It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pakistan, Mrs. Bhutto, and The American WoT End Game

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Confusion about her murder appears to be way beyond normal for an assassination. Was there a bomber and a separate shooter with a pistol? If this were indeed a professional job, why was the shooter armed only with a pistol? Was Bhutto killed by a) the pistol-wielding shooter, b) shrapnel from the bomb, c) a bullet from a third assassin on a nearby building or d) even a shooter inside her car, e) or by a fall after the bomb went off? Q. How did the killer or killers know Bhutto would stand up and expose herself through her armored vehicle’s sunroof? Very few known details make any sense.

Whoever ordered her death would likely have had one of two motives. First, to destabilize Pakistan, or second, to kill her in such a way as to weaken Musharraf’’s position by showing that the state of emergency had failed. Whoever did this probably wanted to do more than kill Bhutto. They wanted to derail Musharraf’’s attempt to retain his control over the government. This was a complex operation designed to create confusion.

Rounding up the usual suspects, al Qaeda sympathizers who would benefit from the confusion spawned by the killing of an important political leader. The second tier of suspects are elements in the army wanting to use the assassination to force Musharraf out, replace him with a new personality and justify a massive crackdown in Pakistan.

Two parties even I cannot imagine as suspects in the killing are the United States and Musharraf; neither stands to benefit from her killing. Musharraf now faces a political chasm over which he may not cross and the United States faces a destabilized Pakistan just as the Taliban is splintering and various jihadist leaders are fragmenting. This is the last moment the United States would choose to destabilize Pakistan. My best guess is the killing was al Qaeda doing what it does best. Carrying off a dramatic strike by a few trained operatives that has great consequences. The theory that it was ordered by anti-Musharraf elements in the army comes in as a very distant second.

The end game of the US -Jihadist War always had to be played out in Pakistan. There are two reasons that account for this. The first is simple: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda command cell are located in Pakistan. The war cannot end while the command cell functions or has a chance of regenerating. The second reason is more complicated. The United States and NATO are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. Where the Soviets lost with 300,000 troops, the Americans and NATO are fighting with less than 50,000. Any hope of defeating the Taliban, or of reaching some sort of accommodation, depends on isolating them from Pakistan. So long as the Taliban have sanctuary and logistical support from Pakistan, transferring all the coalition troops in Iraq to Afghanistan would have no effect. And NATO withdrawing from Afghanistan would return the whole situation to the status quo ante - before the Nine Eleven Event.

If defeating the Taliban and destroying al Qaeda are part of the US end game, the key lies in Pakistan. US strategy in Pakistan has been to support Pakistani President Musharraf and rely on him to purge and shape his country’s army to the extent possible to gain its support in attacking al Qaeda in the North, contain Islamist radicals in the rest of the country and interdict supplies and reinforcements flowing to the Taliban from Pakistan. It was always understood that this strategy was deeply flawed.

The United States now faces its end game under far less than ideal conditions. The United States is not going to get an aggressive, anti-Islamist military in Pakistan, but it badly needs more than a Pakistani military that is half-heartedly and tenuously committed to the fight. Salvaging Musharraf is getting harder with each passing day. So that means that a new personality, such as Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, might become Washington’s new man in Pakistan. In this end game, all that the Americans want now is the status quo in Pakistan. It is all they can get. And given the way US luck has been running, we might not even get that.

Talk about L E G A C Y!




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Good thread, starred and flagged. My contributions to this thread are a few articles from a site I frequent for news tidbits.

The plan to topple Pakistan's military?
Pakistan: Violent state repression of protests over Bhutto assassination
Bhutto assassination heightens threat of US intervention in Pakistan
The Destabilization of Pakistan

All from Global research.ca .

Nice thread.
Cuhail



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Musharraf gains from Bhutto death if he wants to establish as a Saddam type figure. I consider this to be quiet likely with the US going along with such a notion rather then risking Pakistan falling to Islamic extremists . Al Qaeda also gains from helping to ensure that Pakistan is a failed state.

