Bhutto Assasinated by Suicide Attack

[Prime Junta]

Note on terminology -- I read my recent posts and there's something that may come across as weaseling, namely my use of the term "low-intensity conflict."

I used it to mean the kind of war going on in Iraq now, with no stable front lines, lots of irregular paramilitary groups and militias, and a state of general mayhem. This as opposed to a conventional war of two armies facing off over a front line (e.g. Ethiopia vs. Eritrea, if you want a current example).

The terms aren't really very apt, as low-intensity conflicts can be at least as bloody, and often bloodier than, conventional wars, because civilians are often either directly targeted or caught in the theater of operations more than in conventional wars. I didn't invent the terms, though; here's a definition from the US Army Field Manual:

... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.

 

[POLYGON]

I think this is one case where things are simpler than they appear.

If you want the real reason -- actually, reasons -- for the Iraq invasion, all you have to do is look it up on the website of the Project for a New American Century.

In a nutshell, there are three: oil, Israel, and democracy.

Oil: this needs no extra explanation. Control of oil reserves is a strategic objective.

Israel: Israel's regional enemies were Saddam's Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The PNAC didn't intend to stop at Iraq.

Democracy: now, this may be a bit harder to swallow for some, but... I believe that the PNAC neo-cons genuinely, truly believed in their "democracy domino" theory. That is, that (1) democracies don't fight each other, (2) democracy is the natural political order for any country, so (3) to create democracy in the Middle East, all you have to do is get rid of the dictators, resulting in (4) a set of countries that are friendly to each other, America, and Israel (because of (1)).

So, the architects of the war believed that it would be a simple matter to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny, which would automatically result in the emergence of a pro-Western democracy, which would then cause the Syrian and Iranian "dominos" to fall, eventually spreading to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and what have you. And everybody would live happily ever after, sheltered under the wings of the American eagle.

If these are the reasons behind the war then they succeeded in the first two..

PS. Hope you don't mind my borrowing your kaffiyeh.

No I don't mind and in fact I have a brand new one...

 

[Prime Junta]

If these are the reasons behind the war then they succeeded in the first two...

Hardly. Oil just hit $100 a barrel, Iran and Syria are still going strong, and Israel suffered its worst humiliation, like, ever, in '06. Inshalla kheir for '08, but frankly I'm not too optimistic about the Annapolis process either, encouraging noises notwithstanding.

No I don't mind and in fact I have a brand new one...

Mine's from a shop in West Beirut, selling handicrafts made in the camps. And yeah, I do wear it in RL as well, oftentimes. My hat's a Stetson, though, to keep things in balance.

 

[POLYGON]

I don't see why it matters how much an oil barrel is as long as they have it, and I did mean Annapolis..the Palestinians are divided and Hizbullah's popularity is in severe decline...
About the Kaffiyeh 2 days ago it was the PLO anniversary and they gave them for free

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't see why it matters how much an oil barrel is as long as they have it, and I did mean Annapolis..the Palestinians are divided and Hizbullah's popularity is in severe decline...

Actually, it matters a great deal, but it would be a pretty long trek to explain why. In a very very small nutshell:

(1) Oil is a fungible commodity.
(2) The strategic value of controlling the oil supply comes from the ability to control the price of oil.
(3) As matters currently stand, the US does not control enough of the oil supply to be able to have a significant impact on price. This card is still held by OPEC.

Of course, $100 oil means gigantic profits for oil companies, which will make the good folks at Exxon very happy campers. However, on balance it goes very much against the American national interest, since the windfall is distributed in proportion to oil production. That means that the countries that have profited most include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

In a very concrete sense, the Iraq invasion is funding Iran's nuclear research program, Russia's new-generation fighter planes, and Venezuela's arms purchases, while Americans are shelling out about $1 trillion in direct and indirect costs for that particular party.

 

[dteowner]

In a very concrete sense, the Iraq invasion is funding Iran's nuclear research program, Russia's new-generation fighter planes, and Venezuela's arms purchases, while Americans are shelling out about $1 trillion in direct and indirect costs for that particular party.

Gawd, I hate it when you're right.

 

[magerette]

*snip*

To go off on a bit of a tangent, I find that one thing that seriously skews our perceptions and policies in the Middle East is that we (Westerners) have a really deep-seated, almost built-in craving for resolution. The railway carriage in Versailles, the tyrant's exile to St. Helena, the fall of the Berlin wall, the Ring thrown into Mount Doom, the fat lady singing. Hell, in a pinch [we] will settle for the storming of the Winter Palace; the bad guys might've won that one, but at least *someone* won. The Middle East just doesn't work like that. Things just go on and on and on, for centuries or even thousands of years. I don't see any signs of that changing any time soon.

I've missed a lot of this thread, but have just gone back and picked it up. The above statement is really very insightful (and if it wasn't so long I'd put it in my sig a la the codex.) To me it reflects (in a somewhat more literate manner) the comments I hear all the time from people here who are boggled and at the wtf? point about what is the program in the MidEast. Another fine piece of composition, Prime J., which helps clarify instead of confuse an already extremely muddled area.

And bonus points to all for avoiding testosterone overload and discussing at a civilized level a lot of uncivilized and ugly happenings.

