BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Benazir Bhutto killed in attack on rally

  
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:44 / 27.12.07
Benazir Bhutto has been killed.

Okay. Now I can't see this leading anywhere good. What's this likely to mean for Pakistan now?
 
 
Quantum
13:08 / 27.12.07
On hearing of Bhutto's death, her supporters smashed the glass doors of the hospital and chanted "Dog, Musharraf, dog".

It's not looking good, is it.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
13:51 / 27.12.07
Hmm, I dunno. Obviously lots of people being killed and smashing of hospitals is never good, but in terms of the later consequences? Increased opposition to Musharraf can't be a bad thing, and I'm not sure that the absence of a likely rather rubbish replacement to him is necessarily so bad either.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:18 / 27.12.07
Absence through assassination, though? That's a good way of making martyrs, and starting civil wars, I'd have thought.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:52 / 27.12.07
I don't know anything about Bhutto. Someone else sent me this:

Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.

It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.

-Fatima Bhutto, “Aunt Benazir's False Promises”

Which report makes Miliband's words "Extremist groups have in their sights all those committed to democratic processes in Pakistan" ring a little hollow - she clearly had some unpleasant, undemocratic links of her own.

Which doesn't justify the assassination, and hell only knows what happens now. This is perfect propaganda for the pro-Empire, anti-Islam brigade.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
15:02 / 27.12.07
Well, from what (admittedly fairly little) I understand, Bhutto was herself "pro-Empire", if by that you mean "happy to give way to neoliberal interests". The PPP website, however - and I'd assume that it'd be the PPP who'd gain from her martyrdom - describes the party as committed to "the establishment of an egalitarian democracy and the application of socialistic ideas to realize economic and social justice". If the party itself lives up to those ideals somewhat more than Bhutto apparently did, then I can imagine popular pro-PPP sentiment being, well, generally a rather good thing.

Obviously, assassination = not ideal, but I'm not sure that means the consequences will necessarily be negative.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:21 / 27.12.07
If the party itself lives up to those ideals somewhat more than Bhutto apparently did, then I can imagine popular pro-PPP sentiment being, well, generally a rather good thing.

Sure. Here's to hoping.
 
 
sleazenation
16:20 / 27.12.07
Aside from the human tragedy (and so many other things) it certainly poses a number of questions for US and International policy towards Pakistan. At the moment, the election looks like it is not going to be possible, not just because the only surviving opposition leader has claimed he won't contest any elections now planned, but because the feeling on the street may well not allow it.

Democracy promotion in Pakistan has long been a thorny question, but it has now got a lot thornier.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
19:36 / 27.12.07
Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility. So perfect propaganda (in that it's stuff that happened) for the anti-Islam (if you define 'Islam' as Al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers rather than a billion or so quite diverse people that may include many who would quite like things like Democracy and modernization) pro-Empire (if you define 'Empire' as 'everyone else') brigade (a military unit having its own headquarters and consisting of two or more regiments, squadrons, groups, or battalions).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:23 / 28.12.07
I didn't know anything about Benazir Bhutto yesterday morning, but I have read an article on the Interweb about her now, so feel more than qualified to decide on her worth as a person and a participant in Pakistani politics.

Isn't the Internet great? TEH MEGATON!
 
 
sleazenation
14:44 / 28.12.07
Leaving aside the whole meaninglessness of Al Qaeda as a named grouping, does anyone else find the news that the Pakistani secret service has found proof of Al Qaeda'a responsibility for Bhutto's assassination unbelievably convenient?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
15:13 / 28.12.07
I didn't know anything about Benazir Bhutto yesterday morning, but I have read an article on the Interweb about her now, so feel more than qualified to decide on her worth as a person and a participant in Pakistani politics.

That was unnecessary. I haven't claimed to be an expert on Pakistani politics. I have, however, read enough about Bhutto from sources whose political opinions are close enough to mine to be certain that no matter how much I knew about her, I'd not like her.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:15 / 28.12.07
If that was directed at me, Haus, I appreciate my general ignorance about Bhutto, but I thought other people would find the article useful as a talking point and I hoped they'd contradict me if I made a blatantly false statement.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
15:39 / 28.12.07
I have, however, read enough about Bhutto from sources whose political opinions are close enough to mine to be certain that no matter how much I knew about her, I'd not like her.

