Pakistan After Bhutto: Both a Void at the Democratic Center and the Global center of Islamist Jihadism

Benazir Bhutto's assassination is a great victory for Al Qaeda, whether it carried out the attack directly, through rogue agents in Pakistan's intelligence services or, as Bhutto herself feared before her death, in conspiracy with them. Bhutto's murder is the closest they've come to killing a Western leader; it is the most sensational attack since downing the Twin Towers on 9/11. And it confirms that Pakistan, not Iraq, is the front line in the fight against Islamic jihadists.

The day after 9/11, Bhutto told me already then she had received intelligence that she was the "next target" of Al Qaeda after they had assassinated the Afghan resistance leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Masood, several days before the attack on New York. In order to protect their position in Afghanistan, he needed to be eliminated. Once he was gone, they feared she was the one popular leader who could rally Pakistanis against them and the Taliban, even from exile, and spoil Pakistan's support and indulgence of the Taliban's protective rule.

Bhutto recalled that "I shared power with the security apparatus through the president when I was last prime minister. Yet the extremists were on the run. Osama did not dare go to Kabul until the decision to overthrow me was taken in mid-1996. The Taliban were stuck in southern Afghanistan because of our foreign policy. It was only after my brother was killed in the third week of September 1996 that the Taliban unilaterally went into Kabul."

"Osama first bankrolled the extremists against me way back in 1989," she said, " He gave $10 million for a no-confidence move against me in the parliament. Some said he returned to Saudi Arabia after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan but was sucked back into South Asia by extremists in Islamabad. They wanted his financial investment in my overthrow."

Bhutto's advice after 9/11 was straightforward -- and not followed. "Islamabad," she said, " is the jugular vein of Kabul. Clean up Islamabad and the Afghan (Al Qaeda) camps start falling like dominoes."

Instead, the US looked to General Musharraf and accepted on face value his strongman guarantees that he would crack down on extremism. We bombed Afghanistan, routed some camps, chased Osama to the border with Pakistan, then moved on to Iraq -- the wrong war against the wrong enemy -- leaving the nourishment flowing from Islamabad to the extremists.

This was not only Bhutto's view, but also that of the French intellectual, Bernard-Henri Levy, who wrote a book on the death of Daniel Pearl, and whom I interviewed at the end of November.

Two weeks ago, I got an email from Benazir thanking me for publishing this interview because it so closely accorded with her own views.

"It turns out I was right beyond my most pessimistic analysis at the time when I wrote the book on Daniel Pearl," Levy said, "Pakistan was a ticking bomb with nuclear weapons. Now the political bomb is detonating.

"There are three components to this crisis -- the jihadist forces are increasing in the border regions with Afghanistan and also in the heartlands; the secret services (ISI) have been even further infiltrated, not less so, by jihadists than when I wrote my book; and (Gen. Pervez) Musharraf is unable to react in any way other than dictatorship, which in itself will fuel a worse crisis. A great eruption awaits, I'm afraid."

Levy's hope rested on Bhutto: "In Pakistan, there is a substantial moderating middle class, which Bhutto represents, that is an important force for progress. We must admire, on this score, the personal courage of Benazir Bhutto defying both the forces of tyranny and the jihad. Courage, of course, is always a surprise. But it is not only courage. She also senses part of the opinion is moving. Will it move fast enough? Of this, I'm not sure."

In the end, he argues of the US and its allies that " we were all fools rushing off to war into Iraq. The real epicenter of the Islamist danger was Pakistan. Al-Qaida's core base is not in Tora Bora or even the tribal areas of Pakistan, but in Karachi and Islamabad -- close to the nuclear weapons and close to the headquarters of the ISI. Al-Qaida are the proverbial guerilla fish in the sea of Pakistan's major urban population.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for instance, who was one of the real brains of al-Qaida, who conceived the 9/11 attacks and claimed to have killed Daniel Pearl with his own hands (although I'm not sure), was captured in Rawalpindi, only two miles from the headquarters of the army!

"Of course, Musharraf knows this. He tolerates it to maintain the complicated balance of forces that keep him in power.

