Bhutto Death Could Be an Iraq Wake-Up Call

As someone who studied comparative religion, with a focus on Hinduism, I spent a great deal of time also studying the politics of the region, both in India and Muslim Pakistan. I've understood that while we might not necessarily have been on a road that specifically was going to lead to the murder of Benazir Bhutto, we were on a road which has led to political chaos in Pakistan - a nation with a large cache of nuclear weapons. Ever since the democratically elected government of Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999, Pakistan has posed a significant threat to global security and America.

Military coups never solve any political crisis. Rather, they spawn political instability. Sometimes things fall apart in a matter of months, sometimes years, but when a military leader takes over a nation and uses strong-arm tactics to hold control, eventually the walls come crashing down.
If not contained, the violence that results spreads across the region; just look at much of Africa. Add nuclear weapons to the mix, and you see how Pakistan should have been our biggest concern for the past decade.

Instead of focusing on a policy that helped grease the skids for the end of Musharraf's reign and as smooth a transition back to democracy as was possible, we left Musharraf to consolidate power. And following September 11, the Bush administration made a critical error. The theory was that there were only two choices for Pakistan -- Musharraf's government, or a takeover by al Qaeda. And so, the President put everything we had into Musharraf. Tens of billions of dollars in aid, which, ostensibly, was to fight al Qaeda, but as most observers admit was instead used by Musharraf to hold tight to control over the country.

It was an error, because there was never any threat of Pakistan falling under the thumb of al Qaeda. Pakistan is a decidedly Muslim nation, but there was no thirst for the kind of dogmatic, fundamentalist regime that al Qaeda and the Taliban represent. There was certainly no thirst from the public, which consistently had voted against politicians who advocated for what Afghanistan had become. Yet, by our actions, we certainly helped change that.
Osama bin Laden is still free, most likely on the Pakistan border. The border regions themselves are a mess. Despite all of our aid, the government did not secure those areas, and Taliban-like warlords firmed up their control, allowing a safe-haven for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Musharraf became seen as an American puppet -- the long arm of the United States imposing the kind of leader we wanted, subverting the will of the people. Every news outlet he silenced, every judge he removed, might as well have been the U.S. doing that, as far as the people were concerned. Maybe the people aren't ready to turn to al Qaeda, but they certainly feel less sympathetic toward us.

That brings us back to Bhutto. She was dead as soon as she decided to return. Despite the power-sharing deal the U.S. tried to hammer out between her and Musharraf, there was no way he was having it. Maybe he didn't give the order to have her killed, but, as she wrote to Wolf Blitzer in an e-mail before her death, Musharraf certainly made sure she didn't get the protection she needed, because she was a threat and he was losing his grip on power.

The people certainly blame him -- the "American puppet" -- for wiping out one of their most beloved. And so, while the U.S. shouldn't be held responsible for her death, after shaking our heads and asking "Why?" we must also ask ourselves, "What now?" Will we finally take Pakistan and that region's future seriously, or will we continue on our path of hyperfocusing on Iraq, while anti-surging in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Will we continue to send billions to Musharraf, so he can cling to power that he'll eventually lose anyway? Or will we finally decide to do what we should have done years ago -- aid the people of Pakistan in their quest for democratic self-determination, before al Qaeda gains too much sympathy?

In the end, we'll have to be willing to hand Iraq to the Iraqis, and send the necessary forces it will take to contain Pakistan's border, with what will most likely be a messy fallout.

Flavia Colgan is a member of the Daily News editorial board. She will be discussing this issue on To the Contrary at 6 pm Sunday on PBS. Check out her blog, www.citizenhunter.com.

Comments

[SamThornton]

Everyone seems to have dismissed PPP heir and Bhutto's son Bhutto Zardari's remark that "...democracy is the best revenge" as mere rhetoric.

It may actually point out the central flaw in the so-called democracy that exists in Pakistan as well as our futile attempts to promote it.

Democracy as revenge implies that democracy as it is practiced in Pakistan is not so much about fulfilling the aspirations of the people as it is about punishing enemies and rewarding friends. Who are these enemies and friends? In Pakistan they are the usual suspects, the family oligarchies that have controlled Pakistan for hundreds of years.

Democracy in Pakistan may well be merely another thin facade overlaying that society's traditional methods of organization and control, about as democratic as the democracy found in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

Which might explain the unexpected results that occurred when we tried to promote it by forcing Musharraf to step down as Army chief and accept the introduction of political rivals.

[lgillooly]

This is what many Democrats have been saying for years.We took our eye off the ball and went to Iraq.This WH has done EVERYTHING wrong.When will we wake up from this nightmare!!