Sunday, December 30, 2007
Opinion, Politics

Will Bhutto’s murder prompt an American troop shift?

Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s twice-before and almost-future prime minister, was assassinated in a way that will likely make her Pakistan’s John F. Kennedy—the hope for a better future cut down before it...

Benazir Bhutto looks on to her supporters during a campaign rally on Dec. 27, the day of her assassination. CREDIT: AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

By Stephanie Ramage

On Dec. 27, Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s twice-before and almost-future prime minister, was assassinated in a way that will likely make her Pakistan’s John F. Kennedy—the hope for a better future cut down before it bloomed.

For the U. S., the consequences could be grave indeed. Horrified at what appeared to be Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s strident steps toward establishing military rule, the Bush administration has tried quietly but tirelessly to broker a power-sharing deal between Musharraf and Bhutto—the latter having made it clear that she was more than happy to accept American help.

Now, with Pakistan drenched in blood and moderate Muslims sick and tired of being pushed around by extremists on the one hand and Musharraf’s authoritarian fist on the other, the country is spoiling for a civil war.

We don’t want that to happen. What Musharraf will do is in doubt—so far, he hasn’t been particularly agile at disarming extremists, literally or figuratively. And Nawaz Sharif, who was also vying for the PM’s job, has said that he will boycott the Jan. 8 elections. Bhutto was our moderate Islamic alternative, a wildly popular stateswoman who was pro-democracy and seemed to sincerely care about her country. She once noted that two or three Pakistanis kill themselves every day because they cannot feed their families, a tragedy that she wanted to stop by making more jobs and more food accessible to them.

She also had something that we almost never see in Western politics anymore—not here in the U.S. and not in Europe, although many English rulers are alleged to have had it—a near-mythical connection with the actual physical country itself.

“I miss the scent of the rain when it falls on the dusty roads,” she told writer Amy Wilentz, who profiled her for the December issue of the women’s magazine More. “And the wheat crops in flower. I miss the people; I miss all of our rituals—visiting the graves of our forefathers.”

Her own father, also a prime minister, was ousted and hanged by a general in the Pakistani army. Bhutto made her remarks to Wilentz as her almost nine years of self-imposed exile from Pakistan drew to a close, shortly before her triumphant return last October.

Of course, Bhutto had her problems. In 2003, a Swiss court convicted her and her husband of charging foreign companies a sort of tribute fee to do business with Pakistan, fees that added up to about $100 million. She was appealing that decision at the time of her assassination. It’s important to note that most Pakistanis did not blame her but her husband, whom they nicknamed “Mr. Ten Percent,” for the scheme. People who knew her said the arranged marriage did not make her happy, but she honored it.

Among her other flaws was perhaps her thoughtlessness. There is some reason to think that it was less than thoughtful of her to put her supporters in danger by holding public rallies and parades in a country where she knew her life was in danger and that such events would make targets of anyone who attended. But what else could she do? How could she run a political campaign without making public appearances? She had to show that she was not afraid, and by doing so, she hoped to embolden those who supported her.

And she did. The Pakistani people took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands to show their allegiance to her and, sadly, some of them died by her side.

For us, the timing of the post-assassination turmoil itself presents a problem. The spring thaw in the Hindu Kush usually heralds new offensives by the Taliban. To contain them, our soldiers who are part of the International Security Assistance Force require the Pakistanis to patrol their side of the mountains. So far their performance has been less than stellar, but knowing that a neutral, if not hugely effective, Pakistani force is over the ridge is a lot more comforting than thinking that a newly recruited Pakistani branch of the Taliban is just over the ridge. Bhutto knew how important that was—the last day of her life, she met with Afghanistan’s President Hamid Kharzai before attending that ill-fated rally.

Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has been lobbying since last spring to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. I suspect that Bhutto’s assassination will give him the leverage that he needs to overrule Gen. David Petraeus and make that happen. Improvements in Iraq have been astounding, but commanders there have complained about having the troops shifted around within the country—they would prefer that they get to know an area well and remain for a while to keep it stable, which makes one wonder how the movement of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan will affect Iraq.

This could be the pacifier the Democrats have been praying for—the thing that will quiet their constituencies who claim that they have not kept their word regarding getting the troops out of Iraq, while allowing them to appear as though they support democracy and the War on Terror. They will say, no doubt, that the situation in Afghanistan is expedient, and they will insist that it’s best to listen to Fallon.

Without Bhutto, the situation looks grim indeed. Never has the courage of the moderate citizens of Pakistan been more crucial for the survival of their democracy. And never has diplomacy been more important to us. One can only hope that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a little magic left in her bag of tricks. SP

Stephanie Ramage is news editor of The Sunday Paper.