Dave Chandler's Earthside.com

American Provocateur in Bolivia

Earthside Comments: This is a very interesting story. The vote is taking place today.

Doesn't it seem that wherever in the world there is trouble, or where the powerful are trying to oppressive the peaceful -- you find a ugly American.

Link: U.S. Rancher in Bolivia Showdown | TIME

In his native Montana, Ronald Larsen's current legal straits might be the stuff of an old-fashioned Western movie: A cattle rancher who believes the government and its allies are unfairly trying to seize his land, and picks up a rifle to signal his displeasure. But in contemporary Bolivia, where Larsen makes his home, his recent clash with the authorities is but another instance of rising tension over land-ownership between, on the one hand, left-wing President Evo Morales and his supporters among Bolivia's indigenous population, and on the other, political opponents backed by the country's wealthy eastern elite.

"A small group of ranchers is preventing us from carrying out rightful land reform in the eastern region of Santa Cruz," says Bolivia's Vice Minister of Land, Alejandro Almaraz, who accuses Larsen of attacking his convoy this spring. "U.S.-born Ronald Larsen is leading this violent resistance." But critics counter that Morales is hyping the case to build support ahead of Sunday's referendum in Santa Cruz, where opposition parties are pressing for autonomy from the central government — and ahead of a constitutional referendum later this year on changes that include capping the amount of land that can be owned by a single individual in Bolivia.

Both the autonomy and land-reform issues have sparked violent unrest over the past year, pitting the largely white farmers and ranchers of Bolivia's more affluent lowland east against the impoverished indigenous majority who back Morales, himself an Aymara Indian and the nation's first indigenous President. Little surprise, then, that a national furor has erupted over a confrontation involving government officials and Larsen, 64, who along with his two sons, owns 17 properties totaling 141,000 acres throughout Bolivia, three times as much land as the country's largest city. (Larsen insists his holdings amount to less than 25,000 acres.)

Last month, when Almaraz and aides tried to pass through Larsen's Santa Cruz property — they insist it was the only route by which to reach to nearby indigenous Guarani residents to whom they were delivering land deeds — witnesses say the caravan was fired on by Larsen and his son Duston, 29. The incident was followed by two weeks of rancher roadblocks and violent protests that left 40 indigenous people injured.

Larsen, who arrived in Bolivia in 1968, told a La Paz newspaper that Almaraz's vehicle had entered his property at around 3 a.m. Almaraz, he said, "had not presented any identification. He was drunk and being abusive ... I quieted him with a bullet to his tire. That's the story." But the government insists this wasn't Larsen's first run-in with Almaraz: the rancher is accused of kidnapping the vice minister for eight hours in February. The two alleged incidents prompted the government to file a criminal complaint of "sedition, robbery and other crimes" against Larsen and his son two weeks ago. Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to press formal charges. Neither father nor son has responded publicly to the accusations, and neither responded to repeated requests by TIME for comment.

U.S.-educated Duston Larsen, referring to Morales' efforts to empower Bolivia's indigenous, wrote on his Myspace page in 2007, "I used to think democracy was the best form to govern a country but ... should a larger more uneducated group of people (70%) be in charge of making decisions, running a country and voting?" The fact that Duston, in 2004, won the Mr. Bolivia beauty pageant, in the eyes of many government supporters, puts him in the company of the country's European-oriented elite. (That same year, Miss Bolivia, Gabriela Oviedo, also from the country's east, suggested Bolivia shouldn't be considered an indigenous nation: "I'm from the other side of the country. We are tall, and we are white people, and we know English.) Morales backers say it is precisely this disdain for the indigenous that is driving what they call the secessionist agenda behind Sunday's autonomy referendum — which is not legally sanctioned by the National Electoral Court or recognized by the Organization of American States. But autonomy supporters say they're only seeking states' rights on questions such as taxation, police and public works. "This is a historic demand based on long-standing differences with a La Paz-based central government," says Edilberto Osinaga, managing director of the Chamber of Eastern Farmers.

Autonomy is favored by more than the two-thirds of Santa Cruz voters needed to pass, according to polls, and Governor Ruben Costas, a staunch Morales opponent, said recently that it would "give birth to a new republic." He has since denied that he implied a separatist movement for Santa Cruz or the other three eastern states: Beni, Pando and Tarija, which will hold similar votes this summer. But critics say the remark betrayed an underlying goal of the country's eastern elite: gaining total control over Bolivia's vast natural gas reserves and its most fertile land.

Conflict over land is also at the heart of the clash over a new draft constitution restricting an individual's land holdings to just under 25,000 acres — a profound challenge to the ownership pattern in a country where 10% of the population controls more than 90% of arable land. "This is an extremely problematic proposal," says Osinaga. "You impose those kinds of limits and watch how fast the economy crumbles and poverty grows."

Under its current land reform program, the Morales government has already given landless Bolivians deeds to 25 million acres (10 million hectares). Some analysts suggest that staging the autonomy referendums is simply a political device to give the easterners greater leverage in pressing Morales to renegotiate constitutional changes. Others fear the rising tension points to that classic Western movie resolution: a violent showdown.

Warning on Pakistan

Earthside Comments: The first link and excerpt here should be a blazing warning to the American people, the Pakistani people and the rest of the world interested in peace.

The Bush regime is threatening to involve the U.S. even more deeply in the political affairs of Pakistan -- on the side of the murderous dictator, Pervez Musharraf. More Bush arrogance and meddling will certainly mean more chaos, more violence and even more anti-Americanism around the world.

We include a report demonstrating just how disgustingly slimy and degraded is Bush-pal Musharraf, blaming Bhutto for her own death.

Then two articles, one from the perspective of the left and one from the libertarian right, counseling against any escalation of U.S. involvement in Pakistan.

Link: U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan | New York Times

President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan. ...

... Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a number of President Bush’s top national security advisers met Friday at the White House to discuss the proposal, which is part of a broad reassessment of American strategy after the assassination 10 days ago of the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. There was also talk of how to handle the period from now to the Feb. 18 elections, and the aftermath of those elections.

Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership were likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. But no decisions were made, said the officials, who declined to speak for attribution because of the highly delicate nature of the discussions.

Link: Musharraf: Bhutto is Responsible for Death | Reuters/msnbc.com

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf conceded that a gunman may have shot Benazir Bhutto but said the opposition leader exposed herself to danger and bore responsibility for her death, CBS News said on Saturday.

Musharraf was also quoted as telling the CBS "60 Minutes" program to be broadcast on Sunday that his government did everything it could to provide security for Bhutto, who was killed last week in a gun and suicide-bomb attack after a political rally.

"For standing up outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. Responsibility is hers," Musharraf said in the interview taped on Saturday morning.

Link: US Military Escalation Gets Underway In Pakistan | Tom Hayden/CommonDreams.org

The US government is considering direct military intervention in the tribal areas of Pakistan, risking an escalated conflict with Pashtun nationalism in the name of crushing al Qaeda. An essay in last week’s Washington Post, a front page story in today’s New York Times and reports from the Real News Network all confirm that a decision to intervene is near. The Times confirms that as many as 50 American personnel, whether special forces or CIA, already operate clandestinely inside the Pakistani border.

Democrats have called no hearings nor raised significant voices of opposition to the unfolding plan. In New Hampshire last night, Sen. Barack Obama repeated his endorsement of unilateral US military intervention in Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” exists. His Democratic rivals did not dissent.

The consequences of the possible escalation are extremely unpredictable. The alleged al-Qaeda militants are embedded in complex tribal networks in a remote mountainous area. Military action could inflict severe casualties and damage to these traditional communities and inflame anti-American sentiment across Muslim Pakistan. It might accelerate the disintegration of the US-backed Musharraf dictatorship which currently possesses nuclear weapons. Musharraf and the Pakistani military have steadfastly opposed direct American intervention for the past five years.

