- ‹ previous
- 3970 of 8795
- next ›
Interview with Former U.S. Intelligence Official on Bhutto Assassination
I interviewed a former U.S. intelligence official knowledgeable about Pakistan about the assassination today in Rawalpindi of Pakistani opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. While his comments make clear Bhutto was an irreplaceable political figure in the country, and that her political party cannot exist in the same way without her, he also emphasized his belief that Pakistan and its institutions are far more resilient and disciplined than many people in the West may understand. Here is a summary of the interview:
Former U.S. Intelligence Official (FUSIO): Let us never forget that at least in my lifetime we had two presidents shot and one died, and a likely Democratic presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy killed and Martin Luther King Jr., all in rapid succession. Before we jump in and [scream that Pakistan is a failed nuclear state] and draw conclusions about collusion. If some guy has one hand on a lanyard and the other on a gun, and he's willing to blow himself up, whether it's in Washington or Rawalpindi, if he gets through, he can do his dirty job. It's a conspiracy theorists' dream. …
Mother Jones: There's no doubt that it was some form of Al Qaida who was behind this?
FUSIO: I hate to use that word [because it's not precise]. "Al Qaida" and the "Taliban" – everybody [in the West] can even spell them both. But it is that crowd - - militant Islamists.
The point is, Bhutto had two things against her: who she was, regardless of the claims that she could reach out to people better than anyone else. [Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was Pakistan's first popularly elected prime minister].
The other thing against her is that it is never good for a foreign leader to be perceived as the darling of the American government. I am talking about perception, not necessarily the reality. I've been back to Pakistan a couple times recently. The belief not just among the people on the streets, but among the elites, is that America was delivering Bhutto to Pakistan, to lead a coalition government. Whether it's true or not, every time the plan hit a bump, [deputy secretary of state John] Negroponte was in Pakistan. In terms of perception, there are no coincidences in South Asia.
MJ: What now for Washington's policy?
FUSIO: My sense is that the American government can send sympathy and condolences and condemn the assassination, and then should shut up.
The next big test is, do we have the election [Pakistani parliamentary elections were scheduled for January 8].
If I were [President Pervez] Musharraf, I would say, tough it out, have elections. People are saying, will he call martial law. If he picks up phone and calls his old "house," Army house, and asks for martial law, they will tell him, "Thank you for your sentiments on this, I will get back to you." Does Musharraf call martial law? Can he?
MJ: There is no opposition leader of that stature who can replace Bhutto?
FUSIO: There are no real political parties in Pakistan. Bhutto was the Pakistan People's Party. If your daddy founds the party, he was made chairman of the party for life, he get killed. The daughter was made the leader of the PPP for life. If you ask anybody to describe party [the PPP], they answer with only one word: Bhutto.
Now, the question, is there a political party after tomorrow? If you jumped and shouted out Aitzaz [Ahsan] – he is the guy, the defender lawyer for the Supreme Court Justice [and a member of the PPP], if you shouted his name, people would say "huh?"
MJ: What now? Does this help Nawaz Sharif?
FUSIO: Nawaz's return [from exile in Saudi Arabia] was not the biggest event that everyone thought it was.
Now it is highly unlikely that any of three political parties will be able to form a coalition government. Even absent this, it was unlikely that any … could achieve the majority required majority for governing. Now that this [assassination] is thrown into the mix, it is even more unlikely.
MJ: Does anyone benefit from this?
FUSIO: I won't say who benefits because that implies guilt.
.
What we'll get out of this probably, is there really a Pakistan People's Party that can become a real party? There are no real parties in Pakistan. Except perhaps for the MMA (the coalition of Islamist groups.)
MJ: You don't sound terribly alarmed.
FUSIO: I'm not. We can do without the media reports that scream that "Pakistan is a failed nuclear state." I think there is a lot more resilience and discipline within [Pakistani] institutions than we like to believe.
Ah..."martial" law, you mean.