Really the situation does show the folly of the Iraq war the risk of nukes falling into the hands of the enemy is a far greater danger then Saddam was.
At some point the coalition is going to have to take military action in Pakistan to deny the enemy a haven and win the war in Afghanistan and/or to prevent the country from falling into the hands of the enemy.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I wouldn't be so sure that Musharraf and the United States have nothing to gain here.

Let's put it this way - who would stand to gain if Ron Paul were assassinated in the United States? The United States Government. Why? Because emergency powers could be put in to effect, the election could be canceled, and Bush would remain in power.

Riots and protests would ensue from us terrorists that support Ron Paul, so martial law would be declared.

Now look at the situation in Pakistan. Who would stand to gain from assassinating a supporter of democracy and peace, Benazir Bhutto, in Pakistan? The Pakistani Government. Why? Because emergency powers could be put in to effect, and Musharraf can stay in ultimate power.

Riots and protests would ensure from those terrorists that supported Benazir Bhutto, so this would just feed Musharraf's power. Maybe his image takes a hit, but does it really matter? A lot of Pakistanis are convinced Musharraf had something to do with it, so his image has already taken a hit. If you're him, why not make a power grab? What do you have to lose?

But what do you have to gain if you're the United States from this assassination? Simple - Pakistan collapses in riots and protests. The military dissolves in to rebel movements. The nuclear weapons fall in to the hands of Al Qaeda. Now all of a sudden you have a nuclear armed Al Qaeda to use as the ultimate boogeyman on your population, and you got your emergency rule and martial law that you've wanted.

I'm not saying Musharraf was necessarily involved, although it's possible. And I'm not saying the US was involved. But both do stand to gain if they play it right.

Of course, this is an opinionated assessment, and I'm assuming that the US government and Musharraf want emergency powers. I think it's pretty clear they do, but again, that's up to your interpretation.

Again, I'm not saying either of these parties were involved. But simply because they weren't involved doesn't mean they have nothing to gain.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

posted by Cuhail


“ . . the violent death of a 54-year-old woman with three children is both tragic and shocking, the attempt to turn Bhutto into a martyr for democracy is preposterous. She was brought back to Pakistan as part of a sordid scheme hatched by the Bush administration to give the military-controlled regime headed by Musharraf a pseudo-democratic facade.

The arrangement was that Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party would not oppose Musharraf’s bid for a third term as president and in return, Musharraf would grant Bhutto immunity from criminal charges related to the rampant corruption that characterized her previous terms as prime minister.

US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher served as the broker in negotiations leading to the deal, flying back and forth between Islamabad and Bhutto’s homes in Dubai and London. According to the Washington Post, it was Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte who finally convinced him. “He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face,” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member, told the Post. In the end, it was Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who phoned Bhutto in early October, telling her to return to Pakistan to serve essentially as an instrument of US policy and a prop for the Musharraf regime. In doing so, Rice sent Bhutto to her death.”
www.globalresearch.ca...

The foregoing was “lifted” from the following story and source:
Bhutto assassination heightens threat of US intervention in Pakistan
by Bill Van Auken, Global Research, December 30, 2007

Thanks Mr Cuhail, for the many good links to what I regard as authoritative reporting on the confusing conditions existing in 2 of the most important of the -stans. Afghan and Pakistan. The majority of the people of Pakistan mostly want to be left alone to pursue their own goals which does not include holding a proxy war on their territory.

Pakistan was created in 1947, as Britain gave up its Empire on the sub-continent. Out of that came India, West and East Pakistan, the latter morphing into Bangladesh, the former dropping the West part of its name. Let's not forget Kashmir, a source of ill-will between India and Pakistan.

