Pakistani Presidential Politics

My condolences to the nation of Pakistan and her people.

What happened today will never be explained to everyone's satisfaction. Too many people wanted Benazir Bhutto dead, and Pakistani politics is a deadly sport.

I doubt Ms. Bhutto would have been a very good replacement for Musharraf. She was certainly divisive and (I apologize for speaking ill of the dead) corrupt. Her last term of office was a failure and she would have had an even harder time of it now. Still, what a brave woman for standing up and running for office despite being marked for murder. What a tragedy, but what a noble death--campaigning for reform and renewal in a place that needs it like no other.

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility at this point, but was that smart? They are certainly clever enough to plan events for maximum political impact. I can't google it up this morning, but I remember reports that the Sept. 11th attack was originally scheduled for Rosh Hoshannah when the observant Jews were out of the building--thus the rumors of Israelis planning the attacks that they circulated would be given credence.* Serial attacks on Pakistani politicians (Nawaz Sharif's office was riddled with bullets earlier) that shift the blame to Musharraf are certainly within their power and competence.

But now Musharraf has a license to hunt Al Qaeda down and, if America believes they are responsible, he will receive considerable political and material backing to do so. One rival will have been dispatched at the expense of another. (Elections? How can we speak of elections at a time like this?) As against that, Mush may now have something approaching a civil war on his hands if liberal Pakistanis succeed in fixing the blame to him.

I have no confidence in the ability or willingness of the press or the Pakistani government to determine and convey accurately the identities of the plotters. It's a whodunnit where interested parties hand out all the clues. It wouldn't surprise me at all if links to the ISI start turning up--but of course, that doesn't mean that Musharraf is involved. Quite the contrary.

So, I would squint very hard at any reports that purport to tell you the real story of what happened today. What we are left with is a scorecard of winners and losers--Musharraf's star may rise if he can direct the country's rage against the neo-Taliban, but if a civil war breaks out in Pakistan, Al Qaeda will strengthen their hand. (Remember after all that the Taliban took power in Afghanistan as a pious, uniting force after that country's civil war.) Muslihoon suggests a civil war, but not the one AQ wanted:

If true, now is the time for the Great Northwest South Asian War to kill every one of these al-Qa’idah animals.

Even Muslihoon says, "if true". Which we don't know. We know only that regardless of who ordered the suicide gunmen to attack Benazir Bhutto, the people of Pakistan are the losers--continuing at best under a compromised dictatorship, and at worst in war and anarchy. May God be merciful to them.

*Does anyone else remember that? Am I taking crazy pills? If you have a link, please leave it in the comments.

UPDATE: Xtopher Hitchens offers a candid eulogy:

She would have been in a good position to know about this connection, because when she was prime minister, she pursued a very active pro-Taliban policy, designed to extend and entrench Pakistani control over Afghanistan and to give Pakistan strategic depth in its long confrontation with India over Kashmir.

...

And now the two main legacies of Bhutto rule—the nukes and the empowered Islamists—have moved measurably closer together.