Thursday, December 27, 2007

The Future Without Benazir Bhutto

Benazir BhuttoAs everyone knows by now, the former (and aspiring) prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated earlier today in Rawalpindi.

I claim no expertise in the internal political affairs of Pakistan. I can sense trouble ahead for South Asia and the rest of the world, but have no idea what form it will take. Given Pakistan’s status as the guardian of the “Islamic Bomb”, any form of trouble that ensues is likely to be lethal and widespread.

Is Ms. Bhutto the 21st century’s equivalent of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary? Is it possible that something equally wicked this way comes?

Here’s an open thread for readers to offer their assessments of the situation.

[Post ends here]


Panday said...

Given the suicide bomb, it's a good guess that jihadists are responsibe. If they ever take over, just imagine the Taliban with nukes. It's a nightmare.

Unless someone has a better idea on how to deal with insane jihadists, I'd advocate a preemptive strike of unprecedented strength if they ever come to power.

Ethelred said...

I cannot disagree with Stephen Renico, but the real question for the short term in what Musharraf is going to do.

What is India going to do?


Homophobic Horse said...

Maybe Musharraf ought to declare martial law again. Which would make the Colonel Kurtz of Pakistan.

defender said...

I am no expert either. What is clear though that this is muslim on muslim power fight. *moderates" against "fundementalist".
she was westernised and a woman, so she had little or no chance in the fight.
her death is also a very real blow to those who thought they can control islam and the paki bomb ie the west.
i feel that a very big log has been thrown on the fire.
this faction fighting could very well spread to this country.
will it spread into open war outside the area? india to one side, afgan/ iran to the other. china, russia, al quieda and the west in the mix. I think it depends on whether or not muscharf and the army can hold out, if he cant then ?

Homophobic Horse said...

If Musharraf can't hold, then it's Apocalypse Now.

What do they mean by moderate and extremist Islam anyway? Moderate Islam is practicing the Universal theology of the AntiChrist whilst still maintaining an outward Islamic appearence. 'Extremist' Islam really is traditional Islam. etc.

Henrik R Clausen said...

A disaster indeed. She was popular, open, talked in public, had no fear.

The style of assassination points squarely towards the Islamists. They didn't say anything about it, but they have the motivations and the tradition to take out people they don't like in this manner.

Musharraf has issued a condemnation that looks sincere and solid. We are waiting for a clear statement against the criminals. I hope they will claim responsibility. Then they will be utterly disgraced.

For the record, no moderate Islam has been observed in the wild. Moderate Muslims, sure, but no moderate Islam. The main difference is wether they seek to destroy democracy with violence or without.

The Pakistani branch seems bent on 'with'.

spackle said...

I believe this to be the work of Al Queda or one of their ilk. But this part of the world is very prone to conspiracy theories and I am sure Musharaff will be the fall guy in concert with the US of course. I just pray they dont blame India. In any case the next few days will tell if civil war breaks out or not. I can only hope that if the militants look to be winning that there is some kind of contingency plan with the US to get those warheads flown the hell out of the country. I know that sounds very "Robert Ludlum" but hey, I can hope cant I?

Sissy Willis said...

The assassination of the Archduke was the first thing that came to mind. The second was the Taliban's assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud just before 9/11.

. said...

Pakistan is a mess. It has always been a mess, since 1947.

It's been obvious for a while that the actions of Jinnah and the Muslim League in the 1940's in demanding a separate state instead of joining India have been among the stupidest long-term geopolitical decisions made in history. As India has thrown off its misguided Nehru Socialism and the shackles of Hinduism (the excuse for India's slow economic growth after independence was that it was a "Hindu" rate of growth), and as the thought of a military coup or other suspension of democracy in India becomes more and more unthinkable each year, both Pakistan and Bangladesh remain basket cases.

As for Bhutto herself, she was a corrupt, discredited, albeit secular politician. She and Nawaz Sharif can be compared to the two corrupt civilian "begums" of Bangladesh, recently overthrown and jailed for corruption by that nation's military. She was not a savior for Pakistan.

The country is an unstable mess, and will remain so - but I do not think it is in danger of an al qaeda or radical Islamist takeover. It will remain what it is, a haven for instability and concern.

And in comparing the relative success of India with the relative failure of Pakistan and Bangladesh, one has to ask: DOES THE RELIGION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT?

I know that for many on this site the answer is obvious, but I would be interested in any links to more scholarly and dispassionate experts on the subject.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Ex-Gorden (and everyone else :), I recommend National Geograhic in September. The feature article was much better than your average glossy amazing-travel article and gave some real insight into the founding of Pakistan.