Speculation is rife that US support for the ill-fated return of Benezir Bhutto to Pakistan was based partly on an understanding that she would endorse and legitimize an expanded US presence in her country. If neither the American embassy nor the Musharraf regime could save her from death at a public event, it is unclear how successful American special forces will be in the wilds of South Waziristan.

There is virtually no public discussion of the implications of American support for a military dictatorship that imprisons Pakistani lawyers while harboring anti-US jihadists. Instead of enforcing the existing Leahy Amendment [1997] which bans military assistance to human rights violators, the US has spent approximately $10 billion in five years supporting the Musharraf regime, alienating a majority of Pakistanis, and lending credence to the claims of Muslim extremists. Having contributed to, or at least failing to have prevented Pakistan’s fall into chaos, “senior officials” quoted by the Times now are blaming al-Qaeda for plotting all along to achieve “the big prize, creating chaos in Pakistan itself.”

It is ironic that Democrats like Obama, whose campaign was built around questioning the intelligence justifying the Iraq War would now be arguing for a preventive war in a sovereign country if evidence gathered by intelligence sources is merely “actionable.”

The further irony is that the “war on terrorism” is escalating without meaningful discussion or dissent in the midst of the most open and democratic of American processes, the presidential debates.

Congressional hearings and questioning by the presidential candidates might stall, circumscribe or prevent the escalation. An alternative policy of reducing US military assistance to Pakistan and demanding the full restoration of civil liberties there, while seeking diplomatic de-escalation in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Palestine is being ignored in the march towards a wider quagmire.

Link: Hands Off Pakistan | Sheldon Richman/Future of Freedom Foundation

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was not an attack on this brave woman alone; it was an attack upon democracy, freedom and the United States.” This statement by Asa Hutchinson, former undersecretary of homeland security, was typical of the reaction of the American political and media establishments.

The claim that the assassination was an attack on democracy and freedom is dubious because Bhutto’s two spells as prime minister of Pakistan were not notable for either one. Whether it was an attack on the United States depends on what that means. It certainly was not an attack on the American people. How could it be construed that way, unless one has such an imperialist notion of “our interests” that nothing can happen in the world without impinging on them?

But if by “United States” we mean the policies of the current administration, then indeed it was such an attack. Bhutto, after all, favored bringing U.S. military forces into Pakistan, according to Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and region specialist. If that’s an option President Bush planned to exercise, the loss of Bhutto is a grave blow to his policy.

It is during a crisis that the establishment hoists its true colors for all to see. With few exceptions, the most prominent voices in politics and the news media are chanting in unison that Bhutto’s assassination proves that the United States needs to be more involved in Pakistan than it has been.

Could the United States be more involved? American presidents have been meddling in Pakistani politics for a long time. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan regarded the brutal military dictator Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who had come to power by overthrowing — and later executing — Bhutto’s father, the elected prime minister, Zulifqar Ali Bhutto, as a key ally. Once again the U.S. government used the Cold War as an excuse to back a despot.

Shortly before the current Pakistan president, Pervez Musharraf, staged a coup and named himself chief executive, Bill Clinton had pressured then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to get Musharraf, who was then the head of the army, to pull his forces out of the part of Kashmir controlled by rival India. Sharif was thus perceived as a puppet of the United States. That could not have helped his fortunes.

Since 9/11, of course, Musharraf has been crowned a key ally in Bush’s “war on terror.” Some $10 billion in cash and arms has poured into the dictator’s coffers. The largess did not slow down when Musharraf suspended the constitution, sacked the Supreme Court, declared martial law, and arrested lawyers and civil-libertarians — all to fight terrorism and protect democracy.

When even Bush couldn’t escape the fact that the Pakistanis were outraged about Musharraf, his administration tried to engineer an unlikely political marriage between the dictator and Bhutto. Whether her death came at the hands of Musharraf’s security forces, parts of which have notorious ties to radical Islamic elements, or al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the murderers’ opportunity has the mark of bumbling U.S. interventionism all over it. Before someone calls this a “blame America first” point of view, note that former Bush UN ambassador John Bolton told Fox News, “We in effect helped — helped — precipitate this dynamic that led to her tragic assassination.”

What is so fascinating is how impervious the political and media establishments are to the lessons of reality. After all that’s happened, the dominant voices still insist that Bush redouble efforts to determine Pakistan’s future. The arrogance and pretense of knowledge displayed by such people are astounding. Haven’t they learned that America’s political leaders can’t possibly know what they would need to know to run Pakistan? Their meddling here creates one mess after another — how can they hope to succeed there?

But Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world, we’re told incessantly. If that’s true, it’s all the more reason for the United States to keep its hands off. Intervention only creates and provokes enemies. That endangers the American people, precisely the opposite of what the Bush administration says it wants to do.

Musharraf/Military Lied

Earthside Comments: First, stunning new video that puts the unvarnished truth to the Musharraf/military lie about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

What is particularly disgusting is the way politicians in this country and the Bush regime are supporting the continuance of the Musharraf dictatorship, while using the appropriate begrudging rhetoric, of course. It looks like U.S. international relations are now so decadent and depraved that a murdering, lying dictator is supported from the American moderate left to the neocon right.

This is exactly where Musharraf and Bush wanted to go -- a feign towards democracy in Pakistan with an end result being a hardcore, jackboot military regime compliant towards the radical Republican, Bushite, neocon world view. Musharraf is an illegal 'president' in Pakistan, any elections held sooner or later will be suspect, further violence will rationalize de facto martial law, the Islamicist 'terrorists' have been blamed for all the trouble -- the resulting chaos will necessitate Musharraf and his military remaining the 'stablizing force' for sometime to come.

This works for Bush and the radical right in this country because it advances the neocon prpaganda effort to make it look like they were pushing for democracy in Pakistan, but, hey, things happen you know. Now they get a fresh reason to cry 'Terror! Terror! Terror!' from here until election day (ie., better vote Republican or you'll be blown-up).

Additional, as noted in the excerpts from the Eric Margolis article below, Bush wanted three air bases in Pakistan to be part of any U.S. attack on Iran. With Bhutto out of the way, Musharraf-Bush are again free to contemplate the next big war -- once a new pretext for bombing Iran is concocted. (The Margolis article was written in November 2007; it is very interesting in revealing the Pakistan political environment that led to the most recent tragedy.)

It is indeed a high risk political game Bush and Musharraf are playing ... things could yet careen out of control for them. But the pay-off -- if it all works -- would certainly make the risk worthwhile, from the 'war is glorious and solves all problems' point of view, that is.

So, let's see what happens next.

Link: Washington Stirs a Witch's Brew in Pakistan | Eric Margolis - November 12, 2007

Plans by President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran have been at least temporarily derailed by the mounting crisis in Pakistan. Not only is this important South Asia nation a key US ally in its conflict with anti-western Muslim groups (aka `the war of terror’), the US also planned to use three Pakistani air bases it now controls to launch air attacks against Iran.

I’ve been in regular contact with former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She calls the situation `grim.’ On Friday, she was temporarily put under house arrest, preventing her from leading a mass demonstration in Islamabad. On Tuesday, she plans to lead a mass protest march from Lahore, to which she flew over the weekend, to Islamabad, mobilizing her party faithful and challenging the Musharraf regime.

Another important Pakistani party, Jamiat Islami, is also threatening mass demonstrations. Bhutto and other opposition leaders are calling on Musharraf to resign as military chief and run in fair, internationally supervised elections.

Bhutto tells me she may face another attempt to kill her. She accuses allies of President-General Pervez Musharraf of trying to assassinate her in the October 18th bombing in Karachi that killed or wounded hundreds. ...

... Musharraf’s imposition of martial law, arrest of Supreme Court justices who were going to rule illegal his continued role as commander-in-chief and president, arrest of other opposition figures and muzzling the formerly feisty media have proven most embarrassing to the Bush Administration which claims to be an apostle of democracy. Bush, who claims to have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in order to bring them the light of democracy, must continue supporting Pakistan’s military dictator or see his war in Afghanistan collapse.