That's about where I am on Bhutto. I wouldn't have wanted to see her assasinated of course, but what I find far more worrying than her death in an of itself is the reports of a number of people being killed in a wave of unrest following her assasination. Despite having no personal fondness for Bhutto this seems to be a very bad thing if it leads to further of ordinary Pakistanis.
 
 
Peach Pie
16:18 / 28.12.07
Experts have apparently warned her killers may never face justice.

Like, *duh*.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:04 / 28.12.07
The same is true of many posters on this board, though, too.

It's an unjust world.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:52 / 29.12.07
I wasn't actually referring to you, Pingles, but if you genuinely mean that no amount of further information than what you have heard from people who share your politics could possibly change your opinion of Benazir Bhutto - that you don't like her, whatever that means of a dead woman you have never and will never encounter - then... well. Gosh.

Back on false statements - well, how about if we start with:

Which report makes Miliband's words "Extremist groups have in their sights all those committed to democratic processes in Pakistan" ring a little hollow - she clearly had some unpleasant, undemocratic links of her own.

First up, obviously, this is not a "report" - it's an opinion piece by Benazir Bhutto's niece, whose stepmother leads a splinter group of the PPP and stood against Benazir Bhutto's mother for the presidency of the PPP itself.

Then there's the idea of Bhutto's "unpleasant, undemocratic links", and how that makes the idea of Bhutto being in the set of people committed to the democratic process in Pakistan ring hollow. This is dubious on a fair few levels - the only possible way for Bhutto to regain her power and status in Pakistan would have been through the democratic process, so simple self-interest would suggest that she would be pro the elections for which she was campaigning.

Regarding those links - well, there's her husband, of course, who may well be unpleasant but was not undemocratic - indeed, his imprisonment was judged unlawful in its conditions by Amnesty, if I recall correctly. Earlier in her career she was relatively friendly with the Taliban - certainly not democratic, and also decidedly unpleasant - but her position on them hardened considerably in her latest political incarnation.

Friendliness to Western interests is certainly an issue on which she is likely to fail the Barbelith taste test, but then there are interesting balances there - I would argue that breaking it down to "Empire" and "Islam" is a very Westernised dichotomy. Bhutto was westernised - educated at Harvard and Oxford, exiled in Europe and America. On the other hand, Bhutto also, perhaps in part as a result of that, brought a concern for civil rights and women's freedoms to Pakistan. Her achievements in these areas were limited, but was this her fault, or the fault of the traditionalists in Pakistan's ruling parties? Are women's rights Imperial or Islamic, or both, or neither?

The big cloud over both Bhutto presidencies has to be the allegations of corruption - there's so much murk and accusation and counter-accusation that the facts may not come to light for a long time, if ever, but it certainly doesn't reflect well. I do think it's worth saying that she was the first woman to be elected as the leader of a democratic and largely Islamic nation. That's an achievement worth keeping in mind.

In terms of what this means for Pakistan - cancelled elections, emergency rule, Musharaf operating as quasi-military "crisis leader", in tandem with his appointed successor at the military, facing increasing unrest?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:33 / 29.12.07
Sorry for misinterpreting you, Haus. That said, and apologies for thread-rotting, I'm not seeing what about having a fairly fixed opinion of Bhutto in my head is making me seem like an eejit. All I mean is that I know enough to know that she's significantly to my right, and therefore that she's not to my taste (politically, of course; "have never and will never encounter" suggests you might have been thinking of her qualities as a person rather than a politician?). Surely, for example, pretty much everyone here could be pretty certain they're never going to come across information which would stop them from thinking, say, George Bush is extremely objectionable?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:43 / 29.12.07
Ah, well - if it's just about her politics, rather than her personal probity, for example, then could you tell me what, specifically, about her political positions you found unacceptable? I would say, for example, that her political positions on challenging the feudal structure of Pakistan, on rights and freedoms for women in Pakistan and on civil liberties in Pakistan were quite commendable. This presumably not related to what she _actually_ did, only what she believed, since we are judging the PPP more broadly on what its website says it stands for, yes?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
12:16 / 29.12.07
Well, no - I said If the party itself lives up to those ideals somewhat more than Bhutto apparently did; I really do not claim to know enough to say whether this is the case or not.

