Times of India: Bhutto Killed by the “Monster She Created”
[Guest post by DRJ]
In a fascinating article, the Times of India claims Benazir Bhutto was responsible for empowering the persons who ultimately engineered her death:
“Monster she created came back to take her life
It was the year 1996. Benazir Bhutto as prime minister of Pakistan had asked Pervez Musharraf, then her Director General of Military Operations, to rehabilitate Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in Jalalabad from Sudan. Bin Laden, who had shifted base to the African country after the Afghan war, had been thrown out by Khartoum after intense American pressure. Musharraf brought the Al-Qaida mastermind to Jalalabad, a city in eastern Afghanistan, and rehabilitated him.
That, a decade later, Al-Qaida should claim responsibility for Bhutto’s assassination marks not just a cruel irony, it also underlines once again the risk of Frankenstein’s monster turning upon the master.
Bhutto’s return to Pakistan this year may have been marked with her claim to wipe out terrorism, but the fact remains that it was her interior minister, Major General (retd) Naseerullah Babar, who played a key role in raising the Taliban and consolidating Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. The reason: a desire to secure strategic depth by controlling Pakistan’s western border, and to have a say in future Afghanistan affairs. The present day terrorism in India, and now turning on Pakistan, can, to an important extent, be traced to that fateful decision taken by the Bhutto government.
Taliban soon became host to a menacing jihadi conglomerate — the Qaida-led International Islamic Front (IIF) — the components of which included anti-India gangs like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, which later became Jaish-e-Mohhamed, HuJI and others. The objective of the group was to establish Sharia rule in this important region of Asia, and it was determined to go to any length, even acquire weapons of mass destruction, to realise it.”
It’s tempting to view international relations, politics, and government as a kind of crossword puzzle where events happen in a predictable, interconnected, and manageable way. In reality, events are often unpredictable and chaotic, and lead to unmanageable consequences. And, in this case, sad and dangerous consequences.
— DRJ
Great link. Pakistan has been a mistake since it appeared as an attempt to settle the Indian civil war after Britain left. This article covers the partition. Note this comment.
Some historians believe Jinnah (whose catch-phrase was that India would be “divided or destroyed”) intended to use the threat of partition as a bargaining chip in order to gain more independence for the Muslim dominated provinces in the west from the Hindu dominated center.
Pakistan was a bluff that failed. The result has been instability for 60 years. India still has 150 million Muslims who may be less successful than Hindus but are far better off than their brethren in Pakistan.
We will see serious trouble from Pakistan and that may be enough to cause the Afghan attempt at self rule to fail. There is no good news from there
Mike K (86bddb) — 12/29/2007 @ 10:10 amThis is funny: Today’s LA Times editorial blames everyone (including President Bush) except the Taliban. Like an escaped tiger, I guess the Taliban is only acting within its nature.
Alta Bob (ec51e1) — 12/29/2007 @ 10:13 amI’ve suspected Musharraf’s intelligence service of providing inside information about Bhutto’s schedule, thus making it easier to attack her. However, given this background, it makes me wonder if the extremists might also have a source in Bhutto’s organization.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/29/2007 @ 11:04 amThe media treat each big event like a sporting event: who is ahead, who is falling behind, who’s got momentum, what’s the strategy. It’s all the gestalt of immediacy.
The history behind this assassination must be read. Those who fail to learn from history…
Patricia (f56a97) — 12/29/2007 @ 11:23 amIn reality, events are often unpredictable and chaotic, and lead to unmanageable consequences
If only our friends on the Left – who believe that the US is able to control all of these events – understood this.
Recall that observation by Nietzsche on Truth? He asked:
“Supposing truth is a woman – what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? that the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman’s heart? What is certain is that she has not allowed herself to be won: – and today every kind of dogmatism is left standing dispirited and discouraged.”
Dogmatic explanations of history (the Truth) will always fail.
SteveMG (c918c7) — 12/29/2007 @ 11:35 amGet season tickets for the Jerry Springer Show?
PCachu (e072b7) — 12/29/2007 @ 11:47 amYou have no friends on the left.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 11:54 amNobody has friends on the left.
nk (c87736) — 12/29/2007 @ 11:58 amYou have no friends on the left.
The Right seeks out converts; the Left seeks out heretics.
And, surprise!, finds them everywhere.
SMG
SteveMG (49e21c) — 12/29/2007 @ 12:28 pmI have tons of friends.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 12:47 pmDon’t stray off the plantation.
nk (c87736) — 12/29/2007 @ 12:50 pmThe Right seeks out converts; the Left seeks out heretics.