So, under heavy pressure from Washington, Musharraf agreed to hold elections on 15 January and release some jailed opponents. Washington hailed Musharraf. In reality, however, it was another cynical ploy. Every election Musharraf has held since seizing power in 1999 has been rigged. Does anyone really believe there will be fair elections in Pakistan under martial law or with the media gagged?

Musharraf, who commands less than 8% popular support, and is widely hated as an American stooge, knows he would lose any honest election. What he plans are the same kind of farcical `democratic elections’ held by the US-backed military dictatorships of Egypt and Algeria. ...

... Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the newly named vice chief of staff, could be Pakistan’s next strongman. If Musharraf is overthrown, killed or driven from office, Washington has chosen Gen. Kiyani as its Plan B, either with or without Benazir Bhutto. Kiyani has close links to the US and received part of his military training there.

If Musharraf does finally resign his command, Kiyani will control the military. Musharraf will be left without a power base – or perhaps even army protection.

Benazir Bhutto tells me pro-Taliban tribesmen and Uzbek allies in Northwest Frontier Province on the Afghan border are rapidly taking over cities and towns. Army troops ordered to attack them have surrendered or refused to fire. The Swat Valley, which is well inside Pakistan, fell to Islamists two weeks ago.

This could mark the beginning of a rebellion in the ranks. The loyalty of the army’s senior officers has been rented by billions of dollars of secret aid CIA has funneled through Musharraf. Those who could not be bought were ousted, including Pakistan’s most capable military men. ...

... In lauding Musharraf, President Bush made no mention of the dictator’s disgraceful firing of Supreme Court justices who were about to declare Mush’s ongoing rule violated the constitution. Nor has Bush or the US Congress issued any demands that the exiled former PM Nawaz Sharif, leader of Pakistan’s other major political party, the Muslim League, be allowed to return to contest elections.

So much for supporting democracy. In the name of fighting extremism, Musharraf has jailed or intimidated nearly all of Pakistan’s political moderates.

In Washington’s wrongheaded view, it’s either Mush or the mullahs. Or if Musharraf falters, then it’s Bhutto or Gen. Kiyani. ...

... Anyone who still wonders why so many people in the Muslim World hate the west needs look no further than Pakistan, where, in the name of `democracy’ and `counter-terrorism’ Washington and London are stirring a witches brew of dictatorship, intrigue and violence.

Musharraf-Bush Cover-Up Already Unravelling

Earthside Comments: Here are a slew of new reports and photographs that appear to show major holes in the official Musharraf-Bush story about what happened to Benazir Bhutto.

Link: Alleged Qaeda Official Mehsud Denies Killing Bhutto | AFP/Hindustan Times

Alleged Al-Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud denied any involvement in Benazir Bhutto's death after the Pakistan government blamed him for the killing, his spokesman told AFP on Saturday.

"He had no involvement in this attack," spokesman Maulana Omar said in a telephone call. "This is a conspiracy of the government, army and intelligence agencies."

The spokesman said he was calling from Pakistan's Waziristan area, a lawless tribal region where Pakistani government forces have been battling Islamist militants. "It is against tribal tradition and custom to attack a woman," Omar said.

He said the transcript released by the government, allegedly of a phone call between Mehsud and a militant discussing Bhutto's death after the fact, was a "drama" and expressed sadness over her assassination on Thursday.

He said it would have been "impossible" for militants to get through the security cordon around the campaign rally where she was killed.

"Benazir was not only a leader of Pakistan but also a leader of international fame. We express our deep grief and shock over her death," Omar said.

Bhutto died shortly after a suicide attack on Thursday targetting her vehicle at a campaign rally in the northern city of Rawalpindi.

Early reports said she had been shot before a bomb exploded nearby. But the interior ministry said late Friday she had no gunshot or shrapnel wounds and had died after smashing her head on her car's sunroof as she tried to duck.

Interior ministry spokesman Javed Cheema blamed Al-Qaeda for the attack, pointing to the transcript of a telephone call.

He said intelligence services had intercepted the call from Mehsud, considered the extremist group's top leader for Pakistan, congratulating a militant for Bhutto's death.

Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) has rejected the government's findings as a "pack of lies," and said two party officials were inside Bhutto's vehicle during the attack and saw what happened.

"Two bullets hit her, one in the abdomen and one in the head," Farooq Naik, Bhutto's lawyer and a senior PPP official, told AFP. "It is an irreparable loss and they are turning it into a joke with such claims," he said, warning that the country could be heading towards civil war.

Bhutto was an outspoken critic of Al-Qaeda-linked militants blamed for scores of bombings in Pakistan and had received death threats.

She had also accused elements from Pakistan's intelligence services of involvement in a suicide attack on her homecoming rally in October that left 139 dead and which she only narrowly escaped.

Mehsud said in the intercepted call that he was behind the suicide bombing at the homecoming rally, according to Cheema.

A White House spokesman said on Friday that US intelligence was still trying to determine whether or not Al-Qaeda operatives were involved in the assassination.

---

A TV frame grab taken on December 29, 2007 shows a still image taken by an amateur photographer of a suspected gunman (in sunglasses) and suspected suicide bomber (in white scarf) near Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's vehicle (not pictured) in Rawalpindi. Bhutto died on December 27, 2007 after a gun and suicide bomb attack. REUTERS/Dawn TV via Reuters TV

A TV frame grab taken on December 29, 2007 shows a still image taken by an amateur photographer of a man holding a handgun (circled in red) suspected of shooting Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi. Bhutto died on December 27, 2007 after a gun and suicide bomb attack. REUTERS/Dawn TV via Reuters TV

Yahoo! News Photos

---

Link: Musharraf Cracks Down on Rioters | BBC

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has ordered firm action to crack down on unrest following the death of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

Mr Musharraf said looters "must be dealt with firmly and all measures be taken to ensure [the] safety and security of the people".

Some 38 people have died in violence that has broken out since Ms Bhutto was assassinated on Thursday.

Meanwhile, her party has rejected the government's explanation of her death.

A government spokesman said her head was slammed against her vehicle by the force of a bomb - but colleagues said she died from bullet wounds.

---

---

Link: They Don’t Blame Al-Qa’ida. They Blame Musharraf. | Robert Fisk/Independent/CommonDreams.org

Weird, isn’t it, how swiftly the narrative is laid down for us. Benazir Bhutto, the courageous leader of the Pakistan People’s Party, is assassinated in Rawalpindi - attached to the very capital of Islamabad wherein ex-General Pervez Musharraf lives - and we are told by George Bush that her murderers were “extremists” and “terrorists”. Well, you can’t dispute that.

But the implication of the Bush comment was that Islamists were behind the assassination. It was the Taliban madmen again, the al-Qa’ida spider who struck at this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country.

Of course, given the childish coverage of this appalling tragedy - and however corrupt Ms Bhutto may have been, let us be under no illusions that this brave lady is indeed a true martyr - it’s not surprising that the “good-versus-evil” donkey can be trotted out to explain the carnage in Rawalpindi.

Who would have imagined, watching the BBC or CNN on Thursday, that her two brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, hijacked a Pakistani airliner in 1981 and flew it to Kabul where Murtaza demanded the release of political prisoners in Pakistan. Here, a military officer on the plane was murdered. There were Americans aboard the flight - which is probably why the prisoners were indeed released.

Only a few days ago - in one of the most remarkable (but typically unrecognised) scoops of the year - Tariq Ali published a brilliant dissection of Pakistan (and Bhutto) corruption in the London Review of Books, focusing on Benazir and headlined: “Daughter of the West”. In fact, the article was on my desk to photocopy as its subject was being murdered in Rawalpindi.

