- Al Qaeda/ Taliban fundamentalists, who were enraged at Benazir for supporting the US and for becoming closely aligned with it in the "war on terror"
- Military/ military agencies, who were threatened by Benazir because was the true champion of democracy and thus their hold on power
- Asif Zardari, Benazir's husband, who wants a position in the party so he could continue to loot and pillage Pakistan as he has done before
- The CIA, RAW, and various other international intelligence agencies that have motives to destabilize Pakistan
The most popular theories are the first two. Interestingly, it seems that most in the West have subscribed to the Al Qaeda/ Taliban theory, while within Pakistan, almost no one buys that explanation. Instead they believe the military is somehow behind it. And I agree with them.
First, there is the issue of method. Jehadis like to blow up things. And the initial blame was put on a suicide bomber, which is a classic jehadi method of assassination. But it's now been shown conclusively that Benazir was shot by a gunman before the bomb went off. The government's ham-handed and incompetent explanations for Benazir's death didn't help build trust for its explanations either. (At one point, the government actually argued that Benazir had literally killed herself by hitting her head on the sunroof lever when she ducked inside the vehicle. That explanation has since been retracted.) In any case, I suspect that there was no suicide bomber, only a planted bomb that was designed to take out the shooter and destroy any evidence.
What was the motive? I think the army's motive was two-fold. First, it simply wants to stay in power. Yes, Benazir was no champion of democracy and was willing to make a deal with Musharraf for "table scraps" as Tariq Ali put it. But she did represent the hopes of millions for true change. And at the end of the day, the army didn't even want to give up a little bit of its power, even the very little bit it was being forced to share with Benazir. Some might think this seems very short-sighted and dumb and venal. Yes, the Pakistani military is all of those things.
Second, and more importantly, I think the army needed a big event to gin up emotions against the fundamentalists, to be able to continue doing whatever they want (especially in Swat), and to be able to continue to receive funding from the USA for the "war on terror." These funds have been in some jeopardy recently, and the Pakistani government knows it. There has been unprecedented criticism of Pakistan's role and actions this year as never before. Many public figures and presidential candidates in the USA have spoken explicitly about cutting off the country from aid, and of ending the US's reliance on Musharraf. Just last week, the New York Times revealed in an investigation that $5 billion of the $9 billion of military aid that Pakistan has received from the US since 2001 has been spent on non-war-on-terror items (it's gone instead to weapons systems targeting India). And then there is the lesson of history. To those who argue that Pakistan's position as US ally is secure, all one has to do is to look at our last great dance with the Americans, the Afghanistan war of the 1980s. Then too Pakistan was one of the largest recipients of US military aid, getting about $4 billion total by the end of the decade. No one thought the party would stop. And then 1990 came and Bush Sr. failed to certify Pakistan as a non-nuclear state as the Pressler amendment required, and that was that. The party was over, sanctions were slapped on Pakistan, and the 1990s were a grim decade spent trying to come to terms with what had happened. Interestingly, in a little-noticed congressional bill passed in December 2007, Pakistan is now required to show progress towards democracy - otherwise its aid gets cut. So far only $50 million of non-military aid has been cut, but I believe this is the harbinger of things to come.
So what better way to keep the gravy train flowing than to orchestrate a spectacular attack on a popular leader and then blame it on the fundoos? After all, ginning up fear of the fundoos has worked for the Americans, so why wouldn't it work for the Pakistani establishment? And the West is left stuck in a most visible mess, wanting to dump their old boyfriend Musharraf but unable to because Benazir's dead and they still think he's their best defense against the big bad jehadis.
Second, and more importantly, I think the army needed a big event to gin up emotions against the fundamentalists, to be able to continue doing whatever they want (especially in Swat), and to be able to continue to receive funding from the USA for the "war on terror." These funds have been in some jeopardy recently, and the Pakistani government knows it. There has been unprecedented criticism of Pakistan's role and actions this year as never before. Many public figures and presidential candidates in the USA have spoken explicitly about cutting off the country from aid, and of ending the US's reliance on Musharraf. Just last week, the New York Times revealed in an investigation that $5 billion of the $9 billion of military aid that Pakistan has received from the US since 2001 has been spent on non-war-on-terror items (it's gone instead to weapons systems targeting India). And then there is the lesson of history. To those who argue that Pakistan's position as US ally is secure, all one has to do is to look at our last great dance with the Americans, the Afghanistan war of the 1980s. Then too Pakistan was one of the largest recipients of US military aid, getting about $4 billion total by the end of the decade. No one thought the party would stop. And then 1990 came and Bush Sr. failed to certify Pakistan as a non-nuclear state as the Pressler amendment required, and that was that. The party was over, sanctions were slapped on Pakistan, and the 1990s were a grim decade spent trying to come to terms with what had happened. Interestingly, in a little-noticed congressional bill passed in December 2007, Pakistan is now required to show progress towards democracy - otherwise its aid gets cut. So far only $50 million of non-military aid has been cut, but I believe this is the harbinger of things to come.
So what better way to keep the gravy train flowing than to orchestrate a spectacular attack on a popular leader and then blame it on the fundoos? After all, ginning up fear of the fundoos has worked for the Americans, so why wouldn't it work for the Pakistani establishment? And the West is left stuck in a most visible mess, wanting to dump their old boyfriend Musharraf but unable to because Benazir's dead and they still think he's their best defense against the big bad jehadis.
No comments:
Post a Comment