Otherwise, an interesting take on the situation.
Thanks for the reality check from a well informed source.
Does MJ have to print interviews with unnamed 'former intelligence official' as their only response to this assassination. And is the term 'former' operative?
I hear what this guy is saying. This guy Musharraf has been eliminating his competition. He has made deals with terrorists to be able to operate on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Now his chief rival that can mess everything up for him is killed. Makes you think this was maybe done by Taliban or whatever with the backing of Musharraf.
Enough public reaction of the right type and the views of the pundits (including this FIO), or Musharaf, or the Pakistani military won't matter. Musharaf himself is on the outside. What we need to know is what the relationship between the secret services, the military, and the borderland militants is.
OH COME OFF IT! Bush is spinning this to look as though he supported Bhutto all along in her quest to restore democracy in Pakistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bush USED Bhutto to get Musharref to relinquish his duel roll as military and political head of state. That's ALL he was interested in. Bush has been caught with his pants down so many times that he should just get used to wearing them down around his ankles
Bhutto was suppose to be serious about "getting" Al Qaeda and she was killed.
Seems pretty obvious who stands to benefit.
If Bunnypants of Pervez were ever serious for an instant - OBL and others would have been captured long ago.
Musharaf is a strong ally of the U.S. and for as long as the guy is in power, Pakistan is in good hands. It could have been worse if Bhutto wins the election and gets assasinated. Democracy is not suited in Pakistan. You have to use strong arm tactics to squeeze out these terrorists. This premature call for democracy is the real culprit for this tragedy. This liberal democrats shouting for democracy in Pakistan should share the blame.
Premature call for democracy? Well that thinking would go well with US support for dictators for the past 100 years or so. It's an indefensable position but one many sheeple take.
Sorry that was the incorrect use of language. It should read uneducated republicans or neo-cons. Perhaps just uneducated selfish people.
very interesting interview. My favorite passage:
MJ: Does anyone benefit from this?
FUSIO: I won't say who benefits because that implies guilt.
MJ: Does anyone benefit from this?
FUSIO: I won't say who benefits because that implies guilt.
Interesting. reality is not as simple as "cui bono" suggests.
ooops, sorry. I didn't seem to work ;)
A day later, and still only one other side article on Bhutto, other than this goddman former 'govt. intelligence official'. This is the kind of 'journalism' that the beltway press prints all the time.
Why should MJ get sucked into that orbit? Is Ms. Rosen all exicited over such an 'authoritative' source? His 'poo - poo' analysis fits in with the Bush analysis. Don't worry, we still have Mushy!
"This liberal democrats shouting for democracy in Pakistan should share the blame."
Completely agree, and let's remember the biggest "liberal democrat" calling for democracy in Pakistan was George W. Bush and his neo-con buddies.
Well, here's a novel idea, the United States could just keep their nose out of the business of other countries and focus on cleaning up our own messes. Condie Rice has brokered for more than a year to get Bhutto back in Pakistan. All of our media gave Bhutto full coverage to help bolster her return. And now, she's dead. I repeat, we should just mind our own business and stop meddling in the affairs of the Middle Eastern countries. We have a long list of disastrous results for our efforts.
If you listen to these democratic candidates speak their minds about Pakistan, it is as if they are allies of terrorists themselves. America is having a very hard time fighting terrorists within Afghanistan borders and they should not expect magic from Musharaf to trump down it's terrorists in his territory. They would do well if they simply shut up. No U.S. military is getting killed in Pakistan unlike in Afghanistan so in a way, it's doing a fine job. Fighting terrorists without American soldiers getting killed should be on the mindset of military planners and compared relatively to Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan is doing it in flying colors. It's true Bhutto was a great lost but it was a terrorsit attack and democratic candidates should not behave as if Musharaf is the "terrorist" responsible. We can't allow idiots running a very powerful nation like America. I commend the guy (Musharaf) on how he is handling the chaos happening right now in his country. Support or shut up so as not to add fuel to the fire.
