Either Pakistan implodes in civil war, or without a leader to rally around, the opposition shrugs, goes home, and returns to subdued grumbling. I think the opposition loses momentum when they don't have a legit alternative for president.
Great. A country with nuclear weapons is headed for a civil war. Sounds like something out of a Coonts or Clancy novel. I wonder how India is going to react to this?
For right now, I'm with Fester's second option. There's no governmental power vaccuum created by this. Frankly after that first convoy incident, I figured it was just a matter of time for this to go down. Election day will probably give a better picture of things to come.
Minor correction...Bhutto was a candidate in the parliamentary elections scheduled soon, not for President. You make a good point though and one could argue that Musharraf would stand to benefit if this indeed was the assasin's thinking. cui bono...
I'm sure they're licking their chops. Fanatic Hindu's seem to be as whacked out as fanatic muslims. Hate to say it but if they can contain it there, thinning out the herd might not be such a terrible thing. India can't feed itself as it is.
You're advocating war between two nuclear nations to 'thin out the herd'? The internet is full of people saying stupid, ill-advised things, but this is ridiculous.
What? Civil war...as in war within a country. Pakistan is full of "fanatic muslims". The "fanatic hindus" live in India. That's why Pakistan is no longer "part" of India...and part of the reason they don't get along so well.
Not to be cruel as this is quite unfortunate, but I saw this coming a mile off. There is no reasoning with these radicals.
I saw this coming too (the country erupting into civil war), I just thought it would have happened alot sooner.
I don't know about that. Musharraf is already freaking out about the country's instability over this. He's already condemned the action and is trying to get people there to stop rioting. If the country erupts into chaos I don't see how he stands to gain.
I agree with you. However, my comment was in reference to Uncle Fester's initial post. If you think, correctly or incorrectly it may turn out, that without its leader the opposition will eventually wither, then it would make sense to kill her if you are Musharraf. Once again, I can't say that I think that is likely...but its plausible.
Where am I advocating it? Sorry to say but it's probably unpreventable. Read into my statement before you throw the "stupid" penalty flag. Might not make you look so stupid. What they do is their business and I hope it's contained. What would we do if 7/11 shut down? Call me uncaring, that might be more accurate, what they do to EACH OTHER isn't my problem.
I read somewhere once that because the Indian subcontinent is so densely packed in the urban areas, (Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi) and Lahore and Islamabad for the other guys...that a nuke exchange would result in megadeath..perhaps hundreds of millions killed. In a conventional war, the Indians would roll over the Pakis.
Here: That was you saying that a war between India and Pakistan wouldn't be terrible (i.e. advocating one), apparently because there are a lot of starving people there. What I read into your statement was that a war between two nations, both important American allies for different reasons, and both having nuclear weapons, was fine because it wouldn't affect you. This shows a lack of understanding of American political concerns in the region, the interdependence of America's economy on the region's, and a lack of concern for international terrorism. A large-scale war between India and Pakistan would not be contained, and it would certainly affect you. It would likely breed several generations of armed, fundamentalists terrorists (i.e. Afghanistan) with the added possibility of loose nuclear weapons. It would be devastating to the world economy. And you would have a hard time getting good chicken tikka masala for several years :tongue2_1. Sorry to jump on you like that, but it's a very real possibility, it would not be fine and it would certainly affect us in numerous ways.
State Department is giving their reaction right now on C-SPAN. Many are of the opinion that this was orchestrated by Musharraf.
I don't believe that a civil war is inevitable or likely at this point if we are using the US Military Definition of civil war: What I do believe is likely is that Musharraf can be displaced if opposition groups can capitalize on the massive unrest and rioting in the country to pressure the military, led by Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, to force Musharraf down. Nawaz Sharif of the PML-N has already called for a boycott of the election on the 8th, and for Mesharraf to step down, (and with Bhutto out of the picture, he is the de-facto opposition leader). Whatever the outcome it looks to be bloody days ahead for Pakistan.
The more I think about this, the more I think that the Musharraf hypothesis is correct. Probably the most likely alternative is Al Qaeda...in retaliation for pro American sympathies and support for the War On Terror...and to prevent her near certain control of the Pakistani Parliament. The thing that doesn't add up here though is that why would Al Qaeda not claim responsibility for this? Additionally, why the second attack?
Just in case you guys did not know, after the first attack, Bhutto made the claim that Musharraf's security personnel that were assigned to protect her were a part of the attack. Musharraf responded by not investigating the charges, but by calling Bhutto's security force incompetent and replacing her personal body guards with a government security force, the same agency Bhutto accused of planning the previous attack.
