Pir Zubair Shah: My Drone War

Caption: An ML-1Q Predator unmanned aerial vehicle that now appears in the Smithsonian Museum. This was one of the first UAVs to carry armament.

Image credit cliff1066

As a report for Newsday and The New York Times, Pir Zubair Shah has covered the secret war America has waged against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the region of Pakistan near the Afghanistan border. His article this month in Foreign Policy is well worth a read, not only for what it tells us about that war, but about its effect on its targets. As Shah has said, the area is an isolated one, and both the U.S. and Pakistani governments divulge little about the war.

Here he discusses his first look at the results of a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) strike in Waziristan:

n January 2006, ... I got an early-morning phone call at my home in Islamabad from a colleague at Newsday, where I was then working as a fixer and bureau manager. There had been another drone strike in the Bajaur tribal area, he told me; could I go investigate? I picked up a friend who worked for the BBC and drove north to Bajaur to see my first drone strike. It would be the first newspaper story to appear under my own byline -- and my first experience covering the drone war.

As we drove into Damadola, a farming village sprawled across a wide valley, I spotted the bodies of a cow and a calf, splayed out underneath a tree with their eyes wide open. Nearby were the fresh ruins of three houses.

The drone's presumed target had been Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who had been rumored to be in the area. I arrived on the scene ahead of most other reporters, and the families of the victims took me to see their newly dug graves. "All those killed, including women and children, are from this village," a villager told me as he showed me the burial site. "There were no foreigners here." Then I noticed something odd: Although I counted 13 graves, the locals would only tell me the names of seven women and children who had been killed. When it came to the men, they were silent. Later, a Pakistani official told me foreigners had indeed been present, including Zawahiri, though he had left some time before the missile hit. Drones were not yet common, but the fugitive al Qaeda No. 2 had long since become accustomed to moving quickly from place to place.

My Drone War

Those few paragraphs say a lot about the situation. Any information has to be pieced together from multiple sources, because no one - the governments, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the people caught in between, are likely to tell everything they know. Waziristan is mountain country. It sounds like a Middle Eastern version of Appalachia - populated by people who mistrust any outsiders, particularly if they're representatives of a remote central authority. The governments and the people they are targeting have their own reasons for keeping mum. It's the perfect place to carry on a war without anyone being able to come to an informed judgment on whether that war is worth fighting or not.

I've mentioned before the idea that for a government that can do it, using UAVs as a means of attacking suspected terrorists is one that holds few dangers. Unfortunately, for the people who are near the intended targets, that is seldom the case.

I had not heard of Pir Zubair Shah, but if winning the Pulitzer Prize means anything anymore, he's done some good reporting on this phenomenon. His Foreign Policy article is a good overview of his experience in covering this strange new kind of war.

How Bad Are Things?

If you want some idea how bad things are in Pakistan, consider this quote from the New York Times:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A dozen gunmen attacked the Sri Lankan national cricket team and its police escort in a brazen commando-style operation in the city of Lahore on Tuesday, killing six police officers and wounding at least six cricketers before fleeing in motorized rickshaws, the Lahore police chief and a Sri Lankan official said.

Eight Die as Gunmen in Pakistan Attack Cricket Team

As the article goes on to point out, the Sri Lankan team is one of the few international cricket teams to participate in matches there in the last few years:

The Australian and other cricket teams have refused to play in Pakistan, saying that the safety of its players was at risk and that Pakistan was unable to provide adequate protection. Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa all boycotted a major tournament in Pakistan last year.

Eight Die as Gunmen in Pakistan Attack Cricket Team

Cricket is as popular a sport in Pakistan as baseball or football are in America. That terrorists can do this, and are willing to, shows how extreme things are getting in Pakistan.

How important is the symbolism of the attack? Here's a quote from Al Jazeera:

It seems certain at least that Pakistan – a nation with a proud cricketing history and obsessive fans – will struggle to recover as a serious international force.

Former England cricketer Dominic Cork was a strong voice against England's return to India last year, but travelled to Pakistan as a commentator for the Sri Lanka series.

Speaking to Sky News from Lahore, he said he would not be returning - and doubted whether any cricketers would be either.