Hadn’t heard that saying before–awesomely concise and IMO so true.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 12/29/2007 @ 12:59 pmThat might be the most egotistical thing I’ve read in a long time.
David, you might believe you have a lot of friends on the left, but what do you think would happen if you decided to publicly support our efforts in Iraq?
If past history is to be relied upon, you would quickly find yourself with few of your many friends still willing to speak civilly to you.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 12/29/2007 @ 1:06 pmDavid, you are a smart guy with real wisdom about a narrow range of subjects (movies, celebrities, gay culture… Well, that’s about it.). Why do you come over here and look so silly ? I would suspect an impostor but you’ve bragged about it on other blogs. I feel like using my standard crank reply letter. “Dear sir. Someone has been sending crazy letters and signing your name. I thought I should warn you so you can be on the alert for impostors who try to make you look like a fool.
Mike K (86bddb) — 12/29/2007 @ 1:07 pmLenin called it infantile leftism. In modern form, it’s simply trying to shock or be provocative with empty gestures while never offering anything but complaints.
SMG
SteveMG (49e21c) — 12/29/2007 @ 1:18 pmSMG, it seems to be all that is actually remaining in the Left.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2007 @ 3:32 pmThe state of affairs in Pakistan is what “Palestine” would be on a good day, if the two-state solution were ever implemented.
Yes, David, why do you act this way? You did the same number on Cathy Seipps’ blog.
Patricia (f56a97) — 12/29/2007 @ 3:37 pmWhy on earth would I do that? Are you insane?
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:19 pmIf you’re looking for a hot fuck from me with my Massive Mandingo Cock, nk — forget it!
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:20 pmI don’t know how many friends you have David but you just lost you one.
nk (c87736) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:25 pmNo loss I’m sure.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:26 pmAnd every time “Plantation” poo is flung in my face you can expect more of the same.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:27 pmDavid, the foul mouth is getting old.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:36 pmThe de rigeur racism is getting old too.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:40 pmYes, there is always an excuse for your vulgarity isn’t there?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:48 pmForget it, SPQR. My fault for mistaking which one percent a “one-percenter” was.
nk (c87736) — 12/29/2007 @ 5:53 pmnk, he thinks that your plantation comment was a reference to his race. Its unfortunate that David thinks everyone reacts to him based on his race and sexuality. I for one do not think of him as a black person or a gay person.
Just a vulgar person.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:00 pmOf course it was a reference to my race — and you know it.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:10 pmnk, he thinks that your plantation comment was a reference to his race.
No, he doesn’t. He’s smart enough to know that. He’s just a nasty asshole who will put the worst connotation on something you’ve said out of pure nastiness. I’m an idiot for not realizing that sooner.
nk (c87736) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:12 pmActually, David, I don’t know it. I didn’t even think of your race when I first saw nk’s comment. The reference to a “Democatic plantation” or a “liberal plantation” is often used without reference to race. And you know that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:12 pmIt’s always a reference to race.
Naturally you’re playing Little Miss Innocent — like all Republicans.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:17 pmDo you really think I’m so stupid that I’m going to sit here and have a racial slur flung at me and take it?
Do you really think I’m so stupid as to buy your phony denial?
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:19 pmTo you, David. Everything is always about race to you. Unless it’s about where you put your penis.
The rest of the planet is capable of significantly more nuance.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:28 pmGot two black people who think you’re black, David? Or two Jews who think you’re Jewish? The hell with you fatherless, anchorless nothing.
nk (c87736) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:34 pmHow gracious.
(And what’s with the “fatherless” bit?)
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 6:44 pmGive David a break, he’s working on a trifecta of victimhood here – black, jewish and gay. He’s gotta milk it for all that he can. He can do no wrong because the whole world is against him.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/29/2007 @ 8:11 pmKeep playing the white victim card, daleyrocks.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 8:32 pmWhen you assume, you make an Ass out of You and me, but more you.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/29/2007 @ 8:39 pm*sigh*
I actually was utterly unaware that David was black.
Heck of a way to learn, really.
David, I really don’t think nk was refering to your race.
But I’ll restate what he said in the manner I understood it: “David, don’t fail to toe the party line”.
If you were to, for example, start supporting our efforts in Iraq, you would very rapidly learn that many of those you call “friend” have no desire to even speak to you civilly. You would get a lot of actual racial comments from them (“Uncle Tom” would likely be popular, it is when the left talks about black conservitives).
Try, for a week, to support Iraq. You and I both know it won’t be sincere, but give it a try. Be as utterly convincing as you can. You will rapidly see a VERY different side to your loving and tolerant friends. You will see the side WE see daily.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 12/29/2007 @ 8:39 pmThat’s like saying “try for a week supporting genocide” or “try for a week supporting slavery.”