It was supposed to be secular. Really. Just like Turkey. Well, that aint' particular secular anymore either. If you say that today in Pakistan, people will either laugh at you or get really angry. That original intent of the British has been completely forgotten.

When I saw Bhutto carrying the Quran and quoting it, I said to myself that this was bound to cause trouble. But I had no idea it would end like this.

Religion should be banned from politics, now and forever.

. said...

henrik: Unfortunately for your thesis, Turkey is now a more prosperous and more democratic state, with better rule of law, under the current Islamic party than it was under the militant secularists. Yes it has a long way to go, but the Islamist party has actually significantly improved things.

On Cyprus, they brokered a deal to end the frozen civil war, which was rejected by the Greek Cypriots, who apparently want to continue to wage counter-jihad.

That doesn't mean I necessarily support Turkey's inclusion into the EU.

I'll look at the National Geographic article - it sounds interesting.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Ex-Gordon, I think you should look closer at Cyprus, much closer. I did that, and I found much creepy stuff. Turkey basically has stolen 1/3 of the island and now wants UN approval to keep it, as well as a legal tool to take over the remains.

But that's a long story. The Cypriots themselves (only few are left in the north - most left for Britain) rejected their 'offer' and chose to remain an independent nation. I think that was wise.

For Turkey itself, I'm not claiming that it is a mess like Pakisten. But I *am* hinting that it might become one in a decade or two. The Islamization I'm referring to is of business life there, where you basically can't be in business without donating something to Islamic madrassas, parties or mosques.

That'll destroy the remains of religous freedom in the country - as we see in the attacks on the Christian priests, editors & publshers - and latest when the Turks demolished part of the Halki Seminarium for priest education, just like that.

While Pakistan is in an acute situation, we should keep very alert to what happens in Turkey, too. Grey Wolves and their ilk are active.

Ethelred said...


Of course we all know that for every country where Islam rules, and where there is virtually no economy to speak of, that Islam is not the problem at all, but the evil West's suppression [blah, blah].

See this at the National Review Online.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Not quite Archduke Ferdinand, but hopefuly unlike Masood this is not a aQ prelude to something ... bigger.

For a historical perspective how about Czarist Russian PM Pjotr Stolypin? Now long forgotten, assassinated in 1911, the last hope for reform of Czarist Russia before the abyss. Not so much the spark to ignite the conflagration as turning off the lights.

Henrik R Clausen said...

CounterTerrorism Blog reports that A-Q is getting ready to brag over their crime.

El Jefe Maximo said...

I don't know if Mrs. Bhutto is the new Franz-Ferdinand, the poor Archduke was the heir-presumptive to what was, after all, a rather stable country compared to most countries existing today.

Even had Mrs. Bhutto's party done well in the upcoming elections, she never would have been in position to be a Stolypin, either. However her return worked out -- even had the eggheads gotten their wish-dream and military rule was ended and the "rule of law" restored, it wouldn't have been more than a brief hiatus between military dictators.

Nothing for it now but to cancel or rig the elections, and move on to martial law. The tragedy of Pakistan is that there never was, or has been, anything else. There are no institutions with which to build a modern state, let alone republican institutions.

"Democracy" when the politicians cannot go to a rally withough being accompanied by their own private militias because the police aren't trustworthy -- that's just a joke.

I think that it was always on the cards that somebody was going to kill Mrs. Bhutto, once she returned home. It was madness for her to try it, and crazier still for Musharraf not to deport her at once.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Anyone here good at Italian?

An arch-enemy quips in on the event:


He rejoices in eliminating "the most important asset of the Americans". But I can't figure out (my Italian is rusty) if it also implies taking responsibility.

DP111 said...

Pakistan has been in a state of chaos since its birth. Tragic though the assassination of Bhutto and the continuing violence, all this means is that the state of chaos will be higher, which means that the Jihadis will get more strategic space to operate in.

If the ensuing chaos becomes really bad, then there is another threat we need consider - large scale immigration to the West, particularly the UK and the US, and the facillitating of the Jihad within.

Can we really afford such large scale immigration, that in the fullness of time will lead to our civilisational death.

From Melanie Phillips, attributing Imam Abu Baseer, one of the leading supporters of al Qaeda: ‘One of the goals of immigration is the revival of the duty of jihad and enforcement of their power over the infidels. Immigration and jihad go together. One is the consequence of the other and dependent upon it. The continuance of the one is dependent upon the continuance of the other’ (Londonistan, p. 58).

