The Week's Best News...

Top Al-Qaeda Commander Killed in Pakistan

From Tragedy to Farce

In recent posts, we've likened Pakistan authorities "investigating" the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to Captain Louis Renault, the corrupt Vichy French police captain in the film classic Casablanca.

But perhaps that comparison is unfair. Renault (as portrayed by Claude Rains) was nobody's fool, but rather, a suave, calculating man who cleverly navigated his byzantine world and conflicted loyalties. "I blow with the wind," Renault announces at one point, underscoring the dual effort to satisfy his Vichy and Nazi masters, while ignoring resistance intrigue in his jurisdiction.

And, Renault was a man capable of doing the right thing--under the right circumstances. His famous directive to "round up the usual suspects" launches a needed conspiracy to save the life of American Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), who has just killed the Nazi official, Major Strasser.

With apologies to Captain Renault (and the late Mr. Rains), we've decided that the Casablanca police Captain is far too savvy, and yes, honest, to serve as a model for the Pakistani thugs running the Bhutto investigation. Indeed, their attempts to explain the former prime minister's assassination are reminiscent of another fictional French police official, the imbecile Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther fame.

Consider the "latest" version of how Ms. Bhutto died last Thursday--or, more accurately, how she did not die. In a dramatic U-turn, a government spokesman has now apologized for claims that Bhutto suffered a fractured skull after hitting her head on her vehicle's sunroof during a suicide attack. As the Hindustan Times of India reports:

Caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan has asked the media and people to "forgive and ignore" comments made by his ministry's spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema which were slammed by her Pakistan People's Party as "lies" and led to an uproar at home and abroad.

The Interior Minister made the apology during a briefing for Pakistani newspaper editors on Monday. Punjab province on Tuesday issued a front-page advertisement in newspapers that offered a reward of Rs 1 crore for information about a gunman and a suspected suicide bomber seen in the photos and video footage of the assassination.

The government's apparent damage control exercise on Cheema's comments made at a news conference a day after Bhutto was assassinated at Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi on December 27, came after TV channels aired privately shot photos and video footage which showed a gunman shooting at Bhutto.

And, the government's excuse for "getting it wrong" was positively laughable:

Khan said the spokesman's comments may have been a mistake as "we are faujis (soldiers) and we are not so articulate to present our views as you journalists can". Both the interior minister and spokesman Cheema are retired army officers.

Articulation problems aside, it seems clear that some of Khan's fellow "faujis"--who dominate Pakistan's government--are quite adept at blocking a legitimate investigation into the Bhutto assassination. As Richard Fernandez writes at PJM, new reports indicate that Pakistani authorities blocked an autopsy of Bhutto's body in the hours after her death, and seized medical records from the hospital where she was treated. Sources at that facility tell the Washington Post that doctors have been pressured by Pakistani officials to remain silent on Bhutto's injuries and the medical care she received.

If you need more proof that the Musharraf government--or elements within that regime--have no interest in the truth, consider these, equally disturbing revelations. The WaPo reports that Pakistani investigators have yet to interview key witnesses, including bystanders who were injured in the attack against Ms. Bhutto. The paper also learned that police officials failed to seal off the crime scene in the wake of the assassination and allowed the area to be hosed down shortly after Bhutto was killed--destroying valuable forensic evidence.

It's a bumbling spectacle worthy of Clouseau, but unlike the film inspector's antics, there is nothing comedic about Pakistan's mishandling of the Bhutto assassination. While officials in Islamabad still insist that Al Qaida and Taliban elements are to blame, their actions suggest otherwise.

In less than a week, the tragedy of Benazir Bhutto's death has quickly devolved into farce, with no shortage of fools, incompetents and conspirators to further muddy the waters. Meanwhile, Pakistan slides further into chaos, and Al Qaida is poised to capitalize on an unexpected victory, thanks (in no small measure) to Pak officials more concerned with covering up the crime, rather than solving it.

***

ADDENDUM: In response to continuing unrest--and public rejection of various "official" explanations of Butto's assassination--the Musharraf government has, belatedly, asked for Scotland Yard's assistance in probing the crime. While that is certainly a welcome step, it comes after the loss of valuable evidence, and the failure to autopsy Ms. Bhutto's body. British investigators may find the trail has grown cold by the time they arrive in Rawalpindi, and it's still unclear as to how much "cooperation" they will actually receive from their Pakistani counterparts.