Nice Propaganda?
Cleaneduphippy:
Agreed!
The Bush-Cheney-Rice team tried to broker a political marriage of convenience between its chosen, but extremely unpopular and transparently tyrannical puppet, Musharraf, and the prolifically kleptocratic Bhuttos, whose "martyred" founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto presided over the 1971 massacre of 3 million people and rape of 200,000 women in the former East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. All of these people share Bush's values.
Musharraf's hand in Bhutto's death is clear, even if the evidence thus far is circumstantial. The government's failure to protect her, her abandonment by her police team immediately before the event, the destruction of evidence, the patently false government account of the murders and refusal of international assistance point to Musharraf, who had motive, opportunity and means.
Bush's designs have once again come a cropper and will certainly prove counterproductive. It would be better to back off, as Ron Paul suggests, and stop fueling chaos and extremism by meddling based on little knowledge, arrogance, superficial thought and inept implementation in collusion with local scoundrels.
Alex:
We cannot blame Bush for everyting that has gone wrong in the world. Despite the perception, the U.S. does NOT run the world. Our ability to shape and bend the world to our desires is increasingly difficult. Further, of we support a given leader how is this equated to meddling?
Do you call the aid we give to African Aids victims, meddling too? What would your policy be torward Pakistan? What is your solvency to the problem, assuming their is a problem in the first place. Pakistan is a nutty country in a nutty area of the world. We cannot change things there. Ron Paul says to back off and stock fueling chaos. Again, I ask, how is the US responsible for the death of Bhutto? The savages have wanted her dead since at least 1988. Do you now want to blame Reagan?
Ames:
Maybe we should stop arming dictators like Musharraf and Saddam Hussein, since it always ending up as "blowback" in our faces. Dismantling the CIA would be a big start, as well as putting all of the arms manufacturers and merchants out of business.
To: The Conservative Deflator:
This is what you people do. You are so angry at George Bush you spout out totally irrational changes. First, dismantle the CIA? What will this solve? How will America be safer without the CIA? What is your agenda by calling for this. End the U.S. arms industry? Are you advocating that the United States does not need a military? Would you be comfortable with both Russia and China pointing Nuclear Weapons at the U.S. with us having no ability to strike back? Please advise. I find you totally irrational and perhaps willing to get us all killed.
Thanks,
Ames
Hope you found my response..
Regards,
Ames
Ames,
I agree with you about the CIA and the U.S. Military. We cannot be left empty handed when a fight starts.
What resilient institutions is this FUSIO talking about? He admits there are no political parties. The Supreme Court has been stripped of all independence by Musharraf. What does that leave? The army. And that is precisely the problem.
Ditto what mahir said. This was a silly "interview." Isn't an interviewer supposed to ask the subject to clarify and support these kinds of facile assertions. "Resilient institutions" my foot. Can the supervisor of this interviewer please try to give some pointers on handling a situation like this a tad better? It will help, I hope anyway, to make the investment of time in reading this more fruitful.
Charlotte,
I totally agree with you.
That is exactly right!
"If you listen to these democratic candidates speak their minds about Pakistan, it is as if they are allies of terrorists themselves. America is having a very hard time fighting terrorists within Afghanistan borders and they should not expect magic from Musharaf to trump down it's terrorists in his territory. They would do well if they simply shut up. No U.S. military is getting killed in Pakistan unlike in Afghanistan so in a way, it's doing a fine job. Fighting terrorists without American soldiers getting killed should be on the mindset of military planners and compared relatively to Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan is doing it in flying colors. It's true Bhutto was a great lost but it was a terrorsit attack and democratic candidates should not behave as if Musharaf is the "terrorist" responsible. We can't allow idiots running a very powerful nation like America. I commend the guy (Musharaf) on how he is handling the chaos happening right now in his country. Support or shut up so as not to add fuel to the fire."
I was referring to this