Thursday, December 27, 2007

Violence in Pakistan.

I've been at work all day and missed most of the story, so I'll have to send you to HotAir for all the details. Since I got home, I've been skimming the blog posts and news articles.

The big question in the US now is, obviously, what does this mean for us? Pakistan has been somewhat of an ally in our war on terror, or rather Musharraf has. Because of this, President Bush has reason to attempt to be supportive of the embattled Pakistani president, inviting cries of 'hypocrisy!' for championing freedom while climbing into bed with a dictator. Ally or no, however, when 46% of a country thinks favorably of Public Enemy #1, that country is no friend, making calls for justice empty.

Time will tell if the assassination of Bhutto will spark a civil war or hold pat with the current outbreak of riots. In either case, the main concern for the US should be Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and who ends up with control of them. That alone should govern any response we consider. I agree with Bryan Preston on the initial damage:

"But the most obvious beneficiary of Bhutto’s death is al Qaeda and its various
allies who create chaos and revel in death in the name of their twisted
ambitions. A Pakistan in turmoil is a Pakistan that is weakened as an enemy of

Bhutto is being described as a martyr for democracy, perhaps rightly so. She certainly had courage, and had dodged several other assassination attempts before today. Keep that 46% figure above in mind, however, when pining for the cause. The media have portrayed Bhutto as a shining crusader against tyranny. Both Mark Steyn and Christopher Hitchens point to the tarnish on the halo.