[hrothgar]

Crap...

I don't have a well informed opinion about the corruption charges levied against Bhutto. However, I don't think any of that is particularly significant right now.

I really hope that this doesn't further destablize the country...

[Mr. Dodgy]

Seems Benazir was not killed - she had left the rally before the bomb went off. About 20 others dead, however.

edit: oh, she was shot before the bombing? Some confusion in the news here...

This post has been edited by Mr. Dodgy: 2007-December-27, 10:23

[bid_em_up]

Ummm, thats not what all the other news reports are saying.

[Walddk]

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/7161590.stm

An update 8 minutes ago. It seems confirmed.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, I missed this thread when I made mine...

[pclayton]

Was only a matter of time I think. Such a tragedy.

Now we get a bigger ring of instability. Oil prices will shoot up higher too I'm sure.

[mike777]

Would you cut off all aid of any kind today and get out of a messy civil war? If not what would you do or not do?

It will be interesting to see what huge local countries such as China, Russia or India do or do not do.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 12:43 AM, said:

Would you cut off all aid of any kind today? If not what would you do or not do?

Why would anyone think to cut of aid today?

I see two reasonable scenarios regarding the assassination

1. Bhutto was killed by religious extremists who felt threatened by her recent rhetoric. If this is the case, punishing the Pakistani people by cutting off aid would seem counter productive. Pushing the people further into poverty creates a breeding ground for the rise of more extremists.

2. Bhutto was killed by agents of Musharef. Musharef wants the Pakistani people (and the world) to think that religious extremists killed Bhutto. He would simultaneously remove a major rival, have an excuse to suspend elections and restore the state of emergency, try to rally PPP members behind him as he moves against the radicals. (Hell, this type of action would probably go a long way in propping up his relationship with the US)

The conspiracy nut that lives inside me loves scenario 2. Its all so glorious. In practice, I don't think its very likely. This sort of thing is very hard to pull off. As such, its extremely risky. Moreover, I like to think that no one in their right mind would want to risk the down side if this type of scheme leaked.

As for what I would do...

You all know my thoughts on these matters... I tend to like that whole discredited "Nation Building" thing. If any thing, I'd argue in favor on increasing aid (though I'd probably redistribute it towards low level investments. Micro lending, that sort of thing). I wouldn't be surprised to see a civil war break out with the central govenment moving against the tribal areas.

Ideally, the US would be able to convince the Pakistani government of the need to stop supporting radical Islamists. Potentially, the government might even see the need to stablize the border with India.

[mike777]

"Why would anyone think to cut of aid today?"

Paul from TX says on CNN get out now. It is a civil war and a mess.

If it really is a Civil War it seems any kind of aid will just be diverted or stolen by one side or the other.

I do not advocate this, just one opinion.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Dec 27 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 12:43 AM, said:

Would you cut off all aid of any kind today? If not what would you do or not do?

Why would anyone think to cut of aid today?

I see two reasonable scenarios regarding the assassination

1. Bhutto was killed by religious extremists who felt threatened by her recent rhetoric.

2. Bhutto was killed by agents of Musharef.

More likely, I think is, is

3. Bhutto was killed by ISI agents.

Bhutto was very clear that she believed that the ISI was behind the previous attempts, and it fits both the professionalism of the hit and the willingness of the agent to commit suicide. Unfortunately, the ISI controls all of the intelligence agencies in Pakistan and has a lot of support from parts of the military. Musharrif and the ISI have feuded quite a bit in the past.

Try to imagine if the FBI and CIA were made part of the Department of Homeland Security, and then the entire department went rogue, doing what it thought was best for the country while ignoring both laws and lawmakers. That's what makes this scenario the scariest of all.

http://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/

[barmar]

4. Some reports say Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility, I think.

[Rossoneri]

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Motive? To destabilise Pakistan and use the chaos to push for an extreme Islamist government.

[barmar]

And today I heard it was the Taliban.

[Al_U_Card]

The CIA, using its Pakistani arm the ISI, who else?