"I was badly advised to come out and commentate and will certainly be looking at the decision (in future) no matter what the country is," Cork said.

"Sport is second – it has to be second – until this region is sorted out["]

Lahore Assault Casts Long Shadow

It serves to further isolate Pakistan from the rest of the world. What's worse, it will do nothing to ease the tensions between Pakistan and its neighbor. Xinhua reports:

NEW DELHI, March 3 (Xinhua) -- In the wake of the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan Tuesday, India has decided not to play in the neighboring country at least for four or five years, Board for Cricket Control of India president Shashank Manohar said.

India cricket team not to play in Pakistan after Lahore attack

Cricket is one of the points of commonality between India and Pakistan. The symbolism of this announcement isn't good, either.

This attack was conducted with heavy weapons and looks to have been well planned, much as the attack in Mumbai, India was a few months ago. Whether the same group is responsible remains to be seen, but if you ask yourself who benefits from the results, a few obvious suspects emerge. The most likely are the religious fanatics, such as the Taliban, who would like to see Pakistan more isolated. Indian extremists might be a possibility, also, though I don't know of any who could conduct this sort of operation.

Whoever it turns out to be, it's another clear sign that things aren't getting better in Pakistan.

Murder In Mumbai

Image credit: CIA World Factbook.

[Updated on Nov. 30]

Like many people, I'm fascinated and appalled at the events that have just recently ended in Mumbai, India. The attacks seem to have been carried out by a dozen or so people, who apparently arrived by sea. Foreigners, particularly Americans, Britons, and Israelis were singled out as targets or hostages. Two Canadians were killed as well. The raiders were well-armed and clearly had some training. Beyond that, I don't think much can be said until events are reconstructed later.

Outside The Beltway writer Dave Schuler observes:

This wasn’t the same as a suicide bomber blowing him- or herself up in a crowded marketplace. That could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost of this particular set of attacks. These attacks had planning and coordination; the young men who forced their way into some of Mumbai’s fanciest hotels and restaurants had received a level of training and preparation. That incurs a cost; such resources are too valuable just to throw away.

I have no more explanation than anybody else and can only offer a handful of guesses. It may have been a probing attack. If that’s the case Mumbai can expect more such attacks and soon, indeed, I would have already expected a followup.

Terrorist Rampage Ended in Mumbai

I don't know why there'd be an immediate followup. They might need to find a different way to get into Mumbai in the future, or not. In any event, there are very few entities that can just whistle up a ride for a dozen armed men into a possibly foreign city any time it wants. We know who most of them are already, as the New York Times reports:

Officials in Washington said Friday that there was no evidence that the Pakistani government had any role in the attacks. But if evidence were to emerge that the operation had been planned and directed from within Pakistan, that would certainly further escalate tensions between India and Pakistan, bitter, nuclear-armed rivals. It could also provoke an Indian military response, even strikes against militants’ training camps.

U.S. Intelligence Focuses on Pakistani Group

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) is certainly a suspect. Pakistan's longstanding conflict with India over the Kashmir region has been the genesis for much of the terrorism in that region. The Federation of American Scientists observe:

Critics of the ISI say that it has become a state within a state, answerable neither to the leadership of the army, nor to the President or the Prime Minister. The result is there has been no real supervision of the ISI, and corruption, narcotics, and big money have all come into play, further complicating the political scenario. Drug money was used by ISI to finance not only the Afghanistan war, but also the ongoing proxy war against India in Kashmir and Northeast India.

...

The oldest and most widely known militant organization, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), spearheaded the movement for an independent Kashmir. This group declared a cease-fire in 1994. The most powerful of the pro-Pakistani groups is the Hezb-ul-Mujahedin. The other major groups are Harakat-ul Ansar, a group which reportedly has a large number of non-Kashmiris in it, Al Umar, Al Barq, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Lashkar-e Toiba, which is also made up largely of fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of these militants were trained in Afghanistan, where several ISI agents were killed during U.S. air strikes in 1998 against terrorist training camps. Since the defeat of the Taliban, militant training camps have moved to Pakistani Kashmir.

Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI]

[bold emphasis mine].
In short, these guys have been really busy fomenting terrorism in that part of the world. Lashkar-e Taiba is considered the most likely organization to have carried out this raid. Taylor Marsh's observation:

With Lashkar's stunning coordination (assuming the reports to date are correct), the scope and targeting of these bombings elevated India's quiet terrorism challenge to the front pages everywhere. It's one reason why the 9/11 comparison is so apt. Like the once sleeping U.S., India's financial mecca was hit to such devastating proportions as to change the perception of the country, awakening the world to the scope of her enemies, as well as the wider horror revealed. That this trio country region [Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India], so to speak, with all its dangers, including Kashmir, can no longer be ignored as simply tribal areas, border disputes and separate missions. They are one.

India: Anatomy of a Calculated Hit

rings true with me, as it seems to with Patrick Lang and Juan Cole as well. This region has been volatile for a long time. It is only now that we are starting to pay attention. India is the world's second largest country, and its twelfth-ranked economy (as of 2007). Its future is in many respects intertwined with our own, particularly since it is the world's largest democracy. Since India's future is intertwined with its two troubled neighbors, this makes it axiomatic that they, too, are going to require more of our, and the rest of the world's, attention in the future.

UPDATE (Nov. 30): The Guardian's William Dalrymple provides a fascinating look at the tie between the conflict over Kashmir and this week's attacks in Mumbai:

If Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is the most emotive issue for Muslims in the Middle East, then India's treatment of the people of Kashmir plays a similar role among South-Asian Muslims. At the Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, the state should logically have gone to Pakistan. However, the pro-Indian sympathies of the state's Hindu Maharajah, as well as the Kashmiri origins of the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, led to the state passing instead to India - on the condition that the Kashmiris retained a degree of autonomy.

Successive Indian governments, however, refused to honour their constitutional commitments to the state. The referendum, promised by Nehru at the UN, on whether the state would remain part of India, was never held. Following the shameless rigging of the 1987 local elections, Kashmiri leaders went underground. Soon after, bombings and assassination began, assisted by Pakistan's ISI which ramped up the conflict by sending over the border thousands of heavily armed jihadis.

Mumbai atrocities highlight need for solution in Kashmir

It's well worth a read, I think. (h/t: Lotus)

Election Day In Washington

It's primary election day in the state of Washington today. So if you live in Washington, be sure to get to the polls, or be sure to mail in your ballots.

If you live in the Eighth Congressional district, Darcy Burner could use your support.

If you live in the First Congressional district, Jay Inslee could use your support.

These are people worth voting for.

For that and many reasons, today's going to be a busy day...

Meanwhile, Juan Cole, via Pakistan's newspaper Dawn, provides some insight into why it has taken so long for former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to leave the scene, even though it was blindingly obvious that it was his time:

Meanwhile, Dawn (Karachi) explains how George W. Bush was convinced to let Musharraf go. The article says:

* Bush was the last holdout supporting Musharraf in Washington, long after Rice and Cheney had concluded he was not viable

* PM Yousef Raza Gilani's recent trip to Washington was in large part aimed at convincing Bush and others that the dictator had to go. "The prime minister took a team of 'Musharraf experts' with him to the luncheon and they played a key role in persuading Mr Bush to stop supporting the Pakistani leader."

Cole in Salon: The Fall of Bush's Man in Pakistan; Dawn: Bush was Last Holdout

He concludes with this thought:

I am a little surprised to discover that Bush was the last holdout, not Cheney. If the man really does have no common sense and is the ultimate decision-maker, that would clarify what has gone wrong for the last 7 years!

Cole in Salon: The Fall of Bush's Man in Pakistan; Dawn: Bush was Last Holdout

There are only two things I've ever figured out about Cheney:

* He's smarter than Bush

* He's ruthless

Both of these traits would tend to make him the one who figured this out sooner. Ruthlessness is certainly a quality the Bush possesses as well, but he clearly doesn't have the mental wherewithal to figure out things like this. Cole's right that this is the reason our foreign policy has been so disastrous the last few years.

UPDATE: Corrected Inslee's congressional district number. I had wrongly labeled it the Fourth District. That's Doc Hastings' district, and I don't care if he needs help or not.