Captain Renault is Shocked, Shocked!

As we observed in the hours following Benazir Bhutto's assassination, the collective actions of Pakistan's government--multiple explanations regarding the cause of her death; the curious failure to conduct an autopsy--suggested a regime that was disinterested in following legitimate leads, or fearful of where they might lead.

Now, security analysts in the U.S. and South Asia are suggesting that Bhutto's death was the work of mid and low-level Pakistani Army and Air Force officers, sympathetic to "ultra-conservative Islamists with ties to the jihadis." Looks like the trail of suspicion is leading back to the usual suspects, but that begs an obvious question: could that group successfully execute (and cover up) such a plot without the complicity of higher-ranking officials?

As noted in this UPI analysis by Claude Salhani, editor of the Middle East Times, junior military personnel have also been implicated in past attempts on the life of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. While some believe that the conspiracy to kill Musharraf extended into the upper echelons of the military and intelligence services, only lower-ranking officers were arrested and court-martialed. Investigations into the plots to kill Musharraf are "dead in the water" one source reports. No surprise there. Lower-ranking conspirators are sacrificed, while senior participants are free to plot again and again.

Within 24 hours of Ms Bhutto's death, officials in Islamabad were already blaming terrorists for the assassination, and declining offers of outside assistance. On its present course, the Bhutto probe may reach "cold case" status in record time.

Captain Renault from Casablanca would certainly understand.

Round Up the Usual Suspects

Pakistan's first choice to lead the Bhutto investigation? (Claude Rains photo courtesy of imdb.com)

As Pakistan descends further into chaos, the Musharraf government says it knows who killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Unfortunately, the regime's actions since the assassination have undercut those claims.

Barely 24 hours after her death, there have been stunning revelations about how Bhutto died, and what wasn't done in the aftermath of Thursday's assassination. Both will only fuel suspicion about government complicity in the attack, which claimed the lives of the former prime minister and 20 others.

In one of the nation's first official statements on the assassination, Pakistan's Interior Minister, Hamid Nawaz, said Mrs. Bhutto died from head injuries, not bullet wounds as was originally reported. At least seven doctors at Rawalpindi General Hospital--where Bhutto was taken for treatment--reported that there were no bullet wounds on her body. Initial reports suggested that Mrs. Bhutto was shot in her neck and chest by an unknown gunman, who then blew himself up.

But, according to Mr. Nawaz, X-rays of the former prime minister did not reveal any bullets in her head, leading doctors to conclude that she was killed by shrapnel from the bomb:

“The report says she had head injuries – an irregular patch – and the X-ray doesn’t show any bullet in the head. So it was probably the shrapnel or any other thing has struck her in her said. That damaged her brain, causing it to ooze and her death. The report categorically says there’s no wound other than that,” Nawaz told a Pakistani news channel.

But that finding is not conclusive--at least by western standards--because no autopsy was performed (emphasis mine).

The doctors have submitted a report to the Pakistan government in which they say that no post-mortem was performed on Bhutto’s body and they had not received any instructions to perform one.

[snip]

An autopsy was not carried out at the hospital "because the district administration and police had not requested the hospital authorities (for this)", the report said.

Admittedly, we're not experts in Pakistani post-mortem procedures. But, under the circumstances--the assassination of a former prime minister seeking a return to power--you'd think that an autopsy request would be automatic.

On the other hand, if any combination of (a) Pakistan's current leadership; (b) the nation's military or (c) it's primary intelligence organization (the ISI) had a hand in the assassination, then failing to order an autopsy would be a convenient mechanism for cooling the forensic trail. Under Islamic tradition, bodies of the deceased are not embalmed and burial usually occurs on the day of death, so decomposition begins quickly, and potential clues may be lost. Readers will note that no one in Islamabad is pressing for an exhumation of the body, either. In the meantime, the failure to conduct an autopsy can can be blamed on the "confusion" that followed the event, or some minor police functionary--take your pick.

In the aftermath of yesterday's tragedy, there was a widespread belief (some would say hope) that the Bhutto assassination was the work of Islamic terrorists. After all, President Musharraf has survived three attempts on his life since 2001; radicals had threatened to kill Mrs. Bhutto since her return to Pakistan in October, and the bombing of her campaign rally had all the trappings of an Al Qaida/Taliban operation.

