Bhutto's Assassination Impacts our Three-Tiered Perspective

When selecting a president one needs a minimum of three eyes--an eye on the recent past, an eye on present conditions, and an eye on the nation's future aspirations.

Several weeks ago that three-tiered perspective appeared very different than it does today. We've been reminded how just how quickly a single event alters the recent past, which changes present conditions, which could also modify the nation's future aspirations.

Not long ago, we felt safer because Iran didn't have the nuclear program that the administration was suggesting, the Palestinians and Israelis had at least sat down together, and the surge had reduced the level of violence in Iraq that we had grown accustom to viewing on the evening news.

The recent past was somewhat encouraging--albeit with certain caveats ignored--we the voter could pay more attention to domestic issues like the housing crisis and healthcare, which could make us more hopeful about the future.

In what was predictable, but no less shocking was the assassination of former prime minister and Pakistan opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto. Subsequently, and without warning, our three-tiered perspective is once again up for reevaluation.

The manner that Ms. Bhutto was assassinated--at close range--undoubtedly implicates Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf by either having some direct involvement or his seemingly cavalier approach to providing her with the appropriate security.

Even more concerning, is the possibility that forces within the government, beyond Musharraf's control, took independent action to assassinate Bhutto. Some will also implicate al-Qaeda.

Either way, martial law will be imposed, next month's elections will most likely be postponed indefinitely, and Pakistan's primary concern will be to quell the possibility of civil war in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. Even if elections are not postponed, opposition leaders are already talking of a boycott.

Make no mistake; Bhutto's assassination is a gruesome reminder of how tenuous the global climate remains. It also suggests that Pakistan, given its instability and nuclear weapons, is as important, if not more so, to American interests than the quagmire we created in Iraq.

Pakistan's potential instability returns foreign affairs to the forefront of the presidential campaign. Will these developments bode well for those candidates who promise to keep America safe or those that espouse the hawkish rhetoric of taking the fight to the enemy? Does the Bhutto assassination justify our current path of making the Constitution a secondary consideration?

Politics being what it is, within hours, a majority of presidential candidates issued statements condemning the assassination and touting themselves as the one best prepared to lead.

We have seen what the politics of fear has done; and it has not made us a better country. Bhutto's assassination ought to be a call to consider a leader who has clear view of the world and its unpredictability.

In the spirit on theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, the events in Pakistan are an affirmation that we need a leader whose worldview includes an appreciation for paradox, pragmatism and irony--not someone whose foreign policy positions are derived as much for public perception as they are sound judgment.

Moreover, until things change, President Musharraf is our dog in race. Do we continue to provide his leadership with aid? Do we apply more pressure on him? Do we really know how much power he actually wields? Do we have a Pakistan policy or a Musharraf policy?

It is amazing to think that a country struggling to maintain stability, that possesses nuclear weapons, allegedly an ally, that borders Afghanistan and Iran has not received more discussion on the campaign trail.

I suspect these issues will have more impact on the upcoming Democratic caucuses and primaries than Republicans. Some polling on the Democratic side has national security in single digits as it relates to importance.

Democratic voters, in particular, may need to reclaim their three-tier vision with an eye on the recent past, an eye on present conditions, and an eye on the nation's future aspirations.

Because of a single, brazen act of violence, in a country thousands of miles away, the recent past has changed, no doubt altering the nation's present and future aspirations.

Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination

Comments

[Stirner]

At the end of the "Thirty Year's War" (1618-1648) Europe had exhausted its religious enthusiasm by simply getting tired of the chaos and bloodshed that the religious zelots brought upon themselves and their world. The West learned the hard way, but it learned -- and in time, the church was separated from the state. The Muslims must learn the same, and we can't force them before they are ready to learn. So, let's pull our troops out of that religious cesspool and let the Muslims fight it out (and it will be a long and bloody fight). In time, they might tire of the struggle between the two (or more) claimants for divine favor, and only then will there be religious peace (both sides giving up their absolute claims). It time we ggive up our provocative and arrogant attitude in which we, we alone, know best: that we will re-make the world and so "make the world safe for Democracy". That is idealistic insanity. Let other people be what they want to be. We don't have to be there as some sort of spiritual referees and missionaries being killed in the cross-fire. Bring our troops home...NOW!

[ljsfolly]

Ms Bhutto is dead and no matter how she died she was killed and that we know. To think her head hit the sunroof and that was what killed her is a not so ha ha joke when there were around 20 others killed at the same time. But like I said she is still dead, murdered for what she represented. Is there anyone among the candidates so will to stand openly, freely in a crowd speaking their beliefs? We have our crazies like any country but the idea that she stood in crowds full of unknowns without much protection that was promised her by Mushariff says he allowed her to be killed. Bush has not called him to task nor will he.

[fourex]

Someone who will run with the Generals? Someone like GW, Hillary, or RMN.

[RumiSouth]

J.P. Morgan once described his investment policy this way: "Put all your eggs in one basket...And WATCH that basket."

In Pakistan, the Bush administration has invested everything in Musharraf, but refused to keep any guiding hand on him. The results were predictable.

[Tellmethetruth]

For bloggers who want to refresh their memories of what Joe Biden wrote on two occassions on Pakistan on Huffington Post on November 6th and November 8th - two months ago, here are the links.

It is worth reviewing to see how prophetic Biden was and right on the money considering how today's tragedy has worked out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/a-new-approach-to-pakista_b_71733.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/we-need-a-pakistan-policy_b_71399.html

[deminmo]

Why was the assasin able to get so close to
Mrs. Bhutto? She knew before coming back, and stated it many times, that her life would be
forfeit if she returned to Pakistan. But she
cared about her country, about the Democratic
process, and she was willing to pay the price.

Who do we have running for President that would
stand up and say, "I would be willing to give
my life for my country, to save the Democratic
process, and our Constitution"? Yea, exactly.

But we have a President that gives millions to
fight terrorists in Pakistan, and the goverment
of that counrty allegedly uses the money for
something besides making sure the military
has what it needs to do the job.