Musharraf Gone

Image credit: CIA World Factbook

Too bad I didn't see this coming. Oh, wait, I did:

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf quit office on Monday to avoid impeachment charges, nearly nine years after the key U.S. ally in its campaign against terrorism took power in a coup.
ADVERTISEMENT

Speculation the former army chief would resign had mounted since the fractious coalition government, led by the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, said this month it planned to impeach him.

Pakistan's Musharraf quits under impeachment threat

It was pretty obvious to me back in early June when A.Q. Khan was willing to testify against him that Musharraf was toast:

Once he resigned as head of the army, this day seemed inevitable. The army is the center of power in Pakistan. To not be in control of it meant that Musharraf no longer could control his own destiny. Once his party lost the election last February, he had much less political standing, too. Apparently, there's a new leader in the country.

More Changes In Pakistan

It seems like an obvious inference that the new head of the Army, Ashfaq Kayani, has been calling the shots for some time. The Los Angeles Times writes:

But Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the man Musharraf picked to succeed him at the helm of the military late last year, has made it clear that he will not intervene to preserve the presidential tenure of his onetime superior officer and mentor.

"Let us rededicate ourselves to the military tradition of sacrifice," a solemn-faced Kayani told an Independence Day gathering Thursday in a speech widely interpreted as closing the door to any army effort to stave off the impeachment process.

Pakistan Army Staying 'Hands-off' Amid Musharraf Crisis

Let us contemplate who is doing the "sacrificing" here, and then we'll know who isn't calling the shots anymore. The LA Times goes on to quote unnamed military officials as saying that the army decided not to support Musharraf, because to do so would have caused the Pakistani public to distrust the army. This might have been a consideration, but I find that taking a more cynical view of the politics there usually leads to a clearer view of them. Power is always a limited commodity, even for the army of Pakistan.

What all this means is less clear. The two rival political parties in Pakistan, can now stand around kicking the body of Musharraf's presidency, but whether they have the power to change Pakistan is another question. The New York Times observes:

His resignation came after 10 days of intense political maneuvering in Pakistan, and cleared the way for the four-month-old coalition government to choose a new president by a vote of Parliament and the provincial assemblies. But there were intense concerns in Washington that Mr. Musharraf’s departure would open a new era of instability in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country of 165 million people, as the fragile coalition jockeys for his share of power.
...
The talks are likely to be long and contentious. American officials have said that Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister who was assassinated in December, would like the post. But Mr. Sharif, who maintains a barely civil relationship with Mr. Zardari, is said to be strongly opposed to the elevation of Mr. Zardari.

A colleague of Mr. Sharif’s said the Pakistan Muslim League-N might agree to Mr. Zardari in the post if it was stripped of its current powers, including the power to dissolve the parliament and to choose the army chief.

President Musharraf of Pakistan Resigns

In addition to the army, a rather widespread radical Muslim insurgency represents another power center:

In Mr Musharraf's place comes a civilian leadership, albeit in an unstable coalition government whose future is uncertain and whose ability to combat the extremism in the tribal areas is untested. Nobody yet knows who will be the next president.

But the coalition was the product of elections, not a coup, and therefore is now being projected by Washington and London as a surer basis for future action than the weakened Musharraf.

It is from the tribal areas, the US and Britain say, that Taleban fighters cross into Afghanistan where they present a real danger to NATO forces supporting the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai.

The Strongman And The War On Terror

The Taliban aren't just a problem in Afghanistan. They've also been active in Kashmir for many years. The BBC reports:

India has had a mixed relationship with Pervez Musharraf.

Many in the Indian establishment view him with deep suspicion, especially after the two countries fought a bitter conflict in 1999, in the Kargil region of Indian-administered Kashmir.

India fears vacuum left by Musharraf

I'd think that another potentially ruinous war with India is the last thing the Pakistani army wants, but that might change if internal politics take what the army views as an undesirable turn.