Towards the end of this report, Tariq Ali dwelt at length on the subsequent murder of Murtaza Bhutto by police close to his home at a time when Benazir was prime minister - and at a time when Benazir was enraged at Murtaza for demanding a return to PPP values and for condemning Benazir’s appointment of her own husband as minister for industry, a highly lucrative post.

In a passage which may yet be applied to the aftermath of Benazir’s murder, the report continues: “The fatal bullet had been fired at close range. The trap had been carefully laid, but, as is the way in Pakistan, the crudeness of the operation - false entries in police log-books, lost evidence, witnesses arrested and intimidated - a policeman killed who they feared might talk - made it obvious that the decision to execute the prime minister’s brother had been taken at a very high level.”

When Murtaza’s 14-year-old daughter, Fatima, rang her aunt Benazir to ask why witnesses were being arrested - rather than her father’s killers - she says Benazir told her: “Look, you’re very young. You don’t understand things.” Or so Tariq Ali’s exposé would have us believe. Over all this, however, looms the shocking power of Pakistan’s ISI, the Inter Services Intelligence.

This vast institution - corrupt, venal and brutal - works for Musharraf.

But it also worked - and still works - for the Taliban. It also works for the Americans. In fact, it works for everybody. But it is the key which Musharraf can use to open talks with America’s enemies when he feels threatened or wants to put pressure on Afghanistan or wants to appease the ” extremists” and “terrorists” who so oppress George Bush. And let us remember, by the way, that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter beheaded by his Islamist captors in Karachi, actually made his fatal appointment with his future murderers from an ISI commander’s office. Ahmed Rashid’s book Taliban provides riveting proof of the ISI’s web of corruption and violence. Read it, and all of the above makes more sense.

But back to the official narrative. George Bush announced on Thursday he was “looking forward” to talking to his old friend Musharraf. Of course, they would talk about Benazir. They certainly would not talk about the fact that Musharraf continues to protect his old acquaintance - a certain Mr Khan - who supplied all Pakistan’s nuclear secrets to Libya and Iran. No, let’s not bring that bit of the “axis of evil” into this.

So, of course, we were asked to concentrate once more on all those ” extremists” and “terrorists”, not on the logic of questioning which many Pakistanis were feeling their way through in the aftermath of Benazir’s assassination.

It doesn’t, after all, take much to comprehend that the hated elections looming over Musharraf would probably be postponed indefinitely if his principal political opponent happened to be liquidated before polling day.

So let’s run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman’s notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir’s supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a “murderer” were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

Bush and Musharraf Want Complete Control

Earthside Comments: Below find an analysis by Robert Parry on Pakistan, Bush and Iraq -- by the way ConsortiumNews.com is one of the best sites on the world wide web.

We agree with the big picture that Parry has painted -- the ultimate danger is that al Qaida or some other extremist group will gain control of all or parts of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. Our perspective is, however, that Bush/Cheney are abetting that results either intentionally or by being incredibly stupid.

Which is why it seems evident to us that the assassination of Bhutto was ordered and/or done by the Musharraf military regime with the benign approval of Bush. As we have alluded to before, the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation: who benefits most from Benazir Bhutto's removal from the political scene in Pakistan? Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military junta. Just listen to American pundits on cable news television programs since the murder ... Musharraf is bad, they all say, but stability is most important and the U.S. must stick by him now no matter what, even if he declares martial law, even if he holds sham elections. Musharraf and his buddy Bush will be in complete control if all works according to plan. So, really, after thowing off all the "it was al Qaida" propaganda, the perpetrators are obvious.

That doesn't mean that in the longer run anti-democracy, radical theocratic Islamicists are going to be defeated. The Musharraf-Bush hold on power in Pakistan will just as certainly blowback against them (and all the rest of us) just as surely as did 'Charlie Wilson's war'. Indeed, if an investigation with credibility uncovers the truth that Pakistan's intelligence service and/or the military were the killers this week, then the blowback could come in very short order.

Since that backlash outcome is predictable, one just has to wonder if Bush/Cheney aren't playing a very high risk game to keep political power in the U.S. for themselves or their ideological successors -- by empowering al Qaida enough to keep the American people perpetually scared and always willing to give up more freedom for more central government provided security.

And that ... is exactly what we think is going on.

Link: Pakistan Is 'Central Front,' Not Iraq | Robert Parry/Consortiumnews.com

The chaos spreading across nuclear-armed Pakistan after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is part of the price for the Bush administration’s duplicity about al-Qaeda’s priorities, including the old canard that the terrorist group regards Iraq as the “central front” in its global war against the West.

Through repetition of this claim – often accompanied by George W. Bush’s home-spun advice about the need to listen to what the enemy says – millions of Americans believe that Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders consider Iraq the key battlefield.

However, intelligence evidence, gathered from intercepted al-Qaeda communications, indicate that bin Laden’s high command views Iraq as a valuable diversion for U.S. military strength, not the “central front.”

For instance, as the Iraq War was heating up in 2005, a letter attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri asked if the embattled al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq might be able to spare $100,000 to relieve a cash squeeze facing the group’s top leaders in hiding, presumably inside Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Instead of money going from Pakistan to Iraq, the cash was flowing the opposite way. U.S. intelligence analysts recognized that this was not the way one would normally treat a “central front.”

In another captured letter sent to Jordanian terrorist Musab al-Zarqawi before his death in June 2006, a top aide to bin Laden known as “Atiyah” upbraided Zarqawi for his reckless, hasty actions inside Iraq.

The message from Atiyah, who is believed to be a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, emphasized the need for Zarqawi to operate more deliberately in order to build political strength and drag out the U.S. occupation. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah told Zarqawi.

[To view this excerpt in a translation published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, click here. To read the entire letter, click here.]

So, instead of seeking a quick ouster of U.S. forces from Iraq and using it as a base for launching a global jihad – as Bush and his supporters claim – al-Qaeda actually saw its strategic goals advanced by keeping the United States bogged down in Iraq.

To some U.S. analysts, the logic was obvious: “prolonging” the Iraq War bought al-Qaeda time to rebuild its infrastructure in Pakistan, where the Islamic fundamentalist extremists have long had sympathizers inside the Pakistani intelligence services dating back to the CIA’s war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Charlie Wilson’s Blowback

That CIA war, lionized in the new movie “Charlie Wilson’s War,” funneled billions of dollars in U.S. covert money and weapons through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan warlords and to Arab jihadists who had flocked to Afghanistan to drive out the Russian infidels. One of those young jihadists was a wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

While relying on Pakistani intelligence to assist the Afghan rebels, the Reagan administration also averted its eyes from Pakistan’s clandestine development of nuclear weapons, an apparent trade-off for Pakistan’s help in giving the Soviet bear a bloody nose in Afghanistan.

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the war dragged on, with a triumphant United States unwilling to broker a deal with the secular Afghan government that the Soviets left behind. George H.W. Bush’s administration wanted these “Soviet puppets” dragged from their offices and killed (as some eventually were), replaced by the CIA-backed Islamic fundamentalists.

Then, in 1990, the alliances began to shift. U.S. military bases inside Saudi Arabia, which were established for driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, offended bin Laden and alienated him from his patrons in the Saudi royal family.

When the U.S. bases remained after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, bin Laden began to view his old American allies as another band of infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. So, bin Laden’s fellow jihadists in Afghanistan shifted their sights onto a new enemy and developed a new organization known as “the base,” or al-Qaeda.

For obvious reasons, the Bush administration has sought to blur this complicated history for the American people. It takes some of the shine off the glorious Cold War victories of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Dark Backdrop

But this shadow struggle at the end of the Cold War was the backdrop for the 9/11 attacks, which in turn led to Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan, ousting bin Laden and his fundamentalist Taliban allies, but failing to catch bin Laden, Zawahiri and other key leaders.