As to her political positions/actions, of course she didn't hold horrifying views across the board. On the other hand, there are things like this.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:34 / 29.12.07
Although, from a more recent article by Bhutto herself:

Once the Soviets left Afghanistan, the west abandoned democracy there. Pakistan and Afghanistan became the sources of a political and religious extremist movement that morphed into the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The new Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, has played the west like a fiddle, dispensing occasional support in the war on terror to keep America and Britain off his back as he proceeded to arrest and exile opposition leaders, decimate political parties, pressure the press and set back human and women's rights by a generation.

Which seems a lot more Barbelith-friendly, although agnostic about TGWOT itself. Pakistan, sharing as it does a border with Afghanistan, probably has different political priorities here which certainly bear exploring.

I'm interested by the standard we're applying, here, though - Pingles, could you tell me which leaders in world politics there are about whom you currently feel do not feel certain that how much [you] knew about [them], [you]'d not like [them]? I think we may simply have different ethical and evidential standards.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
13:04 / 29.12.07
There are plenty. In a small handful of cases this is because I actually *do* like them, but in most cases, it's just that there's a huge list of people about whom I know very little.

What ethical/evidential standards do you think are reasonable to say you don't like someone? I'd consider anyone having ever given such full-throated support to the "war on terror" to put them outside what I'd consider acceptable politically, and having seen multiple more recent references either shortly before or following her assassination from socialist sources both referencing her ongoing support (if not necessarily as strong as in 2005) for the "war" or referring to her as a soft-/centre-leftist at best, I really do think it's outside of the realms of reasonable possibility that I'd ever find anything out that would make me overall favourably disposed towards her.

That doesn't mean she's as terrible as Bush or even as Gordon Brown, but I feel confident in saying that her political views aren't of the sort that I find palatable.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
13:06 / 29.12.07
A larger and more extensive breakdown of the key suspects in Bhutto's assassination that makes the Kennedy assassination look like an open-and-shut case. We've now got Al-Qaeda, Pakistan's homegrown militants in Lashkar e-Toiba and Jaish e-Mohammed, Pakistan's intelligence agencies, rogue Black-Ops units allied to Al-Qaeda, President Musharraf and, from the lunatic fringe in the article's depressing comments section 'Nazi-Cons' and Israel. Because it isn't reasonable debate until you can get a quick jab in at fascest AmeriKKKa the Jews.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:04 / 29.12.07
The Kennedy comparison is an interesting one - the Bhuttos have a number of comparison points ot the Kennedys - elevated from middle class local businessmen to national leaders in a generation, dodgy alliances, family factionalism and, of course, assassinations.

In a small handful of cases this is because I actually *do* like them

OK - well, there's my question, then. Which leading politicians - national leaders or former national leaders actively seeking reelection - do you like? Bhutto was in many ways a compromised figure, but I think it's often too easy for white westerners to make judgements about the decisions and statements that she and other people in nations who are actually in the front line of TGWOT have made.

More immediately ontopic, as far as I can see you are saying that Bhutto's death, for your money, provides a space into which a more genuinely socialist member of the PPP might step, giving a PR push to a party that would then move Pakistan towards a more rigorous socialism than you feel Bhutto would have offered. Is that about right?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
14:34 / 29.12.07
That's kind of right, though there's a lot more "maybe" in there. I know very little about the top ranks of the PPP beyond Bhutto, so I'm not really well-placed to actually comment on the likelihood of someone whose values are more geared towards "the establishment of an egalitarian democracy and the application of socialistic ideas to realize economic and social justice" actually gaining power. So, more a hope than anything very solid, really. If you'd like to comment on whether you think that's actually likely, go ahead.

As to who I do like... well, I was unsure quite what you meant by "national leaders" - obviously Bhutto wasn't actually in a head-of-state-type role when she was assassinated - but off the top of my head, the most obvious leaders as you've just defined them who broadly meet my approval would probably be Chavez and to a lesser extent Morales.