But, more recent events suggest otherwise. A friend of the late prime minister received an e-mail from her last October (which he also forwarded to Wolf Blitzer of CNN). In the message, Bhutto complained about Musharraf's refusal to provide requested security measures, and said if she died, the Pakistani president would bear part of the blame. Bhutto's long-time U.S. friend (and lobbyist) Mark Siegel claims that Musharraf refused her request for Scotland Yard and the FBI to investigate the "suspicious" 18 October bombing of a rally in Karachi, marking her return from exile. More than 100 people died in that attack.

Two months later, Pakistan's failure to autopsy Mrs. Bhutto's body suggests a government that is disinterested in pursuing possible leads, fearful (or knowing) where they might lead. In an interview on yesterday's Sean Hannity radio program, Middle East analyst (and Pakistani native) Monsoor Ijaz--hardly a Bhutto ally--pressed the Musharraf regime to request outside assistance in the investigation. Without independent confirmation from the FBI and Scotland Yard, he warned, Musharraf could not present a credible case that Bhutto was killed by terrorists.

So far, Islamabad has made no request for assistance, concentrating (instead) on learning the identity of the bomber, and launching an investigation into the lack of an autopsy. Call us cynics, but we're betting that the bomber will be quickly linked to terrorists, and some Rawalpindi cop will be blamed for failing to order a post-mortem. It's a convenient touch that Captain Renault from Casablanca would appreciate.

***

Sure enough, Interior Minister Nawaz has already announced that "we have evidence that Al-Qaida and the Taliban" were behind the suicide attack on Benazir Bhutto. That may be true, but the government's handling of the case (so far) makes that narrative more difficult to accept. And thousands of Pakistanis appear equally unconvinced.

The Disaster Felt Round the World

We rarely agree with Michael Scheuer, the former CIA officer best known for his "second career" as a Bush Administration critic. But, reacting to the day's events in Pakistan, Mr. Scheuer summed it up nicely, describing the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as a "disaster" for her country, and her chief rival, President Pervez Musharraf. And, by extension, Mr. Musharraf's latest political disaster is an equal calamity for the United States.

For President Musharraf, the fallout from Bhutto's death will prove both immediate and long-lasting. In a nation where politics is often a blood sport, there were immediate charges that elements of Musharraf's government were behind the assassination. Mrs. Bhutto was killed in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, which houses a number of military and intelligence organizations. Witnesses said Bhutto was shot in the chest and neck as she left a campaign rally, moments before a homicide bomber detonated his device, killing 20 additional people. The carefully-executed attack, in the citadel of Pakistan's military, raised immediate charges of government complicity.

"Musharraf, you dog," chanted Bhutto supporters outside the hospital where former prime minister was taken after the attack, and later pronounced dead. Their chant captured the sentiments of millions of Pakistanis, who are blaming Musharraf and his allies for the assassination. Within hours of Bhutto's death, there were reports of violent protests between security forces and her supporters. Information posted at the Pakistani Spectator (and other South Asia blogs) suggest that angry mobs are burning shops and vehicles in Rawalpindi. Roads leading to the capital of Islamabad have reportedly been blocked by police.

Opponents of President Musharraf have legitimate reasons to be suspicious. Pakistan's military (which Musharraf headed until recently) engineered the coup that deposed the government of Bhutto's father in 1979. And Musharraf himself led a 1999 coup that resulted in the removal of another Prime Minister, Naviz Sharif. Just hours before Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, Sharif survived an attack aimed at him. Early accounts suggested that gunfire directed toward Mr. Sharif came from a building controlled by Musharraf supporters.

While a government-sanctioned assassination cannot be ruled out (at this point), there is the more likely possibility that today's strikes were the work of Taliban and Al Qaida-backed terrorists. Attacks by those elements have been on the upswing in recent months, and the killing of Mrs. Bhutto (and the attempted assassination of Mr. Sharif) would satisfy a key terrorist goal: plunging Pakistan into chaos, and further undermining the authority of President Musharraf.

Indeed, today's murder of Benazir Bhutto--and the apparent assassination attempt against Naviz Sharif--will only reinforce public perceptions that Mr. Musharraf is unable to defend his nation against Islamic radicals. Violence that began in the western tribal areas (after Musharraf cut an ill-advised "peace deal" with pro-Taliban forces) spread rapidly to other areas, including Pakistan's major cities. Over the past two months, Islamic terrorists have demonstrated an ability to strike almost at will, staging a pair of high-profile bombings near Pakistani nuclear facilities, the most recent in early December.

