Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





What Now? Benazir Bhutto was a dead-woman walking the day she set foot back on Pakistani soil
Thursday, 27 December 2007 19:06
by Stephen P. Pizzo

Benazir Bhutto was a dead-woman walking the day she set foot back on Pakistani soil. It was only a matter of time, and that time came today.

While I'd like to lay at least some blame for Bhutto's assassination on Bush administration meddling in Middle East politics, I can't. Instead the blame for this latest regional bloodletting lands squarely and exclusively in the lap of what I have come to think of as "Muslimocracy" — the primacy of Islamic law, or Sharia, which is still deeply rooted in the souls and minds of the people of that ever-troubled region.

Muslimocracies view the non-Muslim world as their an enemy, and anyone within a Muslim nation who does not share that view, is viewed as a friend of their enemy. That is what got Bhutto killed today.

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

I rarely agree with George W. Bush on anything, but he was right once. It was when he was running for President the first time. Back then he warned against wasting US lives and resources on "nation building" efforts abroad.

Then he got elected and embarked on the most audacious, aggressive and illogical nation building effort in modern history. As a result the world got to see the wisdom of Bush's original position and the folly of his current one.

Today, when someone criticizes Bush for trying to bring democracy to the backward Muslim nations in the Middle East, he scolds them for displaying "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

Well, sometimes low expectations are not the product of bigotry, but data. As a self-described country boy Bush surely must have heard some crusty old farmer remark, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink."

Which brings me back to Pakistan — et al. You can lead them towards democracy but you can't make them democratic. And, in the rare instances where they apparently relent, they use democracy to enshrine Sharia law, which is to democracy a lynching is to justice. (Remember how the Palestinians embrace of democratic elections resulted in the elevation of Hamas. And, if free and open elections were held today in Egypt the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood would be swept in to power.)

As I've noted in more than one previous post, Pakistan is not our ally in the war on terror. Neither is Iraq. Nor is Egypt. And most certainly not Saudi Arabia. Those countries are our allies the same way a cobra is an ally of its snake charmer.

Unreconstructed Islam has been and remains Muslim country's kryptonite against super-power strength. The Soviets learned that the hard way when they tried to occupy Afghanistan. The US is now locked in the same futile exercise of imperial hubris in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly soon in Iran and Pakistan. It was a lesson learned a century earlier by the British, as immortalized by Kipling:

Now, it is not good for the Christian's health
to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles
and he weareth the Christian down;

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white
with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph clear: "A Fool lies here,
who tried to hustle the East."

Of course somethings have changed over a century. In particular, nuclear weapons, of which Pakistan possesses as many as 100 air and missile-mounted nukes. If one or more of those active nuclear weapons falls into the hands of al Qaida we can be assured they will used it to demonstration just how much Allah hates non-Muslims. You don't have to be a Neo-con to believe that.

Which begs the question — in light of the latest democracy-farce being played out in Pakistan, how should we treat the kind real threats posed by a radicalized Muslim Middle East?

In a word: containment.

We won the Cold War largely by containing the Soviet Union's expansionist ambitions. And we won that long war without the level of bloodshed we've already experienced in Iraq, or the amount of bloodshed we will incur if we continue trying to force these people to drink from the democratic pond. Instead we told the nations of the Soviet bloc that, if they wanted communism, fine, it was all theirs. But, we made clear, don't look for any financial, political or military help from us. In essence we let them stew to death in their own dysfunctional communist pots.

The Muslim Middle East is currently addicted to its own dysfunctional social/religious philosophical code, unreconstructed Islam. And that will continue to poison almost any relationships they try to form with the non-Muslim modern world. Christianity had to re-calibrate hundreds of years ago in order to survive and coexist with scientific and social progress. Islam has yet to do so and is therefore hopelessly out of step with modernity.