I'm not quite sure what actually in the front line of TGWOT means in the context of justifying a politician's compromised stances. Certainly being in the same kinda region as Iraq, Afghanistan, and various countries from which the September 11th hijackers came means even more pressure from the US and other Western countries than politicians from other countries would face, but I'd also suggest that opposing TGWOT would be a highly popular stance in any of the countries in the region, and certainly a pretty obvious one for the leader of a(n at least nominally) leftist party.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
15:49 / 29.12.07
How would Bhutto -or any Pakistani politician- go about opposing TGWOT without a) allowing or turning a blind eye to groups like Al-Qaeda, with goals very much opposed to "egalitarian democracy and the application of socialistic ideas to realize economic and social justice" operating from within their borders, apparently infiltrating their military and government and b) alienating the West and thumbing their noses at the trade and financial support that good relations with some of the wealthiest nations on Earth can bring? What big advantage would this bring to the Pakistani people apart from the approval of Western Leftists?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
16:18 / 29.12.07
Well, what do you mean by TGWOT? As it currently exists, TGWOT is quite obviously a Western construction, and the link I gave a few posts up was a news report of Bhutto pretty explicitly condoning it on Western terms.

Obviously there are ways of opposing terrorism that aren't related to TGWOT - including doing plenty of things to prevent the operation of Al Qaeda-affiliated groups, although it seems pretty clear that the single most effective tool in limiting Al-Qaeda's capacity is to, well, not feed the trolls - but "the war on terror" fairly uncontroversially refers to the US-led approach to a) terrorism by Islamist-related groups against Western countries or interests and b) lots of things that are unrelated or only very tenuously related to this. In this context, expressing strong approval of TGWOT basically includes expressing approval of the obliteration of Iraq, along with various other pretty horrible actions. Therefore I'd say that a failure to oppose TGWOT is failing the egalitarianetc. test at the first step.

As to alienating the West, well, plenty of nations' leaders opposed the war on terror and while they may have been kept out of the spoils of war (which, besides, have been easily outweighed by now by the material costs of war and were mostly reserved for the US anyway), none have faced serious sanctions on this front alone. I mean, France - hardly with the most hardcore-socialist government at the helm - opposed the war, a few complete nutcases in the US congress and on far-right talk shows declared the whole country evil, and everyone else rolled their eyes at the nutcases. More generally, I'd suggest that "financial support" from affluent nations to less affluent ones often comes with such whoppingly huge strings attached that it really wouldn't benefit the people of any nation.

(Btw, Phex, while I'm sure that the comments in the article you've linked to are suitably stupid - I'd rather not look myself because comments sections pretty much anywhere on the 'net make my eyes bleed - could you not conflate antipathy towards Israel with "jab[s against] the Jews"? Because they really are very, very rarely synonymous.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:57 / 29.12.07
I'm not quite sure what actually in the front line of TGWOT means in the context of justifying a politician's compromised stances.

Well, the bombings and accompanying massive loss of life, including the life we are talking about here, might be a less doctrinally significant but fairly prominent difference between politics in London and Washington and politics in, say, Pakistan, which shares a geographical and permeable border with Afghanistan. Not that al-Qaeda necessary has any role in this particular assassination, but the existence of an open border with Afghanistan, with Pashto tribal connections linking Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, with a strong and powerful Madrassa tradition... these are all notable differences between Pakistan and, say, the UK.

The next question is probably whether it is a safe assumption that opposing TGWOT would be a popular move for a leftist politician in Pakistan. That's an interesting one in itself. Certainly, Pervez Musharraf walked a very difficult line between a movement in his country opposed both to TGWOT _and_ to secular government in Pakistan, and the military and liberal/reforming elements. In that sort of setup, I'm not sure that a credible electoral candidate could oppose TGWOT, or rather the specific parts of it that involve Pakistan, without alienating voters in favour of people who are not inerested in a democratic process anyway - the people who would support opposition to TGWOT most passionately in Pakistan, as far as I understand it, would not necessarily be the people who would vote for Benazir Bhutto. Also, there is probably an awareness that abandoning support, such as it is, for US action in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan would lead to a shift in which India becomes the focus of more US attention and support. Would that be a sell? I don't know.