It is hard not to have a suspicion that Muslim states, and actors within, deliberately foment chaos, to encourage Muslim emmigration to Infidel lands, to extend the reach of Islam.

Nukes are a readily visible threat and can be contained, but the Jihad is an ongoing operational threat.

Anonymous said...

This was a given as soon as she set foot in the country. I'm amazed she lasted this long.

Musharraf must now do two things: Use this event to rally support for actually doing something about the Taliban and, swiftly and secretly, dismantle his nukes.

DP111 said...

To: The Average Joe

Very little chance of your wishes coming true.

1. The Taleban are supported by the ISI, and the vast majority of Pakistanis, as they are true Islamic fighters.

2. All Pakistanis view their Nukes with great pride, as it is the one and only symbol of their "success".

X said...

I don't think we should hold many illusions. Musharraf will either side with the islamists or fall, now. It seems fairly obvious that he or some elements of his government have been working in collusion with the islamists for quite a while.

If Pakistan is turned into an islamist state, India will not be happy. They already have their conflict in Kashmir, currently at a stalemate. An islamist pakistan will re-open that conflict in order to expand and consolidate and in order to provoke more islamist uprisings in India. India will ultimately respond with nukes.

KG said...

I understand the delivery system for the nukes doesn't have that great a range, so if the islamists take over and the nukes are still intact they'd have to deliver them to any Western target by sea or by civilian airplane.
My feeling is they'd be far more likely to use them as a lever to extort concessions from the West.

Afonso Henriques said...

I am no expert but I will give you people my contribution so that I may help you to form an independent opinion. I hope to elucidate you too Baron, with my humble contribution.

First we have to look to what Pakistan is. Pakistan is not a Nation per se as the Nation-states in Europe nor a (relativelly successfull) bastard (USA, Argentina) or legitimate (Canada, Brazil) son of such Nations.
Pakistan is a country born from a desire of some muslim Indians to have their own muslim land in order not to be rulled by the Hindu majority (which means, in order for the muslim elite to rule).
We also have to (sorry, I am a European, a Portuguese to be more accurate and as so I am sorry to offend your naive ideals or your profound belives as Americans) look at the ethnic make up of the country and realise that in that country, the loyalties are first, within one's tribe and secondly within one's ethnic group. The only "common ground" for that country is islam but islam can only unite people against a non-islamic thing/person/Nation/state and not within an islamic entity because once the consensus of Islam is reached, other conflicts will arise, and those conflicts can not always be solved simply by adressing to Islam.
As I was sayng, the ethnic composition of Pakistan is the following:

We have Indo-Aryans (Indian stock) in the West and in the East we have Aryan-Iranians, these last ones are very tribalistic and are the ones who are helping the Talibans in Afghanistan, mainly, because they are the same ethnic group (the should be Nation). The power of the state is all in the hands of the Indo-Aryans.
So we reach an important consensus. Nothing is mingling the Pakistani people together, but Islam. That is why the country focus so much in it. And these enormous ethnic groups I mentioned are like races, which can be divided in countless ethnic grups which one divided in countless tribes, just to give an idea of how fragmentated Pakistan is and of how islam is so important there to blend the comunity.

Now I will strike with these: Benazir Butho would never made it to power and her death, despite being a drama, is a blessing to estabilize Pakistan.

Now you find yourself asking: Why?

Well, because Pakistan is (as every muslim country, specially thr poorers and miserables like Pakistan) engaging a fight between two versions of islam. The same evil islam. The islam which was weakened by colonialism (Muharraf) and the islam of the Talibans against the Super Power Soviet Union, of the (with the hell, I am going to say it) Turks against Europe (specially Serbia) in Bosnia and Kosovo, of Al-Qaeda against the Hyper Power, the United States of America of 9/11, the islam of Hezbolah not loosing a war against the all mighty state of Israel. Sumarising, the Islam which make Paris a third world place in 2005 and simultaneously made the United Arab Emirates a thriving land after centuries of desert. A new and too much powerfull Islam which has come to the World to conquere it. An islam which seems it can not be stopped. This is a new generation of islam.

Returning to Pakistan, that country will inevitavelly fall to the second type of islam, but the longer Musharraf has the power the better for us because the second type of islam will not mind export the bomb, not only to Saudi Arabia but to every muslim state may it be Indonesia or the gangster state of Kosovo or Greater Albania, in the heart of Europe. It is an islam that would help with all the ressources (including terrorism en mass) the chechens.