Regardless of who carried out today's attacks, Mr. Musharraf will emerge as the loser, with the impact being felt across the political spectrum. Charges of government involvement in the Bhutto assassination will only galvanize the opposition, leading to more protests, unrest and violence only two weeks before scheduled Parliamentary elections. Factions more supportive of President Musharraf will (again) question his ability to deal with the dual threat posed by political upheaval and Islamic terrorism. In the span of a few seconds--the time required for two shots and that explosion--Musharraf's authority was dramatically reduced.

For the U.S., today's events are equally disastrous. In recent months, the Bush Administration has been attempting to walk a diplomatic tightrope, encouraging Pakistan's slow march toward democracy (or, what passes for democracy in that corner of the world), while maintaining support for President Musharraf, perpetually described as A Key Ally in the War on Terror.

That balancing act will prove even more difficult in the weeks to come; a strong backing for the Pakistani government will further inflame anti-U.S. sentiment in the region. On the other hand, abandoning Musharraf would be an even greater mistake, potentially opening the door for a coup, and the takeover of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal by Islamic radicals. Our problems are compounded by the time and effort invested in getting Mrs. Bhutton back into Pakistan and its political process. With her passing, who will fill the vaccum, and maintain her commitment to fighting corruption and the terrorists?

Clearly, the situation in Pakistan is going to get worse before it gets better. And, something else seems painfully clear as well: After a year of stinging defeats, Al Qaida is on the verge of scoring a major strategic victory as 2007 draws to a close. With a few shots and a homicide bombing in Rawalpindi, the terrorist organization (and its Taliban allies) have plunged Pakistan into political chaos, with consequences that reverberate far beyond that nation's borders.

***

ADDENDUM: While the death of Mrs. Bhutto and her supporters is a human tragedy, it would be a mistake to characterize the late Prime Minister as some sort of political savior or saint. As the Abu Muqawama blog observed:

The folks on NBC, though, are making it sound as if Bhutto was some brave liberal alternative to the Musharraf regime, swallowing hook, line, and sinker this narrative that Benazir Bhutto was some kind of Pakistani Aung San Suu Kyi.

Okay, folks, we all know she was eloquent, went to Harvard and Oxford and was a darling of the English-language media. But she was arguably the most corrupt woman in the history of South Asia. She was removed from office not once but twice on corruption charges. And ruthless? She killed her own brother in 1996.

Targeting Pakistan's Nukes?

Remnants of the car used in yesterday's suicide bombing against a bus carrying the children of Pakistani Air Force personnel, assigned to the Karma weapons complex. The Karma facility is believed associated with Pakistan's nuclear weapons complex; the attack was the second near a Pakistani nuclear site in the past two months. raising new concerns about terrorist intentions and facility security (AP photo via The Long War Journal)

A hat tip to the ever-vigilant Bill Roggio, who was among the first to recognize this disturbing trend among recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan. Since 1 November, insurgents have staged at least two strikes at facilities associated with the Pakistan's nuclear program. The latest attack, which occurred yesterday, targeted a bus carrying the children of Pakistani Air Force personnel. According to AFP, a suicide car bomber plowed into a bus in Karma (about 60 kilometers northwest of Islamabad, killing the terrorist and wounding five children and three adults on the bus.

It would be easy to dismiss the attack in Karma as a pure terror strike, designed to frighten Pakistani military personnel and make them re-think their support for the government. But Mr. Roggio found some insightful information at GlobalSecurity.org, which highlight the importance of the Karma complex:

The Wah Cantonment Ordnance Complex consists of three nearby armament facilities in Wah (Pakistan Ordnance Factories - POF), Kamra (Air Weapon Complex - AWC), and Taxilia (Heavy Industries Taxila -HIT). One or more of these facilities is probably associated with the weaponization of Pakistan's nuclear devices. According to some reports, the main storage and maintenance site of the Pakistani nuclear weapons, particularly the weapons at a 'screwdriver level', is located at the 'ordnance complex' in Wah.