It’s a non-starter. I see no advantage to moral dishonesty — though you obviously do.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/29/2007 @ 8:54 pmOr “Try for a week being logical and somewhat less than a knee jerk shrieker.” Or a race baiter. Or a heterophobe.
Of course, your mileage will vary. Reason #215,617 why David is not to be taken seriously.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/29/2007 @ 8:58 pmHow is supporting Iraq “moral dishonesty”, David?
Now, slavery and genocide are immoral on their face. The invasion of Iraq may have been immoral. Intelligent people can disagree and I can certainly see valid arguments for the proposition.
However, you’re there now and you have international legal obligations as an occupying power to provide for the people’s internal and external security, plus social wellbeing insofar as making sure they are fed, housed, and clothed. While doing such, the idea is to help crush the insurgents who are killing Iraqi people in great numbers (in keeping with your legal and moral obligations to protect the people) and transition the country to full democracy, which is perhaps a long shot.
Yet Iraqis voted for their government and requests American assistance. You can argue it isn’t in America’s financial or security interests to be there — and perhaps you’re right — but how is supporting Iraq, the country, immoral?
And how in Reason’s name is it in any way equivalent to genocide or slavery?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/29/2007 @ 9:01 pmNow, now Christoph. You don’t want to derail a nice, frothy screech with your silly rationality, do you?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/29/2007 @ 9:09 pmI should have mentioned that David would utterly refuse to consider making the attempt.
I personally suspect it is because he knows what would happen.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 12/29/2007 @ 9:16 pmRemember, friends, that David Ehrenstein only posts to disagree and be contrary. The goal is to get other people angry. That’s it. Oh, okay, Patterico, the person can write reasonable things from time to time, but mostly? Bomb and pooh throwing is his metier.
Replying to anything he writes—even this—is precisely what he lives for. Which is kind of sad, when you think about it. We all have much richer lives than that, don’t we?
Lurker (08319c) — 12/29/2007 @ 9:18 pmI don’t know why David’s unwilling to add moral dishonesty to the intellectual dishonesty he displays here every day. Just a hop, skip and a jump.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/29/2007 @ 9:23 pmComment by Lurker — 12/29/2007 @ 9:18 pm
Thanks for the reasonable comments.
Would just like to address Patterico, so as not to “start anything” here…Patterico, can you do something, for future threads, about OT and graphic porn language? Smacks you in the face, it feels like sexual harassment (and therefore an attack of sorts) on all the other posters. Makes me not want to come on threads if I have to put up with that. Thanks.
Hope everyone has a good rest of the evening. Off to bed and good night.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 12/29/2007 @ 10:03 pmHoly fuck! In the name of the virgin pussy, what set him off?
Sweet — just noticed: The Patriots won! Way to go, Brady.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/29/2007 @ 10:29 pmTruer words have never been spoken. The sooner the average American understands this and begins treating all lefties as the enemies that they are, the better off we’ll all be.
Xrlq (22a88b) — 12/30/2007 @ 6:08 amYou’re asking me to support policies I do not believe in i the most flip, cynical way imaginable, as if it were on par with “Try the new Diet Coke.”
I was against the American invasion of Iraq from the beginning — and not in the phony Hillary Clinton sense either. Yet you people are so morally shallow as to assume I can simply “try” supporting that which I oppose with every fiber of my being as if it were a mere fashion choice.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/30/2007 @ 6:25 amChristoph, sorry for my lack of clarity. I think others already know – but I’ll clarify – that I only meant “porn language which is both graphic and OT,” i.e. I don’t expect to come on a Times of India post about Bhutto and suddenly read graphic porn stuff on the thread. Others already found it offensive and vulgar too, as you see above.
But yes, how about those Patriots? And thanks for the gracious reply. Have a good day.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 12/30/2007 @ 8:16 am(Seems like a certain poster has a histrionic personality disorder,
and wants to make the argument all about him?)
Well, the article was fascinating.
It’s also interesting that Ms. Bhutto’s father was the real “father of Pakistani nukes,”
not Khan: Khan was the scientist; Bhutto was the force behind the acquisition.
Interesting that virtually no one in the US press is talking about India,
and how dangerous for India it would be if Pakistani nukes fall into the hands of the Islamists,
considering Kashmir is still an open wound.
Ironic that Bhutto was willing to negotiate the issue.
NBDE (35b8e2) — 12/31/2007 @ 12:27 am(She was popular in India, too, partly as a result.)
That may have been the trigger.