So, and... who was Butho and who backed her?
Well, she a was a WOMAN of an high caste and she was backed up by a westernized elite wich did not represent the Pakistani people at all. Or do you think that muslims wanted a WOMAN to rull their heads? A pro western maybe femenist woman? Come on! If we complaint about the EUSSR what kind of people are us when we try to impose to another people a leader wich is not the one they want? It's like Bush trading
democ(W)ARcy for oil! They want islam, let them live with it, but in their own lands!
Benazir Butho's campaingn would only favour the second type of Islam (which some call it, I guess, fundamentalist) in a country where young weman are already gang raped by showing their legs in public. It would do no good.
So now, Musharraf can breath a bit safer, knowing all to well that both the Western countries have not seen enough of Benazir to support her and to intervein for her and that the islamists of the aforementioned second type (do you remember red mosque, Islamabad?) will kill everybody who may be a candidate to the throne of Musharraf once they seem to be not capable of eleminate Musharraf himself. Which I am not so sure in the long term (two, three years).

And that is it. We are safe with Musharraf, whoever succeed him will either be a 2nd type islamist or will lead the country to a civil war which will open the path for that kind of islamists to gain (even) more power, which means nothing less than a nuclear arsenal.
Remind that looking down the window, a conflict with India sems too plausible at any moment and in that case, we have to somehow assure the victory of India and to do not permit a mobilisation of the muslim countries like we saw in the nineties against Serbia. Wich would be difficult because such conflict could easily escalate to a conflict against Israel in the West.

This is the first time I comment in this excellent blog and so I expose to you my humble opinions and visions about all this I talked about.

May I have de discernment to propose Baron (or Dymphna) to make another thread or compilation of all these comments to enlight us all about what happened in Pakistan and its consequences. Keep the good work! And I kind of miss a Fjordman post folks!

P.S. Sorry for my English, but it is not my native language.

bernie said...

The people of Pakistan and Bangladesh are and have always been ethnically Indians. The only difference is religion.

If we could but point a mind gun at them and take away their Islamic thought processes, that part of the world would finally see peace and and attain unimaginable prosperity. Sadly, no one in this country is working on such a weapon.

If Musharraf could just be allowed to be a bit like Saddam and brutally suppress the Islamists, then Pakistan would have a chance at enduring. We need a real cowboy in the White House.

I suppose I'll have to wait for 2 or 3 American cities to be nuked before Liberals take notice that there indeed exists an Islamic Threat to the modern world.

bernie said...

Just FYI: I linked to your article from One Attack too many, Benazir Bhutto killed by gun and bomb.

Zonka said...

Bernie wrote:
If we could but point a mind gun at them and take away their Islamic thought processes, that part of the world would finally see peace and and attain unimaginable prosperity. Sadly, no one in this country is working on such a weapon.

I'm glad we don't have such a gun the first thing the liberals would do would be to point it at Christians and conservatives to clean their minds of “unpure thoughts”, while CAIR, ACLU etc. would make sure it didn't get used on any muslims or other protected minorities...

Anonymous said...

I SPIT on you Islamic Jihadis~!

I spit on Mohammad, the lying child-molester and his blood-guzzling, pagan, Babylonian moon-good, "Allah".

I curse both of them to hell forever.

Forever & ever.

& ever, & ever, & ever.

I poop on your Koran and grind it to dust under my feet. I will name my pet pig "Muhammed" and will smile each time "Muhammed" squeezes out another "Allah".

After killing Benazir Butho, you are no longer humans to me.

You are 'things'....and will be treated as such.

Ed Mahmoud said...

They stopped being human long before that. Before shooting an old man, Leon Klinghoffer, in a wheel chair, and dumping his body in the Med off the Achille Lauro, before shooting an Israeli toddler in her car seat, before hijacking 4 planes and killing almost 3,000 Americans, before blowing up the Marines in Beirut that were upholding a truce that saved the Palestinians from complete defeat by Israel.

When they accept the notion of a 'god' that demands the murder of unarmed women and children, that condones raping nine year old girls, that encourages lying and deceit, they have made themselves less than human.

Anonymous said...

My men will welcome Bhutto on her return," Baitullah told a former senator. "We don’t accept President General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto because they only protect the US interest and see things through its glasses. They’re only acceptable if they wear the Pakistani glasses."

Mustafa Abu al Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, has taken credit for Bhutto's assassination "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen," Yazid told Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani reporter. The attack was reportedly ordered by Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, and carried out by a "defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer."

Subvet said...

As some other commentors have already observed, the response of India will bear watching.

Profitsbeard said...