Mostly at the instigation of the US - deep into the Cold War - and the regular payment of large sums of money, Pakistan has held many elections but IT HAS NEVER BEEN A WESTERN-TYPE DEMOCRACY. Pakistanis want HONEST and efficient government with personal security. Like most people in Asia, they don't give a HOOT about Bush43's "Freedoms and Democracy."

Aside: Pakistan is but one of Central Asia’s 7 -stans and 2 failed -stans. Afghanistan. Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. Tajikistan. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. The 2 failed -stans are Balochistan in south-east Iran and Kurdestan in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. These people have often been occupied by foreign powers but they can proudly claim they have never been conquered. From the late 1700s until 1947 the Brits learned that the hard way.

By the bye, like so many wars we fight today, the -stan lines on maps we like to call “borders” were drawn in the 18th century by the British East India Company’s London offices for administrative convenience. Say hello today’s Middle East; say hello old French Indo-China of Vietnam fame. The people who live in those places never thought much about fixed borders, which seem to be more a Western European concept over which we will KILL you!

[edit on 1/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

All things have come full circle in the mountains of Pakistan. The "great game" has been played-out. The cycle of death which we unleashed upon the world there, bringing the war on terrorism home to us, now draws us inexorably into the vacuum of its violent ending. The convulsions now wracking that country threaten to become a revolutionary explosion capable of bringing down the foundations of the world.

The rapidly building democratic-revolution is now entering the "critical mass" stage. Its expansion is accelerating beyond human control. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a calculated risk, intended to derail democracy in Pakistan because Islamic extremists were making the democratic transition from militias into political parties. For this reason, it is unlikely that she was assassinated by real Islamists, true Taliban. It is more likely that the hit on Bhutto was connected to the Administration's getting the "green light" (the day before the attack), to move large numbers of Special Forces "trainers" into the tribal regions.

Even though Bhutto was allegedly stirring the cauldron, "...demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against the army chief," recent revelations by various neocon-men points to a covert US plan to eliminate her.


www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Where's Fletcher Prouty or a successor when you need them... Pakistan, an enemy of civilisation, is an obvious target for the free world, since it has been a state sponsor of terror since the day of its birth.

As messy and ugly as it is currently, the situation is an opportunity for the US and its allies to permanently alter Pakistan, in preparation for its eventual elimination as a failed state. Breaking it up into smaller regional countries that cater to its barbaric people's tribalism would also weaken any threat it poses to India, which is seen as a slightly more civilised country. Despite the Indian secret service being one of the most aggressive enemy agencies in the west, alongside China and Israel.

Big things are moving around in the dark, under the surface, but they are still making big ripples on that surface...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 


As messy and ugly as it is currently, the situation is an opportunity for the US and its allies to permanently alter Pakistan, in preparation for its eventual elimination as a failed state. Breaking it up into smaller regional countries that cater to its barbaric people's tribalism would also weaken any threat it poses to India, which is seen as a slightly more civilised country. Despite the Indian secret service being one of the most aggressive enemy agencies in the west, alongside China and Israel.


Sweet Jesus! Do you know how many people live in Pakistan? The Indus Valley civilization, one of the oldest in the world and dating back at least 5,000 years, spread over much of what is presently Pakistan. Nuclear NPT facts: In response to Indian nuclear weapons testing, Pakistan conducted its own tests in 1998. The dispute with India over the state of Kashmir is ongoing.

Pakistan covers 305,000 square miles, larger than Texas, smaller than Alaska. But the population is humongous - 164,741,924 (July 2007 est.) Now we’ve had one heck of a time in Iraq - engaged in war there longer than World War 2 with no end in sight. The Median age of men, 20.7 years. GDP per person, $2,600 (2006 est.) Stats for Iraq: 166,000 square miles. Population, 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.) Median age of men, 19.9 years and GDP per person, $1,900 (2006 est.) All statistics from the CIA World Factbook.

We do not have enough Armed Forces to talk tough anywhere. Say thank you Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Musharraf gains from Bhutto death if he wants to establish as a Saddam type figure.


