Bhutto's assanination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow

Obviously this topic is a bit much for you Pakistans politics are very scary, due to there being millions of nutcake Islamic terrorists there, bent on destorying the world. In terms of her near miss the last time, that was from a press report- it was a huge bomb, was nearby, was attached to a baby that was being handed toward her, and she just happened to bend down at the instant it went off about 15 ft away, obliterating her staff and 130 others around her, but leaving her unharmed. IN terms of your status as gay, ethnic, or whatever, who cares? I sure dont You certainly wouldnt be disriminated against in the gay bay where I live (SF) - maybe you should think about moving here is some Pak and Bhutto backrground The tragic but not unexpected assassination of Benazir Bhutto at an election rally in Rawalpindi has pushed Pakistan into far greater internal political turbulence and societal discord than ever before. Civil society in Pakistan is shell-shocked and the possibility of a protracted civil war-like situation cannot be ruled out. The fallout of this dastardly event will add to the many challenges that a beleaguered President Musharraf and the Pakistan military are already facing. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the Al-Qaida has claimed responsibility for this assassination, describing Bhutto as the most valuable "American asset" who had to be eliminated. Bhutto's uncompromising attitude towards the jihadi forces was well-known and it may be recalled that even before she returned to Pakistan on October 18, Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud had threatened to "welcome" her in a befitting manner. While the interim government in Pakistan has ordered a high-level inquiry, the consensus is that rightwing radicals, tacitly supported by sympathisers in the Pakistan intelligence and security establishment, are the principal perpetrators. The pattern that thus emerges is fraught with grave security implications for Pakistan as an entity, the physical security of President Musharraf (who has also been targeted by these forces), the cohesiveness of the Pakistan military's command and control and, by extension, the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It is evident that Bhutto's security cordon that would be of the highest level was breached by a gun-wielding sniper strapped with explosives. This would not have been possible without some degree of local complicity — and the final responsibility rests with the establishment that Musharraf represents. While he may not have been directly complicit, the charge of institutional ineptitude will remain — although individual turpitude by Musharraf may not be a valid charge. The Pakistan establishment has been denounced angrily for not providing adequate protection to Bhutto and the case of faulty electronic jammers given to her security entourage is being highlighted. It is evident that in the run-up to the January 8 elections, the opposition rallies addressed by Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have been more vulnerable to well-planned and premeditated attacks while the parties seen to be closer to Musharraf have been safe from such violence. This pattern has added to the many doubts that are being raised about who benefits from Bhutto's demise. The possibility that there are many elements within the Pakistan security and intelligence establishment who are deeply anti-US and hence anti-Musharraf is very real. This was most palpable after the Lal Masjid military operation in July and in the intervening months the developments in Swat and Waziristan point to the growing influence of the right wing — of whom Baitullah Mehsud is only one exemplar. It is well recognised that post General Zia and the long-drawn-out Afghan War, the Pakistan military had internalised the doctrine of jihad; and this was theologically and politically legitimised as being part of a ‘just war'. With the end of the Soviet occupation that culminated with the demise of the Cold War, these deep socio-religious forces were sought to be exploited by the Pakistan military — first against arch enemy India — and later in gaining strategic depth in Afghanistan. In the early nineties, India was bled through many wounds of terrorism and low-intensity conflicts, both in Punjab and J&K, even as the Taliban came to power in Kabul. Both initiatives, although tactically innovative, were strategic blunders. Recent history indicates this. India was able to contain the scourge of state-sponsored religious radicalism and terrorism while Afghanistan paid the price for the enormity of 9/11. In the post 9/11 years it was these very socio-religious forces — nurtured in Afghanistan (the Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaida brand name) — acquired their own strategic depth right through Pakistan from Islamabad to Karachi on the Arabian Sea. Paradoxically, it is the same Pakistan military that had once nurtured these extremists which it is now seeking to contain — with limited success. Thus what we now witness is the transformation of a deep Islamist orientation within the Pakistan establishment into one of indignant jihadi militancy among some of its members. The only change is, for the former USSR, read the much-hated USA and, ironically, the persona of Musharraf. Benazir Bhutto, in her recent public speeches, vehemently opposed this religious right wing-military nexus in the Pakistani establishment and promised to save her country and its people from this spreading malignancy. Furthermore, she even indicated that she would re-open the A.Q. Khan episode, thereby revealing the murky role of the Pakistan ‘fauj' in the clandestine nuclear proliferation network that has been conveniently swept under the carpet and away from public gaze. This threat may have been the final straw that led to her elimination. Bottom line- Pak is a very dangerous place and we need to support Musharraf and give up the "democracy now" push - it is naive at best, and the State Department fools playing with fire