She should have left after the first bomb attack, saying:

"I will return when my country's people rid the land of this pestilence. My children mean more to me than mere politics. It is up to the people to save themselves. They know who the terrorists are. Stop them. Cleanse them from your midst, and then I will return."

But she preferred to tempt dogged, immoral maniacs.

Without the power or s common sense to defend herself from their attacks.

Why did she not simply set up big screens at her rallying places and beam in her image from a safe locale, since it is the message, not the flesh, that is the point?

You don't leap into a nest of murderous lunatics and not expect to be torn to shreds.

This is all as unsurprising as kids teasing a tiger and not thinking it will rip them to pieces.

Secure the Paki nukes, and let the country solve its own madness.

trollsmyth said...

While her death is certainly a personal tragedy, it's hardly a loss for Pakistan. The woman was the typical crook you find running third world banana republics. That she was considered the last best hope for Pakistan was the usual magical thinking of the left-leaning press, the same sort of blind hope that thought Arafat might be an honest partner in attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.

This probably won't be the tinder that lights a flame. The big ugly that's coming is India vs. China, both countries having more young men than they have women to marry, growing economies hungry for cheap energy, and looking to fill the power-vacuum created by an imploding Russia. Pakistan will continue to tear itself apart unless something changes its current historical trajectory, the only real question on the grander stage being what will happen to their nukes.

Anonymous said...

Excellent "Taquiyya", M.A.S.~!

The Prophet himself would be proud of you!

"Allah" will reward you greatly for the lies you are trying to foist on us here.

I hope that you repent of your sin, of believing in the Koran and all that it says, and instead come to know the True and living God of the Universe one day...

~Norsk Troll

Anonymous said...

The point of "Taquiyya" would be to deceive infidels without bringing fatwas on our heads, but you must be too stupid to see the difference.

Witch-king of Angmar said...

Andrew McCarthy nails it: Benazir Bhutto - killed by the real Pakistan

X said...

Lets not assume the worst about people here. Muslims against sharia is a good thing to support, even in the unlikely event it turns out they were lying, simply because it plants the seed of an idea in the collective head of Islam that sharia is not necessary.

Afonso Henriques said...

@ Bernie: "The people of Pakistan and Bangladesh are and have always been ethnically Indians. The only difference is religion."

Yes. Indeed. You're right despite that western Pakistanis are not Indians. But I think you missed something, India is not America and to say that one person or group of persons are Indians is to hide the real ethnicity of that people because to be Indian is just like to be European, it does not mean nothing unless you say you're French, Welsh or Russian.
The differnence is that India has met the same autoritarian forces of the European Union a long time before. The British said India would not hold up together without a colonial power, we saw that in 1947 and the world was astonished on how India kept together ever since. More, in 1957 the Indian army atacked Portugal and captured the latter's colonies in India. The numbers of the "Indian Union" were overwhelming and they won the war easily. Why do you need to term a state Union if there are no desunion?

@ Nosk Troll: "After killing Benazir Butho, you are no longer humans to me."
They are humans, they are just a bit different. Let them live, but in their own lands! Racism is ugly!
Do not be leftist, please. We are all Humans, and some are more different than other...

@ Archonix:
No it is not. Or wether they are bad muslims, or they are practicing Taqya, once again, don't be lftist, please... Not in this woderful blog.

Anonymous said...

Muslims against sharia is a good thing to support, even in the unlikely event it turns out they were lying, simply because it plants the seed of an idea in the collective head of Islam that sharia is not necessary.

On the contrary, "Muslims against sharia" is a bad thing to support, because giving credence to such Islam-apologetic nonsense might plant the seed of an idea in the head of a significant number of non-Muslims that sharia is somehow not necessary within Islam, thus contributing to obscuring the fact that sharia is in fact necessary, thereby weakening people's understanding of the threat that Islam poses, with potentially dire consequences.

X said...

Alfonso, anything that encourages muslims to move away from their backwards ideas about justice is a good thing. It's not "leftist" to say that.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"After killing Benazir Butho, you are no longer humans to me."

NosrkTroll, you're awfully late to the party if that's what it took for you to see the light. I kinda got the idea what they off'ed Anwar Sadat. Bhuto's killing comes comes as no surprise. Assassinate is what Muslims do. Look at all the ex-politicians in Lebanon. Or Sweden if you dare report factual history. There's a long, rich history of such muslim brotherhood and tolerance. This should surprise no one.

Personally, I am far more enraged by the failure of muslims to condemn the beheading of Indonesian schoolgirls, the assault on freedom of speech, and the 'politics of wishful thinking' that is leading the world into a new dark age.