Then, rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan, Bush made an abrupt detour into Iraq, a decision rife with settling old scores and other unspoken justifications, but which Bush sold to the American public as necessary because Iraq’s secular dictator Saddam Hussein was in league with the fundamentalist bin Laden and might give him WMDs.

When that justification proved false and a stubborn Iraqi insurgency emerged to challenge the U.S. occupation, Bush initially presented the resistance as an al-Qaeda offshoot operating under bin Laden’s control.

Again, U.S. intelligence saw a different problem: Sunni and Shiite Iraqis contesting the American presence and competing for dominance with each other, while a violent smattering of foreign jihadists like Zarqawi tried to insinuate themselves into the Sunni faction and spread havoc.

Though Bush eventually acknowledged that most of Iraqi resistance was homegrown, he still asserted that al-Qaeda planned to use Iraq as the launching pad for a global “caliphate” from Spain to Indonesia, another alarmist claim that scared some Americans into backing Bush’s war policies.

“This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,” Bush said in a typical reference to this claim in a Sept. 5, 2006, speech. “We know this because al-Qaeda has told us.”

But many analysts saw Bush’s nightmarish scenario as preposterous, given the deep divisions within the Islamic world and the hostility that many Muslims feel toward al-Qaeda, including its recent much-heralded rejection by more moderate Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar province.

Also, according to a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community in April 2006, “the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.” [Emphasis added.]

The NIE also concluded that the Iraq War – rather than weakening the cause of Islamic terrorism – had become a “cause celebre” that was “cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”

The grinding Iraq War – now nearing its fifth year – also prevented the United States from arraying sufficient military and intelligence resources against the reorganized al-Qaeda infrastructure in Pakistan and the rebuilt Taliban army reasserting itself in Afghanistan.

Hopes Dashed

So, when the Bush administration supported former Prime Minister Bhutto’s return to Pakistan in October 2007, the wishful thinking was that she could somehow energize the more moderate elements of Pakistani politics and marginalize the Islamic extremists.

But the overstretched U.S. military and intelligence services could do little in helping to protect Bhutto beyond hectoring Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf to give his political rival more security. Musharraf, who himself has dodged multiple assassination attempts, either couldn’t or wouldn’t ensure Bhutto’s safety.

Now, with Bhutto’s death and with unrest sweeping Pakistan, Bush’s Iraq War backers are sure to argue that these developments again prove the president right, that an even firmer hand is needed to combat terrorism and that the next president must be someone ready to press ahead with Bush’s concept of a “long war” against Islamic extremism.

But the reality again appears different. Though rarely mentioned in the American press, the evidence is that bin Laden and other extremists have cleverly played off Bush’s arrogance and belligerence to strengthen their strategic hand within the Muslim world.

By keeping Bush focused on Iraq, al-Qaeda and its allies also bought time to transform themselves into a more lethal threat in Pakistan, with the danger that the new turmoil could win al-Qaeda its ultimate prize, control of a nuclear bomb.

On Bhutto's Death

Earthside Comments: The Musharraf propaganda machine is working overtime to cover-up his complicity and/or culpability for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Now the 'official' line is the Bhutto was killed by bumping her head on the vehicle's sun roof handle. So, the Pakistan military government wants you to believe that it was not exactly lack of security, but a kind of accident that removed Benazir as a threat to their rule.

First, here is a very good analysis by Tariq Ali about yesterday's tragic event.

We also maintain that the instigators of the assassination are Pakistan's military cabal which includes Musharraf. They certainly may have involved al Qaida and/or the Taliban in their crime, but since many members of this ruling junta are in sympathy with radical Islam, the half-truth that this was exclusively an extremist religious plot will further 'catapult' the propaganda.

Then, as reported in the second link below, Bush's unswerving defense of his pal Pervez Musharraf makes him and his misguided meddling in Pakistan culpable in Benazir Bhuttto's killing. Despite the propaganda, that is the truth.

UPDATE!
Here is a video that shows a gunman firing three shots directly behind Benazir Bhutto. The claim by the Musharraf-military government that she died from bumping her head on the vehicle's sun roof handle is clearly propaganda. Indeed, one must wonder how a man on a motorcycle could so easily get close enough to her vehicle to jump on the back and open fire. Bhutto's charge that Musharraf was not providing necessary security is obviously true.

VIDEO

Link: Row Breaks Out Over Benazir Bhutto's Death | Telegraph

The burial of Benzair Bhutto was today marred by heavy violence across Pakistan as a bitter row broke out over how she died.

As hundreds of thousands mourned the murdered opposition leader, the country's Interior Ministry claimed she had died from hitting her vehicle's sunroof when she tried to duck after a suicide attack.

However, one of Miss Bhutto's aide rejected the government's explanation of her death as a "pack of lies".

Brigadier Javed Cheema, a ministry spokesman, said Miss Bhutto had died from a head wound she sustained when she smashed against the sunroof's lever as she tried to shelter inside the car.

"The lever struck near her right ear and fractured her skull," Mr Cheema said.

But the explanation was ridiculed by Farooq Naik, Miss Bhutto's top lawyer and a senior official in her Pakistan People's Party.

"It is baseless. It is a pack of lies," he said.

"Two bullets hit her, one in the abdomen and one in the head. It was a serious security lapse."

---

Link: A Tragedy Born of Military Despotism and Anarchy | Tariq Ali/The Guardian

Even those of us sharply critical of Benazir Bhutto's behaviour and policies - both while she was in office and more recently - are stunned and angered by her death. Indignation and fear stalk the country once again.

An odd coexistence of military despotism and anarchy created the conditions leading to her assassination in Rawalpindi yesterday. In the past, military rule was designed to preserve order - and did so for a few years. No longer. Today it creates disorder and promotes lawlessness. How else can one explain the sacking of the chief justice and eight other judges of the country's supreme court for attempting to hold the government's intelligence agencies and the police accountable to courts of law? Their replacements lack the backbone to do anything, let alone conduct a proper inquest into the misdeeds of the agencies to uncover the truth behind the carefully organised killing of a major political leader.

How can Pakistan today be anything but a conflagration of despair? It is assumed that the killers were jihadi fanatics. This may well be true, but were they acting on their own?

Benazir, according to those close to her, had been tempted to boycott the fake elections, but she lacked the political courage to defy Washington. She had plenty of physical courage, and refused to be cowed by threats from local opponents. She had been addressing an election rally in Liaquat Bagh. This is a popular space named after the country's first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was killed by an assassin in 1953. The killer, Said Akbar, was immediately shot dead on the orders of a police officer involved in the plot. Not far from here, there once stood a colonial structure where nationalists were imprisoned. This was Rawalpindi jail. It was here that Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was hanged in April 1979. The military tyrant responsible for his judicial murder made sure the site of the tragedy was destroyed as well.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's death poisoned relations between his Pakistan People's party and the army. Party activists, particularly in the province of Sind, were brutally tortured, humiliated and, sometimes, disappeared or killed.

Pakistan's turbulent history, a result of continuous military rule and unpopular global alliances, confronts the ruling elite now with serious choices. They appear to have no positive aims. The overwhelming majority of the country disapproves of the government's foreign policy. They are angered by its lack of a serious domestic policy except for further enriching a callous and greedy elite that includes a swollen, parasitic military. Now they watch helplessly as politicians are shot dead in front of them.

Benazir had survived the bomb blast yesterday but was felled by bullets fired at her car. The assassins, mindful of their failure in Karachi a month ago, had taken out a double insurance this time. They wanted her dead. It is impossible for even a rigged election to take place now. It will have to be postponed, and the military high command is no doubt contemplating another dose of army rule if the situation gets worse, which could easily happen.

What has happened is a multilayered tragedy. It's a tragedy for a country on a road to more disasters. Torrents and foaming cataracts lie ahead. And it is a personal tragedy. The house of Bhutto has lost another member. Father, two sons and now a daughter have all died unnatural deaths.

