Whenever a world leader is assassinated, there are two questions: 1. Who did it? And 2 (which is related to Question 1). Who benefits?
The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister (who was running for the leadership in the scheduled January 8th elections) Benazir Bhutto today was carried out by Islamic terrorists, perhaps al Qaeda itself. According to ABC News, "An obscure Italian Web site said Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told its reporter in a phone call, "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen.""
The website said the decision to assassinate Bhutto was made by al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, in October. Remember that before helping Osama bin Laden create al Qaeda, Zawahiri was jailed in Egypt for his role in the assassination of then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Even if al Qaeda did not directly carry out this assassination, whoever did certainly has a similar agenda: to destroy any sense of democracy in Pakistan, to set back efforts to fight Islamic fundamentalism, to ensure safe haven for Islamic terrorist operations there, to create instability for the United States in Afghanistan, and to embolden terrorist forces elsewhere, especially in Iraq (where their efforts are waning).
It's a big agenda, and one that needed a boost with a big event. Bhutto's killing is that event. So, the first beneficiary is al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorism it uses and supports. They will be emboldened in Pakistan and around the world. They will see this assassination as a tremendous victory. They will see it as their moment to seize power in Pakistan, perhaps even overthrowing or killing President Pervez Musharraf, who either could not or would not protect Bhutto. They will use this for propaganda purposes, to recruit and accelerate attacks, both in Pakistan and around the world. Islamic fundamentalists just got a big shot in the arm. They won't blow it.
In the United States, it's inevitable that the fallout from the Bhutto assassination would effect our own presidential campaign. As crass as it sounds, each candidate is doing his or her own calculation as to how to spin this to their benefit, without looking like a vulture hovering over Bhutto's corpse.
The second beneficiary: Hillary Clinton. She's been running on her "experience," saying two weeks ago that she was in on every major foreign policy decision of the Clinton co-presidency. Setting aside her clever jujitsu that she was responsible for all of the successes of the Clinton co-presidency but none of its failures, her campaign has been built around the "experience" she claims to have. So, when something catastrophic happens----like the assassination of a leader in the most precarious place in the world---she can delicately suggest she's the one best equipped to handle such crises.
The third beneficiary: John McCain. Bonafide war hero, son of an admiral, grandson of an admiral. Steadfast supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even at great risk to his own political ambitions. He commands enormous respect from our friends around the world---and inspires fear from our enemies. Statesmanship is what his campaign is all about, and he can not-so-delicately suggest that he's the one best equipped to deal with such crises.
A possible fourth beneficiary is Rudy Giuliani, who has centered his campaign on fighting the threat of Islamic terror. The situation in Pakistan---teeming with terrorists and nuclear weapons---offers Giuliani a chance to tout his anti-terror credentials. But he was on Fox News this morning, and all he could muster was his standard line about "staying on offense" against Islamic extremism. That happens to be true, but he needs to come up with a bit more than that when that extremism has led to a major assassination.
Bhutto was a dynamo: smart, tough, and cool. Her death is a blow to her country. It will play out in the streets of Pakistan---and of Des Moines and Manchester. But it should also remind us of the bigger point, one that President Bush has gotten clobbered for continuing to say but which also happens to be true: we are in a war against Islamists who will stop at nothing to destroy us, our allies, and the freedoms we represent. They will also stop at nothing to install their tyrannical and murderous ideology around the world. With them, there is no compromise. There is no negotiation. There is only war. We'd better get hip to that again, because the assassins are coming for us.
Recent Comments