The Air Weapon Complex at Kamra is devoted to air-to-surface munitions, among other activities, and would probably have at least some connection with the development of air-delivered nuclear weapons. ... The Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) was almost certainly responsible for the modification of Pakistani aircraft, probably including F-16 fighters, to a configuration capable of delivering air-dropped nuclear weapons.

From our own experience, we can confirm that the AWC is actively involved in Pakistan's nuclear program. And, as evidenced by the GlobalSecurity.org report, you don't need an intel background to learn the mission of the Air Weapons Complex, or its probable ties to Islamabad's nuclear efforts. That information is readily available on the internet, and is almost certainly known to Pakistan's Al-Qaida-linked terrorists.

The attack at Karma came barely a month after a similar strike at Sargodha Air Base, located west-northwest of Lahore. In that attack, which occurred on 1 November, a suicide bomber killed eight people outside the base perimeter, targeting a bus which was carrying Air Force personnel to a nearby training center.

Like the AWC complex at Karma, Sargodha is also closely linked to Pakistan's nuclear program. The base houses two squadrons of F-16 fighters, which have reportedly been modified for a nuclear strike mission. Additionally, as many as 80 solid-fueled, nuclear-capable Hataf/M-11 short-range missiles are believed to be stored at the Central Ammunition Depot on Kirana Hills in Sargodha. The ammunition depot is believed to hold nuclear weapons for both the F-16s and the missiles.

Some analysts intially believed the Sargodha attack was in retaliation for F-16 strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan's western tribal lands--and that may have been a motivating factor. But the more recent strike in Karma casts both events in a slightly different light; while militants have a score to settle with Pakistan's military, suicide attacks outside two key nuclear facilities--barely a month apart--are more than a mere coincidence. The strikes were likely aimed at testing perimeter security, along with inflicting casualties and fear among military personnel and their families.

After staging successful, high-profile attacks near two of Pakistan's major nuclear sites, the terrorists may set their sights on more spectacular operations, by attempting to penetrate key bases and the facilities they house. Obviously, that sort of operation would represent a quantum leap for the insurgents; it would take far more personnel--and firepower--to execute that sort of attack. Pakistan's nuclear facilities, like those in other countries, have multiple layers of security and access is strictly controlled.

Still, that sort of bold strike is not out of the question. The Singapore-based International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (PVTR) recently noted that despite its nuclear mission, Sargodha had less security than other Pakistan Air Force (PAF) bases, apparently due to its location in the middle of the country. According to the PVTR, Pakistan apparently viewed Sargodha as "out of the reach" of militants. That perception likely changed in early November.

Over the past three months, Taliban terrorist elements have struck three key military targets in Pakistan: Karma, Sargodha and the garrison city of Rawalpindi, which was attacked in early September. Those strikes underscore the ability of insurgents to operate throughout Pakistan, and carry out bombings near supposedly secure facilities.

Now, the question is: do the terrorists want to up the ante and attempt larger-scale operations, possibly aimed at penetrating a military base that supports Pakistan's nuclear program? While they have little chance of storming a weapons storage facility and hauling away a nuke, a bloody attack against a nuclear base would further embarass the Musharraf government, and raise new concerns about his ability to secure the country--and safeguard Pakistan's weapons stockpile.

Who's Got the Nukes, Part II

As Pakistan's domestic crisis continues, so does the debate about the security of that nation's nuclear arsenal.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that the U.S. has provided almost $100 million in aid since 2001 to help Islamabad improve its nuclear security. According to the Times, the assistance was buried in secret portions of the U.S. budget, and used to fund initiatives that ranged from a nuclear security training center, to a "raft of new equipment."

While the training center has yet to open--and Pakistan has been reluctant to show how and where the equipment is being used--officials in Washington and Islamabad claim that Pakistani efforts have improved in recent years, and that nation's nuclear facilities are secure.

In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is well secured. “I don’t see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday.

Admiral Mullen’s carefully chosen words, a senior administration official said, were based on two separate intelligence assessments issued this month that had been summarized in briefings to Mr. Bush. Both concluded that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was safe under current conditions, and one also looked at laboratories and came to the same conclusion.

But the Times account also raises a concern that we highlighted almost two weeks ago: there are limits on what we know about Pakistan's nuclear program. Not only has Islamabad been reluctant to share details of its nuclear security efforts, there are also legitimate questions about the number of nuclear facilities, the location of weapons, their operational status, and the vetting of personnel associated with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It would be very interesting to know if the assessments that Admiral Mullen referred to also highlight our intelligence "gaps" regarding the Pakistani nuclear program, and how they affected the bottom-line assessment.