Speaking of which, what now? Bhutto was apparently seen as the best hope of a "civilianising" of Musharaf's government (call it collaborationist, if you'd rather) into some sort of transition to a civil government which the military would not feel inclined to overthrow. What are the other options? Even if the elections do go ahead, is any credible politician going to participate in them? Is there a credible alternative? Nawaz Sharif has said he will boycott the elections, if they go forward, and Sharif as Prime Minister with Musharraf as president is a pretty eye-watering idea in any case. Who else? What can now happen to maintain stable government in Pakistan?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
18:36 / 29.12.07
Let's, for the sake of argument, define the War on Terror as a US led (because 9-11 happened to the US) attempt to prevent further attacks on Western nations and interests by destroying or crippling the group Al-Qaeda. The Afghanistan war was definitely part of this, since it was aimed at Al-Qaeda bases on the Afghan-Pakistan border and their allies in the Taliban. Iraq not so much, since the US knew that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda. The WOT was invoked in getting people behind the invasion, sure, but nobody in a position of power in the US government or military could have thought for one second that removing Saddam Hussein from power would affect Al-Qaeda in any way or done anything to prevent further terrorist attacks (with a little hindsight and the tiniest bit of common sense they would have seen that the invasion greatly benefited Al-Qaeda) One could be all for the destruction of Al-Qaeda and dead against the invasion of Iraq. Nobody wants any further terrorist attacks like those in New York, London, Madrid etc. so intelligence and military operations need to be taken against Al-Qaeda to prevent them, but, as we have seen, the Iraq war has only strengthened Al-Qaeda so it can unequivocally be called 'a bad idea' that runs counter to the aims of the War on Terror.

As far as Troll-feeding is concerned, it may be helpful to note, from the demands Al-Qaeda has made of the US, its allies and the world at large, exactly what constitutes trollfeed to them. There's the obvious: they want the US-led coalition to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the removal of every last non-Muslim from Muslim lands and the destruction of Israel (since the Israeli people aren't going anywhere of their own accord only their complete obliteration, a second Holocaust, would achieve this aim) and the establishment of a Caliphate which would include Pakistan and end any hope of egalitarian democracy or social justice for the whole region. If the leaders of any nation oppose, in any way, the establishment of the brutal regimes that meet Al-Qaeda's approval or work with Israel and Palestine for a two-state solution to problems in the region then they are troll-feeding. Bhutto and Musharaf, are by not implementing Sharia law Troll-feeding. The king of Saudi Arabia pardoning a rape victim sentenced to seventy lashes for being in a car with a man who wasn't her husband: Troll-feeding. If Bin Laden was appraised of the details of your own life would he respect your differences or take a bite of piping hot Troll-feed? There is little the people of the world can do barring dropping their collective pants and bending over for Bin Laden that isn't Troll-feeding. If however you have any ideas on preventing the world's all-you-can-eat Troll buffet then I'd love to hear them.

Lastly, in regards to nations opting out of the War on Terror, even if the invasion of Iraq is mistakenly included, France could opt out because they aren't on the front lines. Al-Qaeda doesn't have bases in the Loire Valley amongst the vineyards and Eurocamp sites, nobody is infiltrating the DGSE or trying to blow up Nicholas Sarkozy. It does, however, have bases on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border so whether Pakistan likes it or not it has to have a position in regards to extremism within its borders. There are varying degrees of support a nation can give to either side, but Pakistan doesn't have the option of sitting this one out and hoping the better side wins. The US side is the lesser of two evils by a pretty significant margin so I don't see why Bhutto (or indeed Musharraf) can be faulted the side that doesn't want to see them dead and their citizens enslaved.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
19:18 / 29.12.07
Sorry, Phex, I'll try to reply to you tonight, but I'm going to look at Haus' post first.

First, then, on whether opposing TGWOT* would alienate people who would otherwise vote for Benazir Bhutto. Well, a survey a couple of months ago found that, basically, Pakistani people generally hate the US and hate what they're doing in the region even more. That is, favourable/unfavourable ratings towards the US were at 19%/72%, and when asked about the US' motives in TGWOT, 4% gave positive responses. I can't really imagine that with figures so overwhelming, telling the US to feck right off would be an unpopular move amongst any voting demographic. As to the "bombings and accompanying loss of life" occurring in Pakistan, I'd think that by virtue of living there the Pakistani people would be much more aware than the populations of Western countries how much Western military intervention in the region has increased such bombings.

I'll assume your last paragraph is an open question to anyone, so I'll leave it open unless you specifically want me to answer it.

* I don't actually know what the "G" here stands for. Great?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
19:57 / 29.12.07
Okay, Phex. Firstly, I'm not entirely convinced by either the portrayal of TGWOT as a US led attempt to prevent further attacks on Western nations and interests by destroying or crippling the group Al-Qaeda or the notion that the invasion of Afghanistan was driven wholly or even primarily by this aim. I'm not sure that much else in the argument really relies on either of those two points, though, so I'd rather leave them aside if you're happy to.