I first met Benazir at her father's house in Karachi when she was a fun-loving teenager, and later at Oxford. She was not a natural politician and had always wanted to be a diplomat, but history and personal tragedy pushed in the other direction. Her father's death transformed her. She had become a new person, determined to take on the military dictator of that time. She had moved to a tiny flat in London, where we would endlessly discuss the future of the country. She would agree that land reforms, mass education programmes, a health service and an independent foreign policy were positive constructive aims and crucial if the country was to be saved from the vultures in and out of uniform. Her constituency was the poor, and she was proud of the fact.

She changed again after becoming prime minister. In the early days, we would argue and in response to my numerous complaints - all she would say was that the world had changed. She couldn't be on the "wrong side" of history. And so, like many others, she made her peace with Washington. It was this that finally led to the deal with Musharraf and her return home after more than a decade in exile. On a number of occasions she told me that she did not fear death. It was one of the dangers of playing politics in Pakistan.

It is difficult to imagine any good coming out of this tragedy, but there is one possibility. Pakistan desperately needs a political party that can speak for the social needs of a bulk of the people. The People's party founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was built by the activists of the only popular mass movement the country has known: students, peasants and workers who fought for three months in 1968-69 to topple the country's first military dictator. They saw it as their party, and that feeling persists in some parts of the country to this day, despite everything.

Benazir's horrific death should give her colleagues pause for reflection. To be dependent on a person or a family may be necessary at certain times, but it is a structural weakness, not a strength for a political organisation. The People's party needs to be refounded as a modern and democratic organisation, open to honest debate and discussion, defending social and human rights, uniting the many disparate groups and individuals in Pakistan desperate for any halfway decent alternative, and coming forward with concrete proposals to stabilise occupied and war-torn Afghanistan. This can and should be done. The Bhutto family should not be asked for any more sacrifices.

Link: Bhutto's Killing May Threaten Pakistan's Stability | Inter Press Service

The assassination of Pakistan's opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto threatens to de-stabilise a country which the United States describes as a trusted ally and a frontline fighter in the global war on terrorism.

The attack on Bhutto in Rawalpindi Thursday was an attempt to thwart her election as prime minister of a civilian government. The polls were scheduled to take place next month.

"The military didn't really want civilian politicians in power," says Barnett Rubin, director of studies and senior fellow at the Centre on International Cooperation at New York University.

"They wanted to use them to legitimate indirect rule, and they were going to do it by rigging the election," he added.

Rubin said Washington's strategy is in "tatters" and that it will be scrambling to say the election either needs to be held as planned or postponed rather than cancelled. But Musharraf, he pointed out, is in a position to pre-empt that, "presumably by declaring a state of emergency." ...

... In an interview with IPS in October, Bhutto took a tough stand against military rule. "Under a democratic government of the PPP, the army will have to be in barracks and do its duty to defend the country's borders as its constitutional duty," she said.

"We are not looking at the army sharing power with the civil and political authority. The army must remain subservient to the civil authority," she insisted. ...

... Musharraf, a former army general who shed his military uniform only last month, was accused of running a dictatorship by silencing the opposition, muzzling the press and hijacking the judiciary.

In a television interview last month, U.S. President George W. Bush virtually went into raptures over the Pakistani President when he said that Musharraf has not crossed any legitimate boundaries to be deemed a political outcast.

"As a matter of fact, I don't think he will cross any lines. We didn't necessarily agree with his decision to impose emergency rule, and hopefully he'll get rid of the rule," he added.

Bush's support for Musharraf’s increasingly authoritarian regime also drew stinging criticism from several U.S. Congressmen.

Perhaps the sharpest reaction came from presidential aspirant Senator Joe Biden -- chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- whose response was laced with political sarcasm.

"What exactly would it take for the president [Bush] to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists?" Biden asked.

"He's already done all that. If the president sees Musharraf as a democrat, he must be wearing the same glasses he had on when he looked in [Russian President] Vladimir Putin's soul, [and said he was "a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."] ...

'Busharraf' Failure and Violence in Pakistan

Earthside Comments: When one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, you cannot help but be amazed at the total abject failure of Bush/Cheney/Republican/Dimocrat/neocon international policy since September 11, 2001.

There are now political and civil fires raging in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan ... all lit by the Bush ideology that military force solves all problems.

The Bush-Musharraf axis is such a good example of how ignorance and arrogance will eventually always backlash against those who practice such flawed behavior.

'Busharraf' could lead Pakistan and even the entire region into more chaos and bloodshed. Let's hope that the people of Pakistan (and Iraq and Afghanistan) finally find the fortitude to tell the meddling Bush-commanded military to pack-up and leave them alone to find their own destinies.

Link: Bhutto Buried Amid Mass Mourning | BBC

Tens of thousands of people have attended the funeral of assassinated Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto.

Mourners converged on the family mausoleum where she was buried next to her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto near their home village in Sindh province.

The coffin, draped in the flag of Ms Bhutto's party, was driven in a white ambulance through the dense crowds. ...

... Outside the triple-domed mausoleum, crowds chanted slogans blaming President Pervez Musharraf for Ms Bhutto's death.

The BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, who is in the district of Larkana, says the mood among local people is one of anger and confusion.

Rioting and unrest has been reported across the country.

+ At least one passenger train was set ablaze in Sindh Province and a number of railway stations were reportedly burnt as security forces in the province were ordered to shoot rioters on sight

+ Several people died in Karachi as government offices, police stations and vehicles were torched by rioters and police opened fire on protesters in Hyderabad

+ The office of a pro-government party was ransacked and set ablaze in Peshawar

+ In the city of Multan in Punjab province, a mob ransacked seven banks and torched a petrol station

Other cities across Pakistan are at a virtual standstill.

Schools, businesses and transport are all closed, and people are reluctant to step out during the three days of national mourning declared by Mr Musharraf.

Link: Another Death in Rawalpindi | Aziz Huq/The Nation

It goes without saying that the killing of any human being is a tragedy. But the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Liaqut Bagh in Rawalpindi, along with more than a dozen others, echoes back into Pakistan's troubled history, portends more violence and flags a proud country's fall further into chaos. It also signals the manifest bankruptcy of the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policy in the region. ...

... It should escape no one's attention that Musharaff has relied so far on the openly pro-Taliban religious party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), particularly in the troubled province of Balochistan. News reports have consistently and plausibly identified Balochistan as the hiding place for high-level Al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, who can rely on sympathetic tribal and religious leaders. Musharraf depends for his political survival on political factions that are at minimum sympathetic to America's core enemy, and at worst are abetting the terrorist leadership's continued evasion of detection and arrest. In the muck of Pakistan's domestic politics, the friend of our friend may well be our enemy. Ironically, the Bush Administration has been backing a military leader who, even as he claimed to rein in religious militants, depends on them for his electoral success.

Without democracy, though, there is not even a remote possibility of severing this fatal bond, and putting an end to sanctuary for Al Qaeda's leadership. Without democracy, there is scant chance that the tribal and religious leaders who have provided the Taliban with a strategic sanctuary can be won over. Without democracy, there is little chance for reform of madrassas that not only spew out "martyrs" for Kashmir and Afghanistan but also give aid and comfort to the very small number in the West looking for justifications of violence.

Compounding the problem has been American incompetence. As in Iraq, billions of dollars in aid have been frittered away through incompetence and carelessness, leaving the Pakistani army just as unwilling and unable to take on the Taliban's sanctuaries. Worse, there is no remedial plan on the horizon. Under American tutelage, the military has gotten fatter and more ham-fisted.

The Bush Administration's policy with respect to Pakistan, in short, is a train wreck. As usual, the White House has assumed that military force--here deployed by a vassal state--could clamp down on terrorism. As usual, it has utterly failed to understand complex relations, here the links between ISI and Al Qaeda going back to the Afghan war, and the way in which corruption and a drift to purely "faith-based" politics push more and more people toward the violently eschatological ideology of our enemies.

