Government by Assassination
Pakistani Islamist militants, with the political support of the ISI and some of Pakistan’s higher military leadership, are trodding down a path we have seen before. Assassinations of democratic or tolerant political figures at odds with Islamist extremists and the military elite has become de facto “normalized” in Pakistan.
And popular among many Pakistanis.
Bhatti Killing Should Alarm Pakistan’s Minorities
The murder last week of Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan’s minority affairs minister and the only Christian in the cabinet, is a reminder of how dangerous it can be to voice one’s opinion in violence-riddled Pakistan. Bhatti was a liberal who spoke often against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and their narrow-minded application.
His murder comes just weeks after the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, another prominent moderate. Both men were targeted by Islamic extremists because of their calls to reform the blasphemy laws. The purpose of their murders — besides depriving moderates of some of their most courageous leaders — is to frighten moderates and minorities into silence and submission.
What Salman Taseer’s assassination could mean for Pakistan …
Experts believe the outpouring of praise for the killer of Salman Taseer, the former governor of Punjab who was slain by his own security detail in Islamabad on Tuesday, reflects deep support for religious intolerance and will have a chilling effect on reform-minded public figures.
“It’s highly dangerous for these religious scholars to say things that do not fit into the legal context of [an] issue. Are they saying Taseer was guilty of blasphemy simply by criticizing a law? In that case, hundreds of thousands are guilty. This is a clear incitement to violence,” says Badar Alam, editor of Pakistan’s Herald magazine and an expert on Islamist groups.
Pakistan’s Bhutto assassinated – World news – South and Central …
NAUDERO, Pakistan – The body of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto arrived in her family village for burial on Friday, hours after her assassination plunged the nuclear-armed country into one of the worst crises in its 60-year history.
Enraged crowds rioted across Pakistan and hopes for democracy hung by a thread after the former prime minister was gunned down as she waved to supporters from the sunroof of her armored vehicle.
The death of President Pervez Musharraf’s most powerful opponent threw the nation into chaos just 12 days before elections and threatened its already unsteady role as a key fighter against Islamic terror.
A cadre of military leaders manipulate and orchestrate civilian fanatics to methodically murder and intimidate civilian officials and radicalize the larger society, where have we seen this before? Oh, yes:
Pakistan is a Muslim version of 1930’s Japan.
US policy has hitched itself to a dangerously evolving and increasingly Fascist leadership class in Pakistan that is steadily veering away from any pretense of civilized conduct or partnership with the US, reifying a witch’s brew of Islamist extremism, militarism and anti-Indian and anti-American nationalism. We need to disengage from and de-fund this monstrosity that bends most of it’s efforts against our interests and values.
Pakistan is a strategic black hole of an “ally” that is going to blow up in our face someday.
March 8th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
[…] cocoa trade Sudanese militia clashes leave 56 dead Ethiopia’s controversial dam project Government by Assassination [Pakistan] Zardari and Gilani attempt to quell Pak-US tensions over Davis Beijing Has Bought Itself a Respite […]
March 9th, 2011 at 4:08 am
I’ve been shocked, zen, at the things I’ve read in American policy journals and at American think tank websites regarding India and Pakistan. Examples:
.
1. Nuclear deterrence is something that only the Americans have achieved, i.e., they have pulled both back from the brink. Have the two no agency, especially the Indians? Indian books on the subject explore all sides of this issue (how nuclear weapons are both potentially destabilizing and stabilizing) but the thinking appears dogmatic in American policy circles. Or else, there just isn’t much literature on the subject. Not that I’ve done an exhaustive search, but there not many titles on this important subject.
.
2. American funding and training of the Pakistani Army, and piles of IMF aid, are somehow less disturbing to the system than Indian "provocations." At least, you find less discussion of this dynamic. In fact, given the hosannas I read about the Egyptian Army and the Turkish Army, and even parts of the Pakistani Army, by American military brass, I wonder about what effects bilateral training has on our force. I understand some of this is cultural and how militaries interact with one another, but still….our military seems to think that the effects work one way. We mentor, others learn. That we might be inculcating bad habits by our bilateral military relationships doesn’t seem to be discussed as much. Okay, that’s my informal take on it, I’ve not studied the subject in detail.
.
3. Heck, even the language shows our sixty year relationship: Pakistan defends its interests, whereas India provokes.
.
4. China and Saudi and Iran are routinely ignored in the discussions on nuclear deterrence.
.
And so on, and so on, and so on. Hmmm, how did I get onto this topic from your post? I guess because we need to disengage but our policy community has convinced themselves that only American involvement will prevent future conflict because we have intervened in the past. That we have also fueled the conflict doesn’t seem to enter into the heads of the think tankers….
.
Can you explain the phenomenon, Zen?
.
Also, what is this nonsense I read here, there, and everywhere about how our tilting toward India has destabilized the region? Apparently, anything less than letting Pakistan run roughshod over Afghanistan, twisting India’s arms on Kashmir, and giving billions in aid, is tilting away from Pakistan.
.
That’s a sucker’s bet. Seriously, I read this everywhere. Do people know anything about the history of the region at all?
.
– Madhu
March 9th, 2011 at 4:14 am
This is the sort of thing I am talking about:
.