"That is why the only hope for Pakistan is if Bhutto's presence can shift the balance of power so that Musharraf and the military either are overthrown or are really compelled to move in Bhutto's direction, rejecting the modus vivendi with al-Qaida and their allies in the ISI. "

Now that hope is gone. Tragically, Pakistan suffers a political void at the democratic center without Bhutto and is at the same time the emergent center of Islamist fundamentalism globally.

As Levy puts it, "There is no question in my mind that the center of gravity of Islamist fundamentalism is shifting from the Arab world to the Asiatic world. As V.S. Naipaul pointed out in his book 'Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among Converted Peoples,' the zeal of converts outside the Arab world is more fervent. Just looking at a map through Osama bin Laden's eyes will tell you that Kashmir is closer to the center of the Muslim world, not Palestine. For most of the jihadists, Kashmir is the real Palestine.

"In this sense, the war in Iraq was not only foolish but a moral crime because it diverted focus and resources from the real issue. Not focusing on Pakistan after 9/11, and instead contracting out to Musharraf, was a grave strategic error of the U.S. It paralleled two other mistakes in dealing with Islamist fundamentalists: firstly, the indiscriminate and unquestioning support of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, not distinguishing between the fundamentalist stem cells of al-Qaida (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's groups) and the democratic forces of young Commander (Ahmad Shah) Masood's Northern Alliance; and then, secondly, America's dangerous tolerance of Saudi Wahhabism in return for oil."

Because of her highly unique stance between East and West, Benazir Bhutto would have been a key player in starting to unravel this knot which pits the interests of oil and jihadism against human rights and democracy across the Middle East and South Asia. Who can replace her in this role?

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

Comments

[animalhamilton]

the Pakistan / Afghanistan border is the epicenter of extremism: bin Laden was - and probably still is - there and it's were we got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

what more proof is needed?

[mommadona]

I believe we all give way too much power to the concept of Al Qaeda - which in reality is a bunch of young, intelligent thugs with guns and a warped sense of their own grandeur.

Oh yeah, and they have a huge arsenal of weapons (THANKS A BUNCH, GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH).

Sounds like a typical Mafia set up.
They should have been treated as the international terrorists they are and it should have been handle by international policing efforts.

[Mr.Fitz]

Bhutto's assassination is a wake-up call to Americans that Pakistan is to be feared more than Iran.

[prscnt1]

Ms. Bhutto was sacrificed by the US in trying to displace Musaraf who was moving away from the West and was of no further use to the US. He struck back by taking out the most prized US asset, and that is all there is.

Now al-Qaeda is more useful to Musaraf then the US is, and the US is by the balls and will pay to Musaraf for a long time, like it paid to Saddam.

Ms. Bhutto’s Dad, who was hanged in revenge for the stuff he did when he was in power, established PPP in Pakistan, and it appears that the family thinks they own the so called PPP, as it is willed to the 19 years old! The wonderful democracy Ms. Bhutto was to establish!

Read the article at NYT. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/weekinreview/30bumiller.html

[leduck]

The Bush administration did not screw up by invading Iraq and ignoring Pakistan. That was part of the plan. If they had the whole thing to do over again, the administration would do the same thing with monir modifications. Does Pakistan have as much oil and natural gas as Iraq?
NO!

It was not a mistake to invade Iraq -- just immoral.

[epetrone]

It is time to let others take care of their own affairs without the US meddling...Since her death there has been over 3000 other deaths in Pakistan...Remember 9/11?

[bobh]

How is it that Bush and Rice could champion Bhutto's return, and then do nothing about ensuring the security she was so desperately asking for?

[Thrasyboulos]

The US is paying for its war against the Russians in Afghanistan and the neocon invasion of Iraq.

However, most of the bills haven't been invoiced yet.

[barackoblogger]

Obama is brilliant in his foresight of international affairs, particularly in the light of the recent meltdown in Pakistan and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Very early in this race, Obama stated in one of the first debates that Pakistan was a serious problem, and that Iraq was a distraction from the more crucial issues of both Pakistan and Afganistan, which is where Al Qaeda is actually based.
At that time, Hillary slammed Obama for being "naive," (even though a later examination of previous statements made by her showed that she'd gone on the record as having agreed with him!)