The Administration's Pakistan policy is worse than a shambles; its failures radiate out. It is fostering the erosion of what limited success there was in Afghanistan. It is feeding terrorist propaganda that claims America sustains tyrants. And it is impeding the long-term goal of a Pakistan that cannot serve as a terrorist safe haven or a training ground for recruits from the West.

The death of Benazir Bhutto shows that the Bush Administration has left itself no way out. Beyond the tragedy of Pakistan's history cruelly replaying itself, today should go down as the day it became clear how badly the Bush Administration has failed in the region. For on September 12, 2001, there was one failed state that could be a terrorist haven. Today, it is violently and tragically clear that the Administration's policies have wrought two more failed states that could, and likely will, sustain terrorist activities in the future.

Link: Who Killed Bhutto? | Murtaza Shibli/CounterPunch.org

... Who killed Benazir?

There is no doubt that Benazir Bhutto had many enemies. After her rhetoric against Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists, her list of enemies grew phenomenally.

Despite the "deal' between Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, she was seen as main challenge to the current government. This is important to note that General Musharraf allowed Bhutto into Pakistan only after tremendous US pressure. When she arrived in Pakistan in October last, the millions of people who came to receive her gave sleepless nights to the government authorities. This ultimately paved way for the return of Nawaz Sharief another former Prime Minister who was earlier deported as soon as he landed in Pakistan.

Although the Jihadists and Al-Qaeda had allegedly vowed to kill her, the current Pakistani regime headed by General Musharraf can not be absolved and will be the greatest benefactor of her death. Another rival who may have been willing to see her dead are Chaudhry Brothers -- Chaudhry Pervez Illahi and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain of Pakistan Muslim League Q, the political partner of General Musharraf. The Chaudhry Brothers were the bitterest opponents of Benazir's homecoming and tried unsuccessfully to stop President Musharraf from doing a deal with Bhutto.

When the terrorists attacked Benazir's homecoming rally on October 18, 2007, she blamed former Punjab Chief Minister Pervez Ilahi. Chaudhry Brothers have had well documented connections with the Jihadist extremists and are well known to use violence for their political goals.

Even if President Musharraf's government may not be directly involved in her killing, it can not be absolved of inaction in protecting her. Despite being on the "hit list' of terrorists and extremists, Benazir was not provided ample security cover. The deterioration of Pakistan's intelligence and security apparatus to predict or stop suicide bombings can be gauged by the number of rising fatal bombings in and around the highest protected area of the Army Headquarters GHQ in Rawalpindi. Benazir Bhutto was also killed in Rawalpindi not far from the country's military headquarters. ...

Bush-Musharraf Behind Bhutto Assassination?

Earthside Comments: A very grim ending for 2007.

Ask the simple question first to understand what has happened: who benefits most from the removal of Benazir Bhutto from the political scene in Pakistan? Of course, it is Bush's favorite Islamo-fascist dictator who actually has nuclear weapons, Pervez Musharraf.

A convenient patsy will undoubtedly be put forward by the warmongers here and in Pakistan -- somehow this was the work of the Taliban or al Qaida. But all they will garner is a jackboot response from the Musharraf military regime and heightened screams of 'the terrorists are everywhere!' from radical Republican politicians (and probably Hillary Clinton, too) here in the U.S, why would they want that?

Furthermore, Benazir Bhutto was a direct challenge to the authoritarianism of Musharraf's power base, the military. Here is what she said in an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS) in October of this year:

IPS: The army controls everything from defence to businesses and there are said to be, within it, those who are supporting extremism and terrorism. How would you be able to handle and control the army?

Benazir Bhutto (BB): Our first step is to separate the offices of army chief and the president. It is a negation of democracy that a serving army chief should also be the president of the country. The written undertaking given by Musharraf in the Supreme Court that he will doff uniform after his reelection and the nomination of the next army chief are steps in this direction. We would like the military sent back to the barracks. We are also aiming at restoration of the balance of power between the president and parliament.

The best way to handle and control the army is to make it work within the confines of the constitution and under the control of civil and political authority. I believe that with the restoration of the constitution and transition to democracy the army will be required to work within the confines of the constitution. That is how we plan to handle and control the military.

(Alternatively, why would radical theocratic Islamicists eliminate a threat to an allegedly pro-America dictator, unless they are in reality on the same side? Bhutto herself said on November 4, 2007, "There's a very slim line between what are called Musharraf's people and the terrorists who tried to kill me in Karachi. I have long held that the forces that supported an earlier military dictatorship in Pakistan in the '80s, which formed the Iran mujahadin, have crept into the administration and security services under Gen. Musharraf, and they have covertly aided and abetted the rise of extremism and militancy.")

Nevertheless, Musharraf now has a justification for re-imposing strict military rule in Pakistan, arresting all political dissidents and canceling the scheduled January elections. Bush has the whole raison d'etre for his post 9/11 occupation of the White House re-emphasized.

Bhutto, despite her western rhetoric, was a threat to the Bush-Musharraf alliance. Consider this analysis from December 4, 2007:

Just as a flicker of hope emerged to bring back elected civilian rule to Pakistan, the ideological warriors of neo-conservatism are up in arms to douse it. Having supported President Pervez Musharraf as the stalwart general in America's "war on terror", US neo-conservatives are panic-stricken at the prospect of his political demise. No sooner did he decide to relinquish his army post to become a civilian president last week, than fear of Pakistan's collapse and of loose nuclear weapons gripped Musharraf's backers in the United States.
Neo-Cons Have It Wrong on Pakistan | Najum Mushtaq/Asia Times

Consequently the sad truth behind what has occurred is obvious.

Oh yes, the fearmongers will be out in force today ... and the cable news networks are falling hook-line-and-sinker for the 'Busharraf' tale that Bhutto was killed by extremist terrorists. However, Earthside readers know the truth.

---

Link: Blitzer Exclusive: Bhutto Blames Musharraf | Huffington Post

Today on "The Situation Room," Wolf Blitzer revealed an exclusive e-mail he received from Benazir Bhutto's US spokesman Mark Siegel in October. "This is a story she wanted me to tell the world on her behalf if she were killed," Blitzer said, before reading the e-mail.

In the e-mail, Bhutto wrote that, if anything were to happen to her, "I wld [sic] hold Musharaf [sic] responsible. I have been made to feel insecure by his minions, and there is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides cld [sic] happen without him."

Watch the VIDEO

Link: Bhutto Adviser: Musharraf Is To Blame | Spencer Ackerman/TPMmuckraker

A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto's death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf.

After an October attack on Bhutto's life in Karachi, the ex-prime minister warned "certain individuals in the security establishment [about the threat] and nothing was done," says Husain Haqqani, a confidante of Bhutto's for decades. "There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She's not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces."

Haqqani notes that Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck. "It's like a hit, not a regular suicide bombing," he says. "It's quite clear that someone who considers himself Pakistan's Godfather has a very different attitude toward human life than you and I do."

As for what comes next: Haqqani doubts that Musharraf will go forward with scheduled elections. "The greatest likelihood is that this was aimed not just aimed at Benazir Bhutto but at weakening Pakistan's push for democracy," he says. "But the U.S. has to think long and hard. Musharraf's position is untenable in Pakistan. More and more people are going to blame him for bringing Pakistan to this point, intentionally or unintentionally. It's very clear that terrorism has increased in Pakistan. It's quite clear that poverty has increased in Pakistan. ... anti-Americanism might come in, as people say, 'You know what, why should we support this [pro-U.S.] regime that has not delivered anything to us?'"

Growing emotional, Haqqani says people should know that "Benazir Bhutto was a very warm person. She was a very strong and courageous person, a very forgiving person. To have gone what she went through -- her father assassinated by one military dictator [General Zia ul-Haq], her two brothers assassinated, no one in the elite fully loyal to her... The whole Pakistani security establishment thinks Pakistan should be governed as a national-security state. She resisted that completely, and that doesn't get seen enough. She questioned their right to govern."

