Washington Babylon — December 27, 2007, 12:19 pm

Pakistan: First Reaction from Wayne White

At this early stage it’s hard to gauge the fallout and implications of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but the impact will clearly be huge both in Pakistan and in regard to American relations with that country. The situation is disturbing. President Pervez Musharraf only recently lifted a state of emergency. With parliamentary elections scheduled for two weeks from now, opposition leaders Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, both former prime ministers, had agreed “to cooperate in some constituencies by not fielding candidates against each other, in a bid to defeat contenders from the Musharraf-backed party.”

Bhutto had strong support from some within the Bush administration because, as the New York Times summarized today, “she was openly critical of Mr. Musharraf’s ineffectiveness at dealing with Islamic militants and welcomed American involvement, unlike…Sharif.” The assassination, the story continued, “adds to the enormous pressure on the Bush Administration over Pakistan, which has sunk billions in aid into the country without accomplishing its main goals of finding Osama bin Laden or ending the activities of Islamic militants and Taliban in border areas with Afghanistan.” Pakistan has also figured in the U.S. presidential race. Just recently, Barack Obama said the U.S. should hunt down bin Laden in Pakistan, with or without Pakistani permission.

I called Wayne White, the former deputy director of the State Department’s Middle East and South Asia intelligence office, to ask for his thoughts on the issues. Our brief interview follows:

How will Bhutto’s assassination play out in regard to the parliamentary elections?
People will watch closely to see where her constituency goes and who it blames for her death. The assumption is that the assassin is an Islamic militant, but there will doubtless be conspiracy theories in Pakistan that blame Musharraf. If those theories take hold it could energize her base and move votes to her party or to [the party of] Nawaz Sharif, the only opposition figure left standing at this point. It’s bad news for Musharraf, which is another reason he probably had nothing to do with this. He was upset by the return of Bhutto and Sharif, but he’s not stupid. The last thing he would want to happen is for one of them to get killed. If he’s thought to be involved in this, it will erode his popularity and base.

How should the United States respond to Bhutto’s assassination?
The administration should stand back and see how things shake out. The best position right now is to not get involved in Pakistan’s internal politics. There is a strong and rising anti-American current over there, which should give us pause. To the extent that the United States signals support for anyone, it weakens that party. We should support the democratic process and not worry about the outcome as long as the winners are from Pakistan’s mainstream secular political class.

What is the best outcome?
Regardless of who wins the election, the best outcome is simply stability. That’s why calls for U.S. intervention in Pakistan, whether justified or not, are highly irresponsible. That fuels militant Islamic sentiment, which is a major force in Pakistan’s politics. The United States is never going to be satisfied with the level of support it gets from the government of Pakistan, because it’s just not politically possible for the government there to side too closely with us. What you want is political leadership with credibility in the country and that will press to the limits of what is possible. Any leader from the country’s political mainstream will do their best to keep a grip on security because terrorism threatens them as well as us. They will be predisposed to help us.

Sharif spoke outside of the hospital where Bhutto died. How do you think he feels about another secular leader being killed by Islamists? He is not going to be averse to cooperation on terrorism, even if he has to be somewhat evasive and secretive about it at times. We should ignore anti-American rhetoric on the part of political candidates, which is designed to win votes–just as much of U.S. election rhetoric should be ignored. Rhetoric won’t have an impact on actions taken after the elections, so ignore the rhetoric and count on the current ruling political class to secure an outcome with which the United States can live.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

June 2016

Trump’s People

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Old Man

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Long Rescue

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

New Television

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Improbability Party

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
Helen Ouyang on the cost of crowd-sourcing drugs, Paul Wood on Trump's supporters, Walter Kirn on political predictions, Sonia Faleiro on a man's search for his kidnapped children, and Rivka Galchen on The People v. O. J. Simpson.

The new docudrama The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story (FX) isn’t really about Orenthal James Simpson. It’s about the trials that ran alongside his — those informal, unboundaried, court-of-public-opinion trials in which evidence was heard for and against the murder victims, the defense and the prosecution, the judge, the jury, and the Los Angeles Police Department, to say nothing of white and black America. History has freed us from suspense about Simpson’s verdict, so that the man himself (played here by Cuba Gooding Jr.) is less the tragic hero he seemed in the mid-Nineties than a curiously minor character. He comes to the center of our attention only once, in Episode 2, at the end of the lengthy Ford Bronco chase scene — which in real life was followed by a surreal cavalcade of police cars and media helicopters, as well as an estimated 95 million live viewers — when Simpson repeatedly, and with apparent sincerity, apologizes for taking up so much of so many people’s time. It is an uncannily ordinary moment of social decorum, a sort of could-you-please-pass-the-salt gesture on a sinking Titanic, in which Simpson briefly becomes more than just an archetype.

Photograph (detail) © Eve Arnold/Magnum Photos
Article
Trump’s People·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

"All our friends are saying, load up with plenty of ammunition, because after the stores don’t have no food they’re gonna be hitting houses. They’re going to take over America, put their flag on the Capitol.” “Who?” I asked. “ISIS. Oh yeah.”
Photograph by Mark Abramson for Harper's Magazine (detail)
Article
The Long Rescue·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

He made them groom and feed the half-dozen horses used to transport the raw bricks to the furnace. Like the horses, the children were beaten with whips.
Photograph (detail) © Narendra Shrestha/EPA/Newscom
Article
The Old Man·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The new docudrama The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story (