Obama took a serious hit in the polls from that "naive" statement, with people believing Clintonian spin rather than substance.

However time has shown Barack to be vindicated in his position. He has been consistent from the very beginning.

Obama has demonstrated that he has both the foresight and judgment to tell the truth about what needs to be done internationally.

Here is a substantive interview of Obama on foreign policy from Iowa's Quad City Times, no glitz, no soundbites.

http://videos.qctimes.com/p/video?id=1609167

[CitizenAdvisor]

Thank you for posting that analysis. I have long thought that Bush should have been impeached for taking his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and letting Osama get away--reason number 10 out of 30. So while I am not astonished to learn of the effects, I am disheartened by the extent of the damage, and by a system of government that allows an obvious incompetent to remain at the helm, along with his Machivellian co-captain. (I'm equally dismayed that Rove/Rasputin got away Scot-free.)

[ljsfolly]

You only have to see the pictures of the last momments of her life to see a man with a gun on the back of her car. To tell us the cars sunroof killed her is beyond belief and we know it is not probable/likely true. I actually disagree with the who killed her in this post as Musharraff has repeatedly refused to give her the security they both knew she needed. There were a lot of people who were after her and she would not have lived a lot longer as the situation was. Who killed her by bullett/bomb/car is only a part of it when she wasn't protected. She knew this and had commented on it and still went out to see the crowds. We have no one I would assume would even think of doing that.

[squeakyf]

I find it somewhat sad and yet very ironic that we have a movie out in theaters (Charlie Wilson's War) that shows how the American govt has had secret involvement and monitarily supported these jihadist groups for quite a while. And yet knowing this, we continue to try to influence and manipulate other countries affairs. What if Vladimir Putin and the Russian govt had tried to influence our leadership and dictate what we should and shouldn't do. I believe that our leaders, no matter how incompetent, would be slightly ticked to say the least. Unfortunately, as we found out on 9/11, we reap what we sow. Our president has failed to see any correlation between past mistakes and current atrocities. My only worry now is, with our governments current mistakes in judgement, what fruit will come to bare and how soon will we see or feel the repercussions?

[Luc65]

It looks to me that America has a very short memory.

Benazir Bhutto was elected twice and was deposed twice as ex-prime minister of Pakistan. She has always seemed to be on the ropes until the crisis created by the Bush administration by entrusting Musharraf put her back on the political stage.

Years ago, her next term looked more likely to be served in a prison than in the parliament. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, already served a longtime in Karachi Central Jail and Benazir herself was served with an arrest warrant by the Sindh High Court on charges of abuse of power.

At that time, Magistrates in Britain and Switzerland were formally investigating claims of corruption and drug-dealing against the Bhutto family.

Even then the United States, France and Spain had also been asked to help trace overseas stashes of money. Switzerland ended up frozen all her assets.

It's beyond comprehension that Bush would create such a situation by supporting Musharraf, and at the same time supporting his opponent against him for a situation that US created. This clearly exacerbated the moderate Pakistanis and reinforced the rank of the extremists.

[carefulcautious]

This is all Bush's fault. It always is. His fingerprints are all over it. Just like they were during Katrina.

[jsarets]

Richardson says Musharraf should step down. But the only thing worse that a corrupt and unpopular dictator is a power vacuum. If there was a good time for a multilateral coalition to force Musharraf out of power, that time has long since past. Who is going to step up and lead Pakistan? Keep in mind that our last best hope just got assassinated.

Joe Biden said something about foreign policy that I think is very insightful in its simplicity: Whenever a politician talks about what we ought to do about a foreign policy situation, the first follow-up question should be "And then what?".

So Musharaff should step down... and then what?

For all of his unquestionable negatives, Musharraf has some very important qualifications to be Prime Minister of Pakistan: he genuinely wants the job and has a good track record of keeping himself alive. Good luck finding a replacement with those characteristics that isn't an even worse choice.