Bhuto's death is just another mile marker on that road. It will soon be forgotten and heads will be burrowed even deeper into the sand.

Afonso Henriques said...

first of all it is AFonso, not ALFonso. It is Portuguese, not Spanish Castillan, it is an all different language. Here goes a link
so that it may shed a light about the historical personage which I am invoking. He is one of the greatest anti-jihadists of all time, a man who reconquered and expelled the Muslims from half of Western Hispania. And thus helped indeed, in conquering territories to his would-be neighbouring state.

Now to what really matters, their backward ideals are their own culture, and it is a culture which is much more thriving and alive in the present moment than our European one.
Unless you are a white supermacist or racist, neo colonialist and all those epithets we are all familiar with, you can not openly say that Europe is superior or that your culture is superior to that, indeed backward, culture.

And frankly, we (Europeans) are in such a decline in all levels that we should not despend energies telling others how they should behave. But it is me, who feels that we should teach this young generations the vallues of (yes, I am going to say iy, call me nazi if you want Americans!) the old good Europe, that one before 1945 which was proud of being European.
I think that we should do this first, and then, whenever we think morally correct we can teach lessons to other cultures in their homes (that is colonialism, you know.), until we have such good old Europe again, we are not able to tell who's culture is backwards and who's is superb.

Maybe it is not leftist but I guess you cought my draft.

So I will state it here clear: kill a culture is not a good thing, may them be Native Americans or Muslims, despite that if both desapear I will not miss them at all. It just feels very, very wrong to rip off cultures, specially great cultures like Islam.
Though I do not tolerate muslims in Europe, they diserve their own space somewhere else (the desert, if you know what I mean).

Smooth said...

I doubt that Musharraf is crying over Bhutto's assasination. In October, on the first attempt on Bhutto's life where almost 140 people were killed in a homicide bombing, no one claimed responsibility then, and Musharraf didn't appear to host an investigation, nor did he offer to up her security. Her security advisors have been complaining about her security - or lack of it - for months. Same as today; no one has officially claimed responsibility, which is odd, especially when Muslim terror groups enjoy the spotlight of announcement. No siree, something's not right here. It looks very much like an inside job. Viva Islam, eh?

John Savage said...

Who is more likely to be taken in by this "Muslims Against Sharia" character: Muslims, or regular old Americans and Europeans who haven't done their homework on Islam?

I agree with Afonso and Anonymous@7:32. MAS is probably the kind of person that the believers in "moderate Islam" are putting their hopes in. However, it should be clear that he is either practicing taqiyya, or is simply a confused liberal.

Zenster said...

It looks like most people are missing the big message here:


Yes, Bhutto was your average run-of-the-mill corrupt wannabe banana republic dictator. But, she was a secular run-of-the-mill corrupt wannabe banana republic dictator and when dealing with Islam, even that slight difference is significant. Personally, as The Average Joe already noted, I am also amazed that she survived for this long. After all, a woman presuming to run "The Land of the [Islamically] Pure" in its currently more advanced fundamentalist form is just a bit much, now isn't it?

As I have mentioned before, at some point the West will probably need to adopt a few of jihad's strategies in order to wage counter-jihad. Few major forest fires are fought without lighting back-fires to deny the conflagration further fuel. Similarly, we need to begin denying jihad its own "fuel" or prime movers: Namely, its clerics, scholars and financiers. Please consider that the removal of less than 100 such operatives could temporarily stall or cripple Islam long enough for us to potentially turn the tide against terrorism.

Out of due respect for Baron Bodissey, I will also mention that the foregoing is not just "war-gaming" what our militaries or politicians should be doing. I am attempting to rally support among the common man such that pressure is put upon our institutions and their elected officers whereby they put in place such countermeasures. In another thread, Mr. Smaterthanyou asked a rather concise and very basic question.

Is it morally wrong to strike the leader, rather than wade through all the cannon fodder and collateral casualties along the path to him?

Again, this is not “war-gaming”, it is an attempt to ensure that ordinary people clear a mental hurdle of immense importance. The longer we delay in decapitating radical Islam, the more we do to swell the ranks of those “cannon fodder and collateral casualties”. Delayed long enough, our last resorts will involve the annihilation of entire nations as the world descends into a nuclear holocaust. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves as to the repercussions of a nuclear-armed Islam.