Despite my cynical view of these events, I can't help but hold out some hope that things will get better in Pakistan. If I were in Gen. Kayani's shoes right now, I'd be concerned about the rise of militant Islam in my country, knowing that it was a force that could eventually remove the army from power. While it's true that the army and the Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Agency (Pakistan's CIA) has abetted this movement, anyone with the smallest understanding of human nature realizes that no one controls fanatics but the head fanatic. The army needs the civilian leadership right now, if it is going to win. That need might spark real changes there, if the civilian leadership is up to the challenge. The adequacy of that leadership, and the depths of the army's need, is what we'll find out in the next few months.

More Changes In Pakistan

Image credit: CIA World Factbook

Pakistan's been seeing a lot of changes lately, many of them not good. This probably doesn't fall into the "not good" category, but I doubt it's good news, either:

Pressed by a swirl of rumors that he was about to be ousted, President Pervez Musharraf insisted this week that he was staying, and President Bush on Friday confirmed his continued support with a reassuring phone call to Mr. Musharraf, the White House said.

Musharraf Denies He's Stepping Down

Oh, good heavens - the dreaded phone call of everlasting support. He's toast:

[T]he Pakistani military confirmed that General Kayani had removed a loyalist to Mr. Musharraf from one of the army’s most significant posts.

The change involved the leader of the Triple-One Brigade, a unit based in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, which is responsible for the security of the president and of the capital, Islamabad. It is commonly regarded as the “coup” brigade because it has been used by the army chief to topple civilian opponents.

Musharraf Denies He's Stepping Down

Once he resigned as head of the army, this day seemed inevitable. The army is the center of power in Pakistan. To not be in control of it meant that Musharraf no longer could control his own destiny. Once his party lost the election last February, he had much less political standing, too. Apparently, there's a new leader in the country.

It appears that the vultures are circling:

But a former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who is the leader of the junior party in the coalition, said Wednesday that Mr. Musharraf should be impeached.

Mr. Sharif, who was removed as prime minister by Mr. Musharraf in a coup in October 1999, said he could forgive Mr. Musharraf for the personal indignities he suffered after the coup. But, he said, the nation could not forgive Mr. Musharraf for the damage he had done during his military rule.

Musharraf Denies He's Stepping Down

Lotus adds:

Asif Ali Zardari, leader of the ruling coalition in Parliament and head of the Pakistani People’s Party (Benazir Bhutto’s old power-base), has previously sounded somewhat supportive of Musharraf, but now he’s joined coalition-partner Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister and head of the PML-N party, in calling for him to get out now.

Adding their voices to the chorus, several Pakistani newspapers are editorializing that he’s gotta go (one calling him “King Musharraf,” a reference to Nepal’s freshly-deposed King Gyanendra).

Pakistan about to boot Musharraf

To make matters worse, A.Q. Khan, the physicist who confessed to running a nuclear weapons ring that his government didn't know about, has apparently recanted:

The Pakistani scientist blamed for running a rogue network that sold nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya has recanted his confession, telling ABC News the Pakistani government and President Perez Musharraf forced him to be a "scapegoat" for the "national interest."

"I don't stand by that," Dr. A.Q. Khan told ABC News in a 35-minute phone interview from his home in Islamabad, where he has been detained since "confessing" that he ran the nuclear network on his own, without the knowledge of the Pakistani government.

Pakistani Bomb Scientist Breaks Silence

To which I can only respond - gee, go figure. A scientist in a military dictatorship wasn't the one who was selling the nuclear weapons.

What this tells me is that Khan is pretty sure that Musharraf is no longer the power that matters in Pakistan. If he was, Khan most likely wouldn't dare to say this. Whatever hold Musharraf had over him is clearly no longer enough to keep Khan quiet.

Over the weeks ahead, we'll see how this plays out. One thing's for sure, though - Musharraf's days as head of the Pakistani government are numbered.

(A tip of the hat to Lotus, whose article alerted me to this and provided several of the links in this article.)

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Image credit: Wikipedia; IFaqeer

[updated Dec. 28]

From Forbes:

MUMBAI -

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was shot dead Thursday at a political rally by an attacker who then set off a blast that left 20 others dead.

In a year of increasing violence in Pakistan, Bhutto returned home from exile in October to contest parliamentary elections. Analysts said the viability and legitimacy of the Jan. 8 elections have dimmed with her death.