In the Muslim Middle East today, half-educated Mullahs have more influence over what their people know and believe than anyone inside or outside their countries. And much of what they believe is the very reason their countries are backward, violent places. For example, half their population — women — are barred from contributing to their society's governance, commercial or even social development — a shocking waste of human capital for countries that need all the human capital they can get. But it was exactly that kind of misogynistic ignorance that played a role in Bhutto's death today.

There is only one cure for addiction, be it addiction to a substance or a crippling ideology, and that's to let the addicted hit rock bottom. The addicted must be ready to shake their addiction. Until then they are nothing but blackholes for charity, advice or other efforts to save them from their themselves. Western military and financial aid to nations like Pakistan and Iraq are like financing a saloon for alcoholics.

Instead the west should treat the nations of the nations of Muslim Middle East the same way we treated the nations of the Soviet Bloc. Those nations in the Middle East that refuse to disengage their governments, military, security forces, schools and financial institutions from the yoke of unreconstructed Islam should be held at arms length by the rest of the word. In other words, they should be contained and isolated.

Bush keeps saying that we need to believe terrorist when they say they want to destroy us. Fine, so we also need to believe them when they say they want Sharia law. Well fine, so get the hell out of the way and let them have it — let them have Sharia law in spades.

But what about those nukes in Pakistan, and maybe someday in Iran? The west has to get this one right — and the first time. The west should be ready to use its military assets, but with a kind of care and precision that's been woefully lacking of late. The only national interest the US has in that region should be defined as containment and doing whatever needs doing to insure that those nukes in Pakistan can never be used, by anyone, against anyone.

No one can say exactly what that means in what the military likes to refer to as "kinetic action." But blunt force bombing — the first choice among Bush administration hawks — must be reserved should the day ever arrive when everything else has failed. Instead the Pentagon and CIA should use some to the $60 billion a year we give them for intelligence activities to get their hands on those nukes and get their hands on the key individuals in those countries who produced and/or proliferated them. And frankly I don't give fig how they go getting that done. Because when it comes to nuclear weapons it only takes one to ruin your day, and the day of a few hundred thousand close friends and relatives.

Finally, what about oil? If we contain the nations of the Muslim Middle East we can kiss our oil supply from there goodbye. What about that? Well the day was coming when the US would have to get off Middle East oil one way or another. We could have — should have — done so slowly, methodically and in ways that did not cause widespread hardship. But we didn't, so now we will just have to bite the bullet, declare a national energy emergency and do what we have to do to get by for a while. Sorry. But sometimes there are no sacrifice-free options in the world of realpoliks.

If we haven't learned these lessons yet we surely will. The only question is how many more US troops and treasure will have to be wasted beating our heads against that Islamic wall before we figure it out. They don't want democracy, at least not yet. And they won't want it until they get an industrial dose of what they keep telling us they want, Sharia (Islamic) law.

Which is why I say to them, "bon appetite." Give us a ring when you've had a belly full. 
More from this author:
Predictions for 2007 (9224 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The War: Jenna & Barbara Bush will not be part of their dad's troop surge. Ditto for any member of the Cheney clan. ...
White House Chess (8959 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the...
Fine Mess You Got Us Into This Time (10690 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo At the moment all the focus is on what George W. Bush is going to do about the mess he's made of Iraq. But the larger...
New Lies Forward (8680 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo Well it's a new year, and you know what that means... time to update the administration's list of stated reasons for it's...
The GOP's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Scam (9343 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo Traditional conservative, William F. Buckley was once asked how he would describe a “liberal.” He thought for...
Related Articles:
You and What Army? Bush Legions Starting to "Unravel" (15878 Hits)
Is it possible the largest and most advanced military in the history of the universe is ready to bust? According to General Barry McCaffrey (ret.)...
The Battle in Seattle (Looking Back Seven Years) (8257 Hits)
by Mickey Z. When activists made global headlines by essentially shutting down the meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in...
What Vote-Theft Conspiracy? (9467 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff, The big losers on Election Day were of course President Bush and the Republican Party, but there was another loser too: the...
What do we do now? (7872 Hits)
by Frank Pitz In the 1972 movie The Candidate, newly (and surprisingly) elected candidate Bill McKay – played by Robert Redford –...
So the Democrats Won – What About the American Empire? (10110 Hits)
by Shepherd Bliss The Democratic Party prevailed in the Nov. 7 midterm elections. "We’ve just moved out of a straightjacket," a...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (4)add comment

