomatic missteps: first North Korea, then Iran, and now add Pakistan. What we have here is a failure to communicate with reality. If we don’t take heed and mend our ways, it will kill us all.
………………………
* There are some wonderful exceptions to this bleak prospect.
• Mark Steyn just always gets it right.
• Andrew C. McCarthy has the right stuff.
• Eli Lake in The New York Sun has a scoop about the possible assassins.
• More about the assassins from Daveed Gartenstein-Ross at the Counterterrorism Blog.
• Counterrorism Blog has an excellent series of posts.
• As is so agonizingly often the case, The Washington Post begins to get it semi-almost-right, but then veers off into platitudes without drawing the obvious conclusions to its own reporting.
Dec 29, 2007 - 2:47 pm