Despite those intel gaps--and Pakistan's reluctance to share sensitive information with the United States--the Bush Administration is debating plans to expand the nuclear security effort, offering more money for training and new equipment. However, there are limits on what Washington is willing to do. So far, the U.S. has refused to share its most sensitive weapons safety technology with Pakistan, including the so-called Permissive Action Links (PALs), which prevent a warhead from being detonated without proper codes and authorizations.

Not surprisingly, the Times steers its coverage toward the notion of sharing PALs technology--considered one of the "crown jewels" of U.S. nuclear technology. Noting that the U.S. has provided sensitive safety data other nations in the past, the paper located a former top nuclear scientist who argues that we should also share warhead technology:

Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, which designed most of the United States’ nuclear arms, argued that recent federal reluctance to share warhead security technology was making the world more dangerous.

“Lawyers say it’s classified,” Dr. Agnew said in an interview. “That’s nonsense. We should share this technology. Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this.”

“Whether it’s India or Pakistan or China or Iran,” he added, “the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can’t use them without proper authorization.”

In the past, officials say, the United States has shared ideas — but not technologies — about how to make the safeguards that lie at the heart of American weapons security. The system hinges on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code that starts a timer for the weapon’s arming and detonation.

But there's a key element missing from that discussion. When the U.S. shared information in the past--most notably, with France and Russia--there was little chance that the data would be transferred to other nuclear powers, or wind up in the hands of terrorists. Given Pakistan's past history as a nuclear proliferator (through the notorious A.Q. Kahn network) and continued domestic turmoil, the decision to not to share PALs-type technology strikes us as eminently sensible.

Dr. Agnew's proposal is sheer folly. Let's suppose for a moment that we share sensitive warhead safety concepts with Pakistan, and that country falls into the hands of Islamic radicals. Not only would the Islamists gain access to nuclear weapons, they would also gain the ability to build bombs are are less tamper resistant--and much more difficult to disarm. That technology could be easily shared with the Taliban and Al Qaida, creating a true nightmare scenario: a terrorist nuclear bomb with advanced security features, a device that would be almost impossible to neutralize prior to detonation.

Given current conditions in Pakistan, the U.S. should expand nuclear security assistance for Islamabad. But any increase in aid should require a better accounting of how the aid is being used, and better information on the location and function of Pakistani nuclear facilities. While Islamabad will never provide a full accounting of its nuclear activities, an improved database on nuclear sites and their purpose will--if nothing else--provide a better comparison for our own intelligence information.

Scientists like Dr. Agnew believe that "complete transparency" (with the U.S. leading the way) is the only way to ensure nuclear safety. But that view is hopelessly naive, particularly in our dealings with Pakistan. Given that country's current political and security environment, sharing sensitive nuclear technology with Islamabad might easily backfire, resulting in a compromise of information that could have dreadful consequences, both at home and abroad.

Today's Reading Assignment

...from the pages of the Los Angeles Times. In an op-ed published today, Pakistani poet and writer Fatima Bhutto makes the case that her aunt, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, is not the woman who can restore democracy in her native land. Quite the opposite; Fatima Bhutto makes the case that her aunt is actually profiting from the recent declaration of emergency rule:

The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)

Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.

She also reminds us that the former Prime Minister is no stranger to corruption--the same charges leveled against Pakistan's current leader, General Pervez Musharraf.

It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.

It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's too late.

And, lest we forget, Benazir Bhutto has her own tied to Islamic radicals:

Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.

Obviously, Fatima Bhutto has reasons to be angry with the former Prime Minister. Her father --Benazir Bhutto's younger brother--was killed in 1996, in what was described as a carefully-planned police assassination. Benazir Bhutto's role in the murder has never been explained, but a three-judge Pakistani panel concluded that the killing could not have occurred without approval from a "much higher" political authority.

While Benazir Bhutto often receives fawning coverage from the western press, it is clear that she is less popular at home that we would believe. Which leads to an obvious question: if Musharraf goes down the tubes--and Ms. Bhutto can't muster enough support--who does the U.S. support?

As with many elements of the Pakistan "problem" there are few easy answers, or palatable choices.