The US is playing with nuclear fireby siding with India against Pakistan, which doesn’t want to be surrounded by its arch-enemy India via Indian influence in Afghanistan.General McChrystal assessed in 2009: "Afghanistan’s insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. . .and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s ISI [Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence ]."General McChrystal again: "Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely bemnefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India."But the USA has sided with India, including a presidential visit and nuclear assistance.Dr Maria Sultan, head of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad, said in an interview in Jang:
“The United States wants to assign more roles to India in Afghanistan. However, instead of proving helpful, the Indian role has becoming a cause in further deepening the crisis. The terrorism spread by the Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Pakistan through Afghanistan continues in the name of India-US cooperation in war on terror."George Perkovitch:
"Pakistan is willing to fight until the last Taliban or coalition foot soldier falls in order to pursue its interests in Afghanistan, while India is willing to fight to the last American to keep Pakistan from exerting indirect control over a future Afghan government. Neither position serves American interests."Nicholas Burns, US State Department: "India has a major role to play in Afghanistan… I think the Indian role in helping Afghan villagers and helping the Afghan government has been very positive. I don’t think we (can) say India cannot participate in rebuilding of Afghanistan because of differences with Pakistan.""US Ambassador Holbrooke assured [India FM] Rao that he is in favor of Indian assistance programs in Afghanistan and is not influenced by what he hears in Islamabad." — wikileaks
.
From a commenter at Ricks Best Defense.
.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/08/the_most_likely_apocalypse_in_our_future_an_indian_pakistani_nuclear_exchange
.
Huh? Yes, I get that the Pak regime gets nervous when their precious little plans are disrupted and that this is potentially destabilizing, but there is zero understanding in that comment that the two governments and armies are completely dissimilar.
.
It’s very frustrating. You cannot convince people, either. Hey, the Americans know better than the Indians.
.
Ugh.
.
– Madhu
March 9th, 2011 at 4:19 am
And I love "arch enemy." That’s a Pakistani formulation and most people don’t know that they are using it when they say it that way. The Indians care about China and GDP more, in general.
.
Sorry, that comment is so ridiculous that I wonder what nutty sites he’s been reading.
.
Okay, I’m done now, but I tell you, some American military folks have so offended me regarding this issue that sometimes I don’t feel like defending the American military to my Indian relatives sometimes. It’s that bad, zen. It’s not right and I’m being terribly unfair, but I’ve really been offended by some of what I’ve read.
.
– Madhu
March 9th, 2011 at 4:46 am
Hmm, one of my nutty comments is awaiting moderation….
.
I retract the part about not defending the American military to my Indian relatives when they complain about Pakistan policy, although they have a point. Sorry. I’m frustrated and this post taps into two of my hobby horses: the corrupting effects of international aid and the poor quality DC discussion on things South Asia….
.
– Madhu
.
(I’m supposed to be working on medical CME online tests. That is why I’ve put up four comments in a row. Sorry.)
.
🙂
March 9th, 2011 at 5:15 am
Hi Doc Madhu,
.
You have raised a lot of issues here and I agree with you that very senior military and national security leaders and have an unrealistic view of India and Pakistan. I think this is primarily a legacy of the Cold War, the final decades of which shaped the careers of the 3-4 star flag officers and the SES class bureaucrats and political appointees in their late fifties to early seventies.
.
First, to American officials in this age cohort, the Indo-Pakistan rivalry was a minor sideshow to them. They seldom bothered to learn the details, much less the languages, of either country and relied on a handful of area specialists when papers needed to be written or Congressional testimony defended. Even with supposedly very important subjects like the opening to China, nuclear proliferation or covert aid to the Afghan mujahedin, American officials did not really bother to engage deeply and (from the Indo-Pakistani perspective) would abruptly stop initiatives or reverse course with very little thought as to the bewildering and negative effect these actions would have. Our bad.
.
Secondly, India lost decades by allying with the the USSR and obsequiously pimping for Moscow in the Non-aligned movement. Basically Nehru and Indira Gandhi were perceived here as exceptionally arrogant, moralizing, gratuitously anti-American and worse than useless – and in my view this understates the reality at the time. Moreover, the fact that both the KGB and the CIA had the total run of India, invited our contempt. Indian generals, spooks and lesser politicos could be readily bought by either side for relatively modest bribes.
.
Third, Pakistan back then was not maniacally Islamist and Pakistani officials like Yahyah Khan and various generals went out of their way to be ingratiating to American leaders. The enduring mil-mil ties were forged in this time period to lasting effect. When Zia set Pakistan on it’s Islamist and anti-American course, the initial changes were subtle and outweighed by the help Islamabad was giving against the Soviets. So US officials turned a blind eye and made excuses, even when Zia had the US Embassy burned and feigned innocence. They are still making excuses today.
March 9th, 2011 at 5:28 am
Someday I will learn to write like you. You and Charles always stay calm.
.
<em>Secondly, India lost decades by allying with the the USSR and obsequiously pimping for Moscow in the Non-aligned movement.</em>
.
Yes to this. The feeling in my family is that India should have accepted US help and aid early on when it was offered (Eisenhower). Prominent Indian strategist K. Subrahmanyam (who recently passed away) thought otherwise and I’ve been meaning to dig up those essays and read them.
.
In fact, I may pair your comment with what I find on CBz when I get a chance….
.
– Madhu
March 9th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Maybe the US should suspend targeted assassinations in Pakistan, thereby setting a good example… Only kidding, there is no way Americas campaign of assassination is contributing to Pakistan’s descent.