Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally

[rmnunez]

Although in supporting Musharaff the US appears to have endorsed a military dictator who overthrew a democracy, this was done before Osama and his Al Qaeda fundamentalists became such a tremendous problem.

I don't think it could be sensibly claimed US support for Musharaff had anything to do with the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan or Al Qaeda's location in the Kashmir region nearby.

After 911 and intervention in Afghanistan, ties and friendly relations with Pakistan and Musharaff would become much more important.

Extremism in Pakistan seems more the product of Islamic fundamentalism of the sort inspired by OBL than the consequence of US support for Musharaff.

It is a peculiar situation in Pakistan, obviously the Islamic fundamentalists would not like their ruler to be friendly with the US, so one would expect them to support someone challenging Musharaff, but clearly this wouldn't extend to a woman and especially not to one as Ms. Bhutto who was explicitly adverse to this Islamic fundamentalism. The assasination removed a serious challenger to Musharaff's continued rule, this harms the Islamic fundamentalists. If they thought it out, they wouldn have waited for Ms Bhutto to win and remove a US-backed dictator before attacking her.

[thx1138]

Musharraf tells U.S.: Stay out of Pakistan - CNN.com

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has made it clear that a U.S. military mission to capture Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil would be unwelcome and "against the sovereignty of Pakistan." President Musharraf says the United States would regret attempting to hunt for Osama bin Laden in western Pakistan. President Musharraf told the Singapore Straits Times that his military has the experience to operate in the mountainous terrain near the Afghan border and if the United States went in they would "regret that day."

[rmnunez]

I agree with Perv, the terrain is forbidding, and although the US has better technology and more firepower, the environment works against these advantages. Additionally, given the territorial disputes between Pakistan, India and China, sending soldiers into the disputed areas where OBL is presumed to be hiding would antagonize several countries who could all claim to have been invaded and would each have to react more forcefully than the next to maintain their claim.

Yet the status quo sure isn't very satisfactory, it can't be that if OBL hides in this location he will be 'safe' and it sure doesn't seem like Pakistan can get him out. The US ought to work with the Pakistanis to get OBL. Reach an agreement to train the Pakistanis with the improved technology and firepower, allow some specially trained US forces to go along and work out an arrangement so that they can coordinate the effort.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I agree with Perv, the terrain is forbidding, and although the US has better technology and more firepower, the environment works against these advantages. Additionally, given the territorial disputes between Pakistan, India and China, sending soldiers into the disputed areas where OBL is presumed to be hiding would antagonize several countries who could all claim to have been invaded and would each have to react more forcefully than the next to maintain their claim.

Don't forget to add Russia, which is still a player. And the third country you mentioned is also still at odds with America over certain things (including its support of Taiwan). Many things can hinder the US governments goals.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Russia has no interest or claims in the region other than whatever they could gain antagonizing or supporting one of the others. I provided a map to help show how the region is divided into areas of disputed claim, the boundaries within the region are disputed too. If the US sent troops in without Chinese, Pakistani and Indian permission, the three of them would have to attack those troops to maintain their claims. If the US sent troops in with Pakistani permission, only China and India would need to attack them. Regardless of what permission they had, US troops would be challenged based on where they were located inside the region with its disputed boundaries. This is why Perv is right to say its better the US not deploy troops here. However we can see how Pakistan wouldn't be of much help beyond the areas clearly within their disputed boundaries so OBL and his followers could simply move into the adjacent area beyond the Pakistani claim. Ideally Pakistan, India and China would all pitch in and help hunt down and erradicate these terrorists, but these are the Himalayan foothills, a terribly inhospitable environment and its hard to move around, forces need special training and supplies to survive and fight in high altitudes.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W Good points, rmnunez...but the USA can't step away from the fact that they've supported a military dictator who overthrew a democracy. It could well be argued that by doing so, they have provided a fertile breeding ground for that which they wished to prevent - extremism.

What U.S. governing body should go for, then ? Wait for pro-democratic sources to emerge ? How long ?
A situation required U.S. to make a deal with Musharraf, then U.S. acquired that point.
(This is not an attempt for any excuse, but) this is politics. As long as it gives and/or brings U.S. a required point, U.S. goes for that.
There are neither Morality nor Ethics involved, but business, and only.

[thx1138]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto died from a severe injury when a bomb blast slammed her head into her vehicle, investigators with Scotland Yard said in a report released Friday. The investigators also say that while two people participated in the attack -- one to fire a gun and the other to trigger a bomb -- there was no evidence that Bhutto was shot. The findings are consistent with initial Pakistani government assertions -- which triggered deep skepticism in the days after Bhutto's death in Rawalpindi on December 27 last year. But a spokeswoman for Bhutto's Pakistan's People's Party said the British investigators were limited in their ability to investigate the killing fully and that the party remained convinced that Bhutto died from a gunshot wound. The Scotland Yard report, by a team assisting Pakistani investigators examining the slaying, acknowledged "speculation that two individuals were directly involved in the attack," with one firing a gun and another detonating a bomb.

Well the corruption continues, again something we can see with our eyes is whitewashed. "Nothing to see here, move along!"

[Rainbow]

Musharraf is disliked - put it very mildly - by majority of Pakistani guys, with an appx. number that is close to 80% (or more).
Asia and Democracy ? That sounds kind of exotic, in reality, with few exceptions.