Link: Pakistan's Bhutto Assassinated at Rally | Associated Press/ABC News

Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack. Her death threw the campaign for critical Jan. 8 parliamentary elections into chaos and stoked fears of mass protests and violence across the nuclear-armed nation, an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.

At least 20 others were also killed in the attack on a campaign rally where the 54-year-old Bhutto had just spoken.

Her supporters erupted in anger and grief after her death, attacking police and burning tires and election campaign posters in several cities. At the hospital where she died, some smashed glass and wailed, chanting slogans against President Pervez Musharraf. ...

... The attacker struck just minutes after Bhutto addressed thousands of supporters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, 8 miles south of Islamabad. She was shot in the neck and chest by the attacker, who then blew himself up, said Rehman Malik, Bhutto's security adviser.

Sardar Qamar Hayyat, a leader from Bhutto's party, said he was standing about 10 yard away from her vehicle at the time of the attack.

"She was inside the vehicle and was coming out from the gate after addressing the rally when some of the youths started chanting slogans in her favor. Then I saw a smiling Bhutto emerging from the vehicle's roof and responding to their slogans," he said.

"Then I saw a thin, young man jumping toward her vehicle from the back and opening fire. Moments later, I saw her speeding vehicle going away," he added.

Link: US to Expand Its Military Presence in Pakistan | ANI/Yahoo! India News

The United Stated is planning to send its Special Forces to Pakistan that will train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counter terrorism units, US defence officials have revealed.

These Pakistan-centric operations may mark a shift for the US military and for the Washington-Islamabad relations, a report in the Washington Post stated.

After the 9/11 terror attacks, the US had used Pakistani bases to launch its movements into Afghanistan.

After the US troops succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban Government and established its main operating base at Bagram, it left Pakistan almost entirely. After that the Pakistan Government has put a ceiling on the US's involvement in cross-border military operations and paramilitary operations in the country. ...

... According to Pentagon sources, having a different agreement with Pakistan is now a priority for the new head of the US Special Operations Command, Admiral Eric T Olson, who visited Pakistan in August, November and December.

In December, Olson met Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman General Tariq Majid and Lt. General Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. He also paid a visit to the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes

Link: Benazir Bhutto Assassination: The Blog Reaction | Times of London Online

Link: Dawn - Pakistan Newspaper - Bhutto Updates

Link: The Guardian - Interactive - Pakistan's Political Crisis

Islamofascist: Pervez Musharraf

Here is your 'Islamofascist': Bush's pal, Pervez Musharraf.

Link: Ex-PM Bhutto Under House Arrest | BBC

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been served with a temporary detention notice.

The move came as she tried to leave her Islamabad home, which has been blocked off by police to stop her joining a planned rally in nearby Rawalpindi.

Police in the city clashed with Ms Bhutto's supporters defying a ban on rallies imposed under emergency rule. ...

... Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) says thousands of its supporters have been detained in the past two days.

Despite the ban, PPP activists have been trying to reach the venue of the planned rally through alleyways, throwing stones and clashing with police.

Pakistan: Completing the Bush Legacy of Failure

Earthside Comments: The range of Bush failure is breathtaking in its scope -- almost everything this spoiled brat has touched has turned into sterile dung.

The national debt of the federal government has climbed to NINE TRILLION Dollars on his watch. The dollar, as we know is in the toilet ... the foreboding about the economy is palpable. Thousands have died since the Supreme Court gave Bush and Cheney control of the central government ... thousands because he could not meet his first responsibility to protect the nation on September 11, 2001, and thousands since because of his lies and incompetence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Virtually every branch of the federal govenment has been polticized and corrupted for the benefit of himself and his cronies in the last seven years.

Now, the danger level increases for all of us once again because of the bungling Bush/Cheney foreign policy that gives us an unpredictable dictator with nuclear weapons.

Really, what is wrong with America that Bush and Cheney are permitted to hold their offices in the face of such criminality, malfeasance and mendacity? We don't need a coup d'etat in this Republic to rid ourselves of this disaster -- the Constitution provides a reasoned, civil method for dumping a President and Vice President who are subversives: impeachment.

Oh yeah, we forgot ... "impeachment is off the table."

Link: Our Man in Pakistan | Robert Scheer/Truthdig.com/The Nation

So, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, treated ever so respectfully by George Bush throughout his Administration, in which he became the first Pakistani leader to visit Camp David, has turned out to be just another crummy dictator. But he was our dictator, kind of a modern, even westernized one who could stand up to all those bearded Islamic terrorists.

Well, not exactly. Not that anyone bothered to remember, but Musharraf seized power in Pakistan, ending democratic rule, two years before the 9/11 attacks and did nothing to end his nation's support of the Taliban rulers next door, who were harboring Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Before that he was part of a military elite that had, as the 9/11 Commission report would later conclude, been one of the main sponsors of the Taliban. Nor did Musharraf as dictator-president do anything to undermine the nut cases that he continued to diplomatically recognize as the legitimate rulers of the neighboring country. "On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban," the 9/11 Commission reported, adding: "Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists. Musharraf agreed that Bin Laden was bad. But before 9/11, preserving good relations with the Taliban took precedence."

True, after 9/11 Musharraf did provide minimal support for the US invasion of Afghanistan in return for considerable aid and the lifting of the sanctions that had been imposed on his nation for developing nuclear weapons. Odd that a nation that had nuclear weapons and that had actively supported the terrorist haven in Afghanistan was welcomed back into America's good graces only three weeks after 9/11--at the very same time that the Bush Administration was drawing up plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who was bin Laden's sworn enemy.

Oh, yes, sorry, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I forgot, there was that guy "Curveball," the guy in Germany who told us that Saddam had those mobile biological weapons labs that Colin Powell relied on so heavily in his UN address. But, as CBS's 60 Minutes reported Sunday, the German government had told the Bush Administration very clearly that its great weapons expert was a just another immigrant trying to hustle a green card.

As for nukes (the real WMD), although Iraq didn't have them, Pakistan did--at least seventy ready to explode--as well as the airplanes and missiles that could deliver them. Worse, the "father of the Islamic bomb," Abdul Qadeer Khan, whom the 9/11 Commission called Pakistan's most revered nuclear weapons expert, "was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed." It was Khan who provided the key technology, uranium enrichment materials crucial to the nuke programs of Libya, Iran and North Korea. And it was Musharraf who pardoned him, made him to this day unavailable to US intelligence agents and, after a very loose form of house arrest, recently announced that he was now, as in the slogan of Southwest Airlines, free to move about the country.

No problem--why hold a little nuclear proliferation against our favored dictator when he's doing such a good job denying Al Qaeda and other religious fanatics a base of operations in Pakistan? Except that he did nothing of the sort. The all-important Pakistan border territory adjoining Afghanistan is more hospitable now to terrorists than ever before. As for bin Laden and the others Bush was going to get "dead or alive," US experts routinely concede that those terrorists have found a haven on Musharraf's side of the border.

So where did the $10 billion go, and that's not counting covert funds, that Bush gave Musharraf to beef up his military to better combat the terrorists? Well, clearly the Pakistani army is very strong--just look at the martial law it has been able to impose on judges and other folks who actually believe in the rule of law. But wait, Musharraf will back down; a deal was all but brokered, and Benazir Bhutto, whose adherence to democracy is as compelling as her family's rich history of corruption, is waiting in the wings.

Condi Rice is on the phone, so hopefully Musharraf can be bought off and the free world once again served by the nation Bush designated "a major non-NATO ally." But there is a bright side, for one adviser traveling with Rice was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "Thank heavens for small favors," meaning that compared with Pakistan, "Iraq looks pretty good." Talk about lowered expectations.