 

[magerette]

The latest on the assassination arrests:
From the BBC:

CIA Director Michael Hayden told the Washington Post that the former Pakistani prime minister was killed by fighters allied to Baitullah Mehsud.
The Pakistani government accused Mehsud of the attack shortly after Ms Bhutto's death in Rawalpindi on 27 December.
Mr Hayden did not reveal the sources for his claim.
Correspondents say that Mr Hayden's comments are the most comprehensive public assessment by US intelligence of Ms Bhutto's death.
Controversy still surrounds the circumstances of the killing.
One or more attackers shot at her and detonated a bomb as she was leaving a rally in Rawalpindi.

Baitullah Mehsud has denied involvement. The Pakistani government says it intercepted a phone conversation proving that he was behind the attack

From the AP(on Yahoo)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A 15-year-old detained near the Afghan border has confessed to joining a team of assassins sent to kill Benazir Bhutto, officials said Saturday, announcing the first arrests in the case since the attack that killed the opposition leader.

Police also announced they had foiled new suicide attacks against the country's Shiite minority.

Interior Secretary Kamal Shah confirmed the arrest of two people in the town of Dera Ismail Khan in North West Frontier province, and said one — a teenage boy — had confessed involvement in the Dec. 27 attack that killed Bhutto. He said interrogators were trying to get corroborating testimony from the other detainee before accepting the confession...
..,But Maulvi Mohammed Umar, a purported spokesman for Mehsud, dismissed the report. "It is just government propaganda ... we have already clarified that we are not involved in the attack on Benazir Bhutto."

Is anybody else confused? Why would "Baitullah Mehsud, a militant leader with strong ties to al-Qaida and an alliance with the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan," deny a successful and highly publicized assassination? It's not like they're worrying about the PR aspect..

I know terrorist groups don't always inspire confidence in their truthfulness, but then neither does the C.I.A. I hate to scream 'government coverup' , but I can't seem to factor in the denial. Unless it meets some hidden agenda or has some subtle benefit I'm not picking up on--which is always possible--I just don't get the reason al-Quada would deny this if they actually are responsible. I suppose it could be confusion and lack of communication...or an attempt to muddy the waters and shed doubt on the current government.

 

[Prime Junta]

You're right to take this announcement with a huge grain of salt. The source is still the Pakistani government, which I wouldn't trust any further than I can spit a rat.

IOW, it could be Mehsoud, it could be someone completely different, it could be the ISI, it could be Mehsoud working with the ISI. It could even be Musharraf. There's just no way to know, and I have a feeling we may never find out.

 

[POLYGON]

Even that intercepted phonecall is Mehsoud conragualating someone for Bhutto's death..not a direct evidence, Musharaf was sure happy for her assassination so he could've got a similar phonecall or made one....

 

[Prime Junta]

Hey, and I though George Bush was bad for the world.
May be he is an Iranian agent?

Someone I know claims to have evidence that Dick Cheney is an Iranian sleeper agent. The Revolutionary Guard just shaved him, bleached him, fed him on burgers for a couple of years while teaching him that accent, killed the *real* Dick Cheney, and sent him in. I've asked to see the evidence, but he says he's keeping it under wraps until the Conditions are Right.

 

[chamr]

@magerette: don't forget: al-Qaida denied involvement in 9/11 for quite a while. If it was them that was primarily responsible for Bhutto, I'd guess they would rather benefit from the confusion and distrust spread by no one really knowing who did it than stroke their egos by boasting about it. At least for now...

 

[magerette]

Good point. And we still have no idea--or too many ideas--about what happened in Dallas on Nov 23, 1963, so it's probably too early to even begin to sort out the fact from the fiction.

 

[Corwin]

Yeah, but I bet you remember what you were doing at the time, I still do!!

 

[dteowner]

Bit of a necro, but thought I'd mention that I picked up a book last night. They didn't have the Karen Armstrong book PJ recommended, so I ended up settling on "Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization" by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The guy's a university prof thrown out during Iran's Islamic Revolution, so I figure he might know a thing or two. It's next up, if I can ever slog thru Robin Hobb's Liveship book.

 

[magerette]

Sounds interesting. Barnes & Noble has Armstrong's book on sale in their online warehouse clearance sale atm, dte. It's quite a clear,easily digested presentation of both events and doctrine, and half-way through I now actually have a glimmer of the difference between Shiia and Sunni.
I also saw a semi-fictional book called The Reluctant Fundamentalist by/about a Pakistani educated at Princeton whose life is disrupted by 9-11--anybody read it?

 

[Prime Junta]

I haven't read any of Seyyed Nasr's books, but going by what little I know of him, he sounds well worth listening to. I'd be very curious to hear your take on his book once you get that far.

 

[Corwin]

Dte, Liveship series is barely worth the effort. I actually find Hobb disappointing: tons of unrealised potential that just doesn't seem to go anywhere. Might be just my personal taste, but it's an author I've dropped!!

 

[dteowner]

It's a strange thing for me. While I enjoy the story as I'm going, it takes fooooorrrrrrrreeeeever to finish the book. I was reading book 1 for what seemed like 3 months. I'm only half way thru book 2 and I'm quite ready for it to be over. It's not bloated writing ala R Jordan, but it just goes on and on. But yet, I still maintain an interest in the characters. I don't know... There's part of me that wants to punt and read the Nasr book, but I just know if I put down book 2 I'll never go back and I've already got book 3 purchased.

 

[Corwin]

Yep, I agree with your assessment. I get most of my books out of the local library!!