I had never thought about it before, but I think you may be correct. Saddam was a excellent dictator. Don't get me wrong; I had no tolerance for fascism, totalitarianism, or dictatorships. But, Saddam kept the peace for his country whose religious differences are apparent in the Shia v Sunni violence that envelopes the country today. I don't agree with keeping peace by fear-mongering — but, it worked for Iraqi for a long time.

Maybe Musharraf had this in mind - if he was complicite in this assassination. Though, there is no apparent religious violence in Pakistan like there is in Iraqi, the same methods can be contrived to control a population.

Who know if we'll ever know what truely happened that day, who was responsible, or why.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 



Originally posted by xpert11
Musharraf gains from Bhutto death if he wants to establish as a Saddam type figure.


I had never thought about it before, but I think you may be correct. Saddam was a excellent dictator. Saddam kept the peace for his country whose religious differences are apparent in the Shia v Sunni violence that envelopes the country today. Maybe Musharraf had this in mind - if he was complicit in this assassination. There is no apparent religious violence in Pakistan like there is in Iraqi, the same methods can be contrived to control a population. Who know if we'll ever know what truly happened that day, who was responsible, or why.


I like Musharraf. He speaks good English. He is secular Muslim. He has been on the CIA payroll for years. He’s reliable. Problem is, everyone in Pakistan knows this too and that is something they do not like. If there was an open election in either Afghan or Pakistan, Osama bin Laden would poll 70% of the Pakistani vote.

All Musharraf can do is walk a tight-rope. Talk the pro-US anti-WoT talk when in W-DC, and try not to upset the majority of the Army General Staff that favors the Taliban and al Qaeda if they are not part of either or both. It is truly riding the tiger. As Benizir Bhutto who, if you will recall owned houses in both Dubia and London, neither of which is exactly a low rent district. She and her husband had been caught in flagrant stealing which is why she was out of office. But then Halliburton has also been caught but it remains free? Stealing is not limited to Pakistan.

America’s problem is we support rulers around the 3rd world who SERVE our interests first, and their people know that. American’s don’t know that and think if there is an election it must be a democracy. Oh how soon we forget Florida in ‘00 and Ohio In ‘04. Ignorance is bliss! The many (meaningless) elections in Iraq were more reliable and open than in America! Wow!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
What if it wasn't even her at all? A fake?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
II believe that we must have a system that give ordinary people a chance to vote for certain things like "are we going to war with iraq", I believe that ordinay people must get more to say, a president is very mutch like a dictator because he can say whatever he want the people to believe, the president is just a curtain, how can we change the system?... obama or bush, its the same.. CIA runs the show with pentagon. it's sad how a CIA with the goverment hand in hand smiles for the media, they are doing it over and over again, manipulating people, they made us think that we are under attack, then destroy two nations across the sea and now wants more, wtf. if everything is ok, why are they not playing the cards on the table?
if america wanted democracy, they would not have started a war, like its ok for me to kill you if you do not want to give me your money?.

the system is fault...

I believe thats it time for people to wake up, take a look around dailymotion and search for "ied iraq" and look what we created because of our system...

what if we lived in iraq or afghanistan and get bombed by strangers invading our country?

ofcurse most people here are not ignorant people... most people are not, we are just being betrayed by our own system, and it will happen again...

[edit on 7-1-2008 by antiwarman]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
So the Bush43 War in Iraq has come down to this. I learned today we are paying the young Sunni men $300 a month not to kill or maim an American. Each month you don’t do that - kill or injure one of us - we give you $300. (That’s 3X the average wage of an unskilled Iraqi). With 50% unemployment in Iraq, it’s no surprise we are getting takers.

I wonder how much we are paying the Sunni LEADERS to let their young men take our $300 a month stipend? $10,000 a month? More? Much more? Well, war has finally come down to who has the deep pockets more than who has the better SURGE plan. Yes Mr Gates this is better than Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld ever did.



new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join