Richard Kastelein said:

Richard Kastelein
Nice work as usual. But something has been bugging me today. And I noticed that you kind of touched on it in your article.

I do agree with this statement you made - up until the end. Because I am not so sure that is the reason.

Muslimocracies view the non-Muslim world as their an enemy, and anyone within a Muslim nation who does not share that view, is viewed as a friend of their enemy. That is what got Bhutto killed today.

CNN International over here in Europe keeps telling me that it was a 'suicide' bomber (echoes of bloodthirsty Palestinians... if you know what I mean) and overtly implying that it was a terrorist (more images of islamofascist-osamas come to mind).

When in reality, what we have here was a bomb that, may or may have been strapped to a willing or unwilling soul that killed a political hot potato in Pakistan. Now they are even saying that perhaps her head was shot off before the bomb even exploded.

And who really benefited most from her death? Answer that and you will likely find out who killed her. And methinks it was probably motivated by other forces than the cave dwellers up north near the border with Afghanistan.

The press is climbing all over each other to blame the commies... no err.... I mean the Islamic extremists (or by de facto all Muslims). Even U.K. New Labour Poodle Gordon Brown attempted a limp moment of Churchillian-like rhetoric with talks of how the Islamic Fundies will never win in Pakistan... and never win on British soil. Therefore further validating New Labours draconian anti-terror legislation. Which by the way, makes the Patriot Act look the Magna Carta.
December 27, 2007
Votes: +0

Mike Gillespie said:

Is it not remarkably unrealistic to suggest that Western interventionism in the Middle East and Southwest Asia has no negative impact on the ability of Islam to adjust to "modernity"? I have to laugh when I hear Americans talk about modernity as if Western culture and politics were the acme of modernity, as if Old Testament Hebrew tribalism's promised land/chosen people ideology and theology did not undergird the neoconservative Jewish and Christian Zionist assault on the Middle East and Southwest Asia, just as it has been the theological and ideological underpinning of the march of Western conquest for centuries: http://www.mediamonitors.net/gillespie6.html

December 27, 2007
Votes: +0

Steve Pizzo said:

Response to Mike G.
I will not argue that US meddling in the region has been anything but harmful for all involved. But that hardly absolves Muslims of responsibility for their perennial problems as outlined in my piece. Having said that my solution should satisfy both of us, as it would remove US troops from Muslim lands and leave them to their own (non-nuclear) devices.


December 27, 2007
Votes: +0

John said:

Except for a brief period during the Taliban rule, the Sharia has not been implemented in recent decades anywhere in the Muslim lands. During the times it was implemented, Muslim civilisation and science and arts flourished. In Spain, Iraq, North Africa and elsewhere. Even Jewish culture blossomed most under the protection of the Sharia in Spain. When the Inquisition started, the Jews chose to move again under its protection in Morocco and under the Ottomans in Turkey. So also the Christians who were living peacefully for hundreds of years in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan. It's only in the last eighty years of so, when the Sharia is no longer implemented, that things have deteriorated in the Muslim countries.
Most Westerners get a very biased view of Islam. Perhaps due to the majority of media being in English produced by themeselves.
In another article you talk about greater regulation of those in power. This is precisely the reason the powers that be hate Islam, including the puppet rulers of the Arab nations. Even a cursory reading of early Islamic history will show you how the sharia checked the powers of the caliphate and its governors.
January 13, 2008
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123