However, the end of your first paragraph seems to be suggesting that Bhutto could have simply been anti-Al-Qaeda (fair enough) while still also being anti-Iraq-invasion. Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, I think that's an incredibly untenable supposition; Bhutto was cheering on "President Bush"'s war on terror. Praising TGWOT in general while ignoring Iraq specifically would be the biggest elephant-in-the-room occurrence in all of history.

On troll-feeding: well, there's a core band of trolls, and that core band draws its strength through recruitment and support from the population at large. I'd say that the most important aspect of troll-feeding would be related to what increases that support. The fact that TGWOT has increased that support - bin Laden's approval ratings are now 46%/26% approve/disapprove according to that survey in my last post - is uncontroversial outside of the nuttiest circles. I think it's probably pretty safe to say that pardoning someone convicted for non-husband-association wouldn't produce the same shifts in mood.

And on the lesser-of-two-evils: well, less support to one side doesn't generally mean more support to the other, particularly when one side isn't even fighting the "other side" it's claiming to. And I'm not quite sure how positing the US administration as less eval than Al-Qaeda can be quantified; on the one hand, the US itself is much less like a theocracy than bin Laden's stated ideals, but on the other, a) Al-Qaeda does not have the capacity to cause the deaths of millions of people, something the US administration has done in the past few years, and b) I somewhat doubt that the majority of those who say they support Al-Qaeda - or even those who actively support them militarily or financially - are actually in line with bin Laden's own views; the fact that support for terrorist attacks is vastly lower than support for bin Laden himself I think suggests this.
 
 
Peach Pie
14:21 / 30.12.07
The same is true of many posters on this board, though, too.

It's an unjust world.

What do you mean, Crack? Many posters on this board have said her killers will never face justice? Or many posters on this board deserve to face justice?

I don't get it...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:42 / 30.12.07
Thanks, Pingles - some interesting info in that paper. However, I think you may be leaping both with the assumption of a direct link between attitudes to the US and attitudes to Musharraf - there are all sorts of internal issues here, such as the arrest of Imran Khan or the showdown with the judiciary which have little to do with the US - this before we even get onto the Red Mosque fiasco.

Looking a bit more deeply at the survey, we find that, although Musharraf's appproval rating is indeed very low, the approval of Benazir Bhutto was high, at 63%, making her the most popular politician in Pakistan, and a chunk more popular than Osama bin Laden. Does this mean that the Pakistanis simply do not know what is good for them, or that what is said in Austin is either not heard or not taken too seriously in Karachi, or that, although popular opinion in Pakistan might oppose TGWOT, it isn't as big an issue as other, domestic political considerations?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
17:17 / 01.01.08
I'm not quite sure what you mean about Musharraf - I didn't mention him at all in my previous posts. That said, I think it goes without saying that for all politicians, including Musharraf and Bhutto, popularity isn't going to be decided by one issue alone, although I'd have also thought it's fairly indisputable that being on the wrong side of one incredibly unpopular issue (or grouping of issues) is going to have some effect.

(I'm afraid I may have to bail out of any further extensive replies, at least for now; I've got loads of work to get through in the next couple of weeks and so don't really have the time to write too much. Sorry.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:07 / 22.01.08
'm not quite sure what you mean about Musharraf - I didn't mention him at all in my previous posts. That said, I think it goes without saying that for all politicians, including Musharraf and Bhutto, popularity isn't going to be decided by one issue alone, although I'd have also thought it's fairly indisputable that being on the wrong side of one incredibly unpopular issue (or grouping of issues) is going to have some effect.

Sure, but in the case of Benazir Bhutto that effect did not prevent her from being the most popular politician in Pakistan by some distance, which was my point about Musharraf. Musharraf was very unpopular, but not necessarily for reasons that chime with the reasons we might want him to be unpopular - that is, alliance with George Bush and TGWOT (the "G" is "global", by the way, so possibly it should be TWOGT) - rather than internal matters that are less relevant to us but more relevant to many Pakistanis.

It's fine to conclude from this that Pakistanis are politically naive or ignorant of their own moral and practical benefit, but if that's what you are saying - that the popularity of Benazir Bhuto was based on "bad Pakistani-ness" on the part of the Pakistanis - then I think that takes us in a bit of a different direction.
 
  
Add Your Reply