This entire concept may well be put to the test far sooner than any of us would like to think. Should Musharraf be killed or overthrown by ISI-backed Taliban subversives, some serious efforts will need to be made in order that we deny them access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. There are very few alternatives:

1. Insert covert Special Forces teams to secure or confiscate these atomic weapons.

2. Bomb the nuclear sites in order to cripple any launch vehicles and inhibit ready access to them or the devices themselves. This could conceivably kill many thousand of people near those locations, if not more, due to the release of radioactive debris.

3. Allow an Islamofascist Pakistani regime to dictate terms in Afghanistan and Kashmir while freely proliferating nuclear technology to other Muslim majority nations. This scenario could easily result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being turned into a radioactive desert. Israel’s destruction would likely be a side effect of this catastrophe.

4. Do nothing and await disaster in the form of a nuclear terrorist attack upon India or America that causes all Pakistan to be immolated in nuclear fire.

As is so often the case with Islam in general, the prospects are not pretty. Neither are there any convenient or easy measures to overcome these enormous problems. Rest assured that Islam will not have it any other way. This entire debacle is based upon an all-or-nothing outcome that Islam itself pursues. Ignoring that fact—as we have pretty much done so far—only plays into Islam’s hands. Islam wants a global caliphate and it is the West’s obligation to prevent this, if only for the sake of sheer survival. Inaction is not an option and neither is a strategy of reaction. As with chess, a player must seize the tempo and aggressively assault one’s opponent or suffer checkmate for failure to do so. Rest assured, there will be no stalemate with Islam.

To seize the tempo against Islam we must preempt its ability to wage jihad. As Conservative Swede has noted elsewhere:

... war is what we are talking about here. And war has already been declared upon us. However, both the PC multiculturalists (by mass immigration) and the Muslim (by their tactics) have blurred the borders between war zones and peace zones; war time and peace time. We are not meeting troops from a geographically distinct area, orderly lined up on the battlefield. But it's nevertheless a war. If we are going to survive this as a civilization it will require that we recognize that we have now met a format of a war that we are not traditionally prepared for, and adapt our strategies, principles, etc., accordingly.
[emphasis added]

Failure to adopt new tactics and strategies will only further the aims of our enemies. As has so often been the case throughout history, we cannot be fighting the last war. Neither conventional warfare nor Cold War approaches will successfully defeat Islam. To date, there is absolutely no indication or justification for escalating the current conflict to unconventional nuclear warfare. Doing so would both undercut America’s moral authority and invite terrorist nuclear retaliation. We must retain our moral high ground in order that Islam is properly identified as the unwarranted aggressor. However, in the age of atomic bombs, “Fortress America” is not a viable strategy. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons has put the lie to any such notion.

Consequently, we are obliged to begin dismantling political Islam. As Islam has intentionally avoided the mantle of any national military we have no specific geographical target whereupon to focus. This leaves only two approaches:

1. Bottom Up — Kill all Islamic terrorists wherever we can find them.

We are already trying this in Iraq and the cost—both in military casualties and monetarily—is simply prohibitive. Additionally, because terrorists refuse to wear uniforms, we cannot properly distinguish them from the surrounding Muslim population. Far too few Muslims are sufficiently motivated to identify the jihadists in their midst and we simply do not possess the ability to sort all of them out. While, in reality, it is Islam’s obligation to expel terrorists from within its own ranks, such delusional expectations do not even merit discussion. Nowhere has the West shown any intention of motivating Muslim populations to purge their jihadi coreligionists. The extreme military measures required for this remain morally repugnant to far too many people, despite Islam’s free use of similar methods to break our own resistance.

2. Top Down — Incapacitate Islamic terrorism’s support infrastructure.

Arrest or remove from power the prime movers of Islamic terrorism. Begin with the financial conduits and continue with all facilitators including indoctrinators, accomplices, those who give shelter, arms suppliers and all key players.

To date, the only way of attaining the first method’s goals is through massively disproportionate retaliation whereby Muslim populations suffer such devastating consequences for every further terrorist atrocity that they voluntarily begin purging jihadists from within their ranks. Despite the efficacy of this strategy, it goes counter to many previously held and outdated notions about conducting war. To that end, the West is not desperate enough to begin using such a technique.

The second strategy is both economical and generates the least collateral fatalities within Muslim populations. It removes vital and irreplaceable members of terrorist networks and breaks down lines of communication while interrupting the flow of weapons and finances. One need only examine how Israel’s removal of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Al-Rantissi in swift succession has left the entire Palestinian terror infrastructure in total disarray. Each bullet that Fatah and Hamas exchange cannot be fired at an Israeli citizen. Every penny that these two terrorist organizations spend thwarting each others’ aims cannot finance another qassam rocket to fire at Israel.

Anyone who doubts the foregoing should consider how badly al Qaeda in Iraq has faltered ever since we eliminated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Note how each succeeding “senior leader” we have continued to kill or capture has been of ever-decreasing age. These younger operatives cannot possibly possess the resources, connections, depth of experience or level of trust that older and more seasoned commanders fielded. This example goes to the core of why a Top Down strategy is one of the only alternatives in fighting Islamic terrorism

The Taliban have used this identical method to great effect in killing both Ahmed Shah Massoud and Benazir Bhutto while making several attempts on Musharraf as well. We are idiots not to employ a similar approach in dealing with them and any other key terrorist facilitators. Our refusal to do so only increases the butcher’s bill. It is incumbent upon all thinking people to begin demanding that our politicians properly identify the real enemy. They are not the bomb-vest wearing young radicals. They are Saudi princes, high-ranking Islamic clerics and wealthy Muslim businessmen. Yet our political and corporate elite—ensconced safely in gated communities and transported by private jets—see no problem in forcing all of us proletarians to risk our lives daily because they adamantly refuse to soil their hands by grappling with Islam’s scaly beast. As Srdja Trifkovic notes:

The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. Their crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.
[emphasis added]

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

I take your point, but your comment is too long. Please leave shorter excerpts, or links only.

When it is your own writing, please keep it brief. If you feel the need to write at length, please set up your own blog and leave links to your posts in these comments.

That's why Dymphna and I set up this blog in the first place -- we were becoming annoying in Wretchard's comment threads. :)

KG said...

What Zenster wrote--absolutely.
In fact, I'm going to purloin it and put it up as a post on Crusader Rabbit. (with a link)

RISE_UP said...

GWB said, islam is a rop. And Bhutto said: " No muslim will kill me" Was Bhutto acting on a false feeling of security passed on by our own government who has such assine beliefs? So now she is dead. Any unlearned bum could have predicted such. There will never be democracy in Pakistan.and sadly I believe Musharraf is next. The only reason he is still alive is, he understands far more his surroundings than those who encourage him to do stupid things.

Smooth said...

I would like to make another point about targetted assassinations, raised by Zenster. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was behind the strategic strike of Pearl Harbor. After that sneak attack the Japanese struck throughout Asia and mved into the Dutch West Indies and onto French Indo-China and finally the American forces holding the Philippines were forced to surrender. Thousands of American troops died on forced marches to Japanese prison of war camps. Then on June 4, dive bombers caught Japanese aircraft carriers vulnerable. Roosevelt himself decided that Yamamoto was too important to pass up. The plan of attack called for American fighters to fly at extreme low altitude, locate Yamamoto’s flight, and destroy Yamamoto’s aircraft and that is what happened. In a major airfight, Yamamoto’s aircraft plunged and Yamamoto was killed. FDR ordered the assassination of Yamamoto, and it was carried out with much support from our allies.

Now, did Roosevelt violate some international law by going after the leader of a vicious enemy? Did Roosevelt care about international opinion? Was Roosevelt entitled to defend his country? No, actually, as President of the United States he is bound to protect her citizens.
Therefore, there is no difference between the US targetting bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and other menaces today and what Roosevelt was righteous about 66 years ago.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: I take your point, but your comment is too long. Please leave shorter excerpts, or links only. When it is your own writing, please keep it brief.

Baron, Except for the short quotes from Mr. Smarterthanyou, Conservative Swede and the excerpt from Trifkovic at the end, all of the foregoing is my own work. Please know that I try to be very scrupulous in citing the work of others. I apologize for consuming your bandwidth but certain other members here continue to dismiss targeting as ineffective without providing any evidence to back their assertions or response to attempts at clarifying. I do consider the point to be made rather clearly by now and will definitely refer to it only in passing at future times. I would also like to express appreciation for how you seem to recognize that all of this is mentioned in the framework of changing peoples' mindsets and not merely playing "what if?" games.

Please know that at my earliest opportunity I will try to make a monetary donation to your site. It was your publication of Fjordman's articles that first drew my attention to GoV and the overall quality of discourse here that has persuaded me to participate. Thank you for all of your efforts.

Zenster said...

KG, if you found my comments in this thread to be of interest, please consider reviewing my posts in the Explosive Banlieus and the Ditching Our Principles threads. I think you may find them to be of use.

KG said...

Thanks Zenster--will do. :-)

Ethelred said...


Would you send the Baron your email address, so he can forward it to me?

I have emailed with Conservative Swede a bit on the side, also.


Zenster said...

With pleasure, Ethelred. I find your own posts particularly informative.