Pakistan's Bhutto Assassinated

That last sentence, to me, is an understatement. Bhutto was a charismatic and influential figure. There's certainly been doubt about her ability to be independent of the military, which in Pakistan controls not only the principle armed force in the country, but also runs much of the economy. Nevertheless, as an opposition voice she must have been valuable.

I don't know much about Pakistan, but I knew who Benazir Bhutto was. That fact alone should give you some idea how important she was there.

SusanUnPC over at No Quarter has republished statements from our own Presidential candidates on this event. Senator Joe Biden has probably summed things up best:

Biden: “This is a terrible day. My heart goes out to Benazir Bhutto’s family, friends and followers.

“Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life – and gave her life – to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country. She was a woman of extraordinary courage who returned to Pakistan in the face of death threats and even after an assassination attempt the day of her return, she did not flinch. It was a privilege to know her these many years and to call her a friend.

“I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week. The fact that she was by far Pakistan’s most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system. Her assassination makes it all the more urgent that Pakistan return to a democratic path.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/27/the-assassination-of-benazir-bhutto/

As the Forbes article notes, blame has quickly been cast on Pakistani President Musharraf:

Blame for the assassination was quickly cast on Musharraf’s government.

“Everyone is saying that this army has killed Benazir. There is going to be more bloodshed,” Asma Jehangir, chairperson of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, told news media. Spokespersons for Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party accused the army of not providing adequate security for her.

Pakistan's Bhutto Assassinated

This act has certainly made Musharraf's political future much brighter, at least for the moment. How all this will play out, I have no idea. For that kind of information, Juan Cole's a good guy to turn to:

The Pakistani authorities are blaming Muslim militants for the assassination. That is possible, but everyone in Pakistan remembers that it was the military intelligence, or Inter-Services Intelligence, that promoted Muslim militancy in the two decades before September 11 as a wedge against India in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) faithful will almost certainly blame Pervez Musharraf, and sentiment here is more important than reality, whatever the reality may be. The PPP is one of two very large, long-standing grassroots political parties in Pakistan, and if its followers are radicalized by this event, it could lead to severe turmoil. Just a day before her assassination Benazir had pledged that the PPP would not allow the military to rig the upcoming January 8 parliamentary elections.

...

The military government of Pervez Musharraf was shaken by two big crises in 2007, one urban and one rural. The urban crisis was his interference in the rule of law and his dismissal of the supreme court chief justice. The Pakistani middle class has greatly expanded in the last seven years, as others have noted, and educated white collar people need a rule of law to conduct their business. Last June 50,000 protesters came out to defend the supreme court, even thought the military had banned rallies. The rural crisis was the attempt of a Neo-Deobandi cult made up of Pushtuns and Baluch from the north to establish themselves in the heart of the capital, Islamabad, at the Red Mosque seminary.

Pakistan's 2007 Crises Come to a Crescendo;
Benazir Assassinated

[emphasis mine; link from original]

All of which is enough to make one suspicious that even if Musharraf wasn't the one who made this happen, someone in the government probably did. Both the ISI and the military had reasons to want her out of the way. It's also possible, I suppose, that Islamists were responsible. That bunch of mysoginists are bound to be none too pleased with the idea that a woman would be running their country. Still, as Prof. Cole, wrote, there's a close relationship between the radicals and certain elements in the Pakistani government.

Cole's associate Manan Ahmed writes:

Riots are being reported in various cities. Rawalpindi is in chaos. Cable and cell phone services has been suspended in most of the country. Rumors are flying of curfews. No word from Musharraf, yet.

Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007

Sounds like rocky times are ahead in Pakistan. It's certainly a sad day. That's particularly true for Pakistan, not only for what they've lost, but for what it says about how things go for anyone who stands up to those in power there.

UPDATE (Dec. 28): Lotus offers a Who's Who in Pakistan for those not familiar with the subject.

Via Kevin Hayden, I found an article written about Bhutto a couple of months ago called Be careful of Pakistan's 'Ms. Liberty'. While it's mainly a collection of impressions and rumors, it does suggest that there was more to Benazir than met the eye. That's often how things are in politics.

Looseheadprop offers this anecdote about Benazir Bhutto as a young woman.