US Interventionism Claims Another Victim
MCG
Posts: 780
"Interventionism can be a nasty business. In the case of Benazir Bhutto, whose return to Pakistani politics was dramatic, polarizing, and suspiciously timed, it ultimately took her life. True, Bhutto played the role of democratic savior and stood to make a significant impact in the upcoming elections, but despite the tragedy of her death, the root of why she returned to Pakistan should not be overlooked.
Benazir Bhutto was an instrument of US interventionism that was playing just a risky a game as President Musharraf has been. The different, of course, is that Musharraf possesses the support of the Armed Forces and Inter Service Intelligence, which, with regards to the reality of the Pakistani political landscape, is immensely significant. There is no question that Bhutto’s distrust of Pakistan’s military establishment was palpable, and given the expedience of her reintroduction to political life, and the entrenchment of the military establishment, one has to seriously wonder what would have occurred had she been successful in unseating the current government given that fact. There is little doubt that the military establishment was well aware of the motives behind Bhutto’s return and, given that, were certainly faced with difficult decisions of their own – even including the possibility of terminating Bhutto to usurp the objectives of those behind her return.
Bhutto’s assassination has plunged Pakistan into a state of chaos, resulting in a decision today by the government to crack down on unrest throughout the country. According to the BBC, 38 people have died in the violence that has erupted since Bhutto’s assassination last Thursday. But beneath such scenes, the wheels of interventionism continue to turn on this side of the globe, with even the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration should intervene in Pakistan to “fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions.” Without Bhutto, US hopes for timely change have been temporarily dashed, but that does not mean that they are out of options. Having alienated Musharraf, they may very well now turn to Nawaz Sharif, who, like any politician in a volatile state, may very likely be open to forming strong ties with foreign interests that are in a position to significantly support his government should he succeed. Then again, given Ms. Bhutto’s fate, he might not.
Ultimately, there should be no confusion regarding the loose employment of the term ‘democracy’ and the reality of what is transpiring in Pakistan. Since 9/11, the use of that term has been bandied about by the United States with regards to those locations that if feels are of significance to its foreign policy objectives. Where the United States is able to enjoy the cooperation of autocratic regimes to facilitate their policy objectives in specific regions they do. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that reality.
Pakistan’s significance is obviously multifaceted. Not only are wilder regions of it home to a variety of militant groups, but it has also been used as a staging ground for Taliban operations since their deposition in 2001, not to mention the fact that the Pashtun belt remains home to millions of refugees, many of which have been used to bolster the Taliban’s numbers.
Then there is the reality that within the military establishment itself there are elements that support those that the United States would see confronted. In fact, the assassination of Bhutto could very well have been undertaken by that very element using militants as proxies. The speed with which the ISI was able to produce evidence that Bhutto’s assassination was undertaken by an al-Qaeda affiliated group is both suspect and, in truth, genius. While it certainly appeared to be far too expediently convenient, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that that convenience plays perfectly into the hands of the very powers that championed Bhutto. Offering up al-Qaeda, in any way, shape, or form, was sure to set off a media firestorm in the Western world, introducing confusion into an already confused situation. Compounding that confusion is also the growing scandal regarding the government’s assertion of how Bhutto died. While her supporters claim that she was shot, a government spokesman has said that she died as a result of her head being slammed against the vehicle she was in as a result of the bomb blast. Adding another layer to the confusion, the militant that the Interior Ministry has claimed was responsible for masterminding the attack has denied any involvement.
If all of that sounds like a contradictory mess then one has to ultimately ask if it’s the product of genuine confusion or manufactured confusion? In situations such as these, genuine confusion certainly does occur, but is usually tempered by the eventuality of informational course corrections. On the other hand, if, in situations such as this, confusion is being manufactured, you’re going to see a continuance in contradictory information being released. The reason for this is to so utterly submerge the event in confusion that answers seem almost impossible to obtain and the public, faced with such overwhelming confusion, will find themselves so mired in it that they will eventually find their focus and scorn diverted.
Diversion, of course, is key to the success of any killing undertaken by the military establishment of any country.
Upon her return to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto exclaimed that she was not afraid of those that sought to stop her democratic vision from becoming a reality. On the day that she returned to Pakistan, her motorcade was attacked, an incident that took the lives of over 130 people. Since that time, her public appearances placed more lives in danger, including her own it should be rightly said, and numerous attempts on her life were also made. Of course, it takes courage to continue in the face of such dangers, but ultimately the reason for doing so has to be seen for what it is. While her death will most certainly make her a martyr of the country’s democratic movement, it should never be forgotten that hers was not a singular campaign aimed solely at delivering true democracy to the people of Pakistan. That, in the end, it came with conditions that were to the benefit of foreign interests, just as much as to the satisfaction of her own ego given the corruption that plagued her past. Ultimately, perhaps it was her ego that allowed her to overlook the inherit dangers of becoming the democratic proxy of foreign interests. And though it might seem a harsh thing to say, that decision may very well have been what killed her.
As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers."
Quoted from http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/12/us-interventionism-claims-another-victim/
I thought this was an interesting read.
Benazir Bhutto was an instrument of US interventionism that was playing just a risky a game as President Musharraf has been. The different, of course, is that Musharraf possesses the support of the Armed Forces and Inter Service Intelligence, which, with regards to the reality of the Pakistani political landscape, is immensely significant. There is no question that Bhutto’s distrust of Pakistan’s military establishment was palpable, and given the expedience of her reintroduction to political life, and the entrenchment of the military establishment, one has to seriously wonder what would have occurred had she been successful in unseating the current government given that fact. There is little doubt that the military establishment was well aware of the motives behind Bhutto’s return and, given that, were certainly faced with difficult decisions of their own – even including the possibility of terminating Bhutto to usurp the objectives of those behind her return.
Bhutto’s assassination has plunged Pakistan into a state of chaos, resulting in a decision today by the government to crack down on unrest throughout the country. According to the BBC, 38 people have died in the violence that has erupted since Bhutto’s assassination last Thursday. But beneath such scenes, the wheels of interventionism continue to turn on this side of the globe, with even the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration should intervene in Pakistan to “fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions.” Without Bhutto, US hopes for timely change have been temporarily dashed, but that does not mean that they are out of options. Having alienated Musharraf, they may very well now turn to Nawaz Sharif, who, like any politician in a volatile state, may very likely be open to forming strong ties with foreign interests that are in a position to significantly support his government should he succeed. Then again, given Ms. Bhutto’s fate, he might not.
Ultimately, there should be no confusion regarding the loose employment of the term ‘democracy’ and the reality of what is transpiring in Pakistan. Since 9/11, the use of that term has been bandied about by the United States with regards to those locations that if feels are of significance to its foreign policy objectives. Where the United States is able to enjoy the cooperation of autocratic regimes to facilitate their policy objectives in specific regions they do. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that reality.
Pakistan’s significance is obviously multifaceted. Not only are wilder regions of it home to a variety of militant groups, but it has also been used as a staging ground for Taliban operations since their deposition in 2001, not to mention the fact that the Pashtun belt remains home to millions of refugees, many of which have been used to bolster the Taliban’s numbers.
Then there is the reality that within the military establishment itself there are elements that support those that the United States would see confronted. In fact, the assassination of Bhutto could very well have been undertaken by that very element using militants as proxies. The speed with which the ISI was able to produce evidence that Bhutto’s assassination was undertaken by an al-Qaeda affiliated group is both suspect and, in truth, genius. While it certainly appeared to be far too expediently convenient, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that that convenience plays perfectly into the hands of the very powers that championed Bhutto. Offering up al-Qaeda, in any way, shape, or form, was sure to set off a media firestorm in the Western world, introducing confusion into an already confused situation. Compounding that confusion is also the growing scandal regarding the government’s assertion of how Bhutto died. While her supporters claim that she was shot, a government spokesman has said that she died as a result of her head being slammed against the vehicle she was in as a result of the bomb blast. Adding another layer to the confusion, the militant that the Interior Ministry has claimed was responsible for masterminding the attack has denied any involvement.
If all of that sounds like a contradictory mess then one has to ultimately ask if it’s the product of genuine confusion or manufactured confusion? In situations such as these, genuine confusion certainly does occur, but is usually tempered by the eventuality of informational course corrections. On the other hand, if, in situations such as this, confusion is being manufactured, you’re going to see a continuance in contradictory information being released. The reason for this is to so utterly submerge the event in confusion that answers seem almost impossible to obtain and the public, faced with such overwhelming confusion, will find themselves so mired in it that they will eventually find their focus and scorn diverted.
Diversion, of course, is key to the success of any killing undertaken by the military establishment of any country.
Upon her return to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto exclaimed that she was not afraid of those that sought to stop her democratic vision from becoming a reality. On the day that she returned to Pakistan, her motorcade was attacked, an incident that took the lives of over 130 people. Since that time, her public appearances placed more lives in danger, including her own it should be rightly said, and numerous attempts on her life were also made. Of course, it takes courage to continue in the face of such dangers, but ultimately the reason for doing so has to be seen for what it is. While her death will most certainly make her a martyr of the country’s democratic movement, it should never be forgotten that hers was not a singular campaign aimed solely at delivering true democracy to the people of Pakistan. That, in the end, it came with conditions that were to the benefit of foreign interests, just as much as to the satisfaction of her own ego given the corruption that plagued her past. Ultimately, perhaps it was her ego that allowed her to overlook the inherit dangers of becoming the democratic proxy of foreign interests. And though it might seem a harsh thing to say, that decision may very well have been what killed her.
As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers."
Quoted from http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/12/us-interventionism-claims-another-victim/
I thought this was an interesting read.
Which came first,
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Israel is usually so far ahead of other states that it is sometimes left out when deciding rankings...I am guessing they are still on the top of the list.
Happy New Year!
Good point, that might be worth looking in to.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
The following is what I posted on his blog
" I am from Pakistan, and one thing I always find amusing that how quick people in the western world are quick to jump on their high horse. You are not Pakistani and I assume majority of the people that post here have never lived or been to Pakistan, so before you make any assumptions you have to realize how things work in Pakistan.
Bhutto is PPP period. People trust that name people respect that name and people want that name in power. They could have made someone else the head of PPP but people would not have excepted it. No political party in Pakistan has elections to select thier leaders thats just the way it is, like it or not. Nawaz Sharif has been the head of Muslim league since 1991, Imran Khan the head of Thereek- e - Insaf and so on and so forth. With that said, we in Pakistan have a different culture and a different way of life, and therefore we can not have the Canadian or American brand of Democracy. The sooner you realize that the better it will be.
With that said I believe we are not perfect but in order to get to that place we have to take one step at a time, and progress is going to be slow but ineveitbaly I believe there will be progress.
In addition, I can not fathom the thought that some people believe that Benazir had the hand in the first assacinantion attempt. And to answer the previous post about Benazir Bhutto being a proxy for foreign interest, no matter who comes in power in Pakistan, one thing is given that they would have to compromise with the US in one way or another, because of our geographical location alone.
And lastly I take serious offense to you claiming that Benazir Bhutto lost her life in the quest to satisfy her ego. I don’t care how egotistical a person is no one risks their life in such way. She might not have been perfect but she was one of the few hopes we had"
Montreal 03, 05
Kitchener 03
Ottawa 05
New Jersey 06
Chicago 07
Washington DC 08
NYC 08
EDDIE 08
I personally think Imran Khan is the man for the job.
Many people in Pakistan did not like her, she had a bad rep. so did her dad...oh and her husband. sorry she was not really that loved or respected.
I think she was a poor hope. but a hope is a hope I guess.
Total sales of U.S. Arms doubled from 2005 to 2006 to $21 Billion.
I reference a source i believe to be legitimate, not one of those left-wing anti-war peacenik blogs (Avaition Week - Nov 19, 2006 , an Aerospace trade publication):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw112006p1.xml
"Yet the question of what sales should or shouldn't be approved is sometimes contentious, and at least one of the past year's deals--the sale of Block 50/52 F-16s to Pakistan--raised pointed questions in Congress (the sale was ultimately approved). "
...
And from the horse's mouth, itself:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3453.htm
"The United States and Pakistan concluded the sale to Pakistan of F-16 aircraft in late 2006, further reflecting their deepening strategic partnership. President Musharraf visited Washington in September 2006, where he held a bilateral meeting with President Bush and also participated in a trilateral meeting with President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan. The U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership is based on the shared interests of the United States and Pakistan in building stable and sustainable democracy and in promoting peace and security, stability, prosperity, and democracy in South Asia and across the globe."
...
There is no mention of dollar figures or delivery schedules.
...
ADD: Here's something that references costs:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/061002/43/684du.html
"Reports said the deal is part of a $5 billion arms package for Pakistan, which includes F-16 fighter jets and an assortment of air and ground weaponry. "
Hail, Hail!!!
Thats arms sales,
Israel gets so called "free" military weapons,planes,equipment. huge loans and aid. No single country tops what Israel gets from the US.
On another note, Israel has I think the largest set/fleet of F-16 fighter jets (not including what the US has of course)
Well we just did like a 10 or 30 billion dollar deal with Israel (too lazy to look it up) but it was over a 10 year period, so???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The first reactor is currently under construction in Cadarache, France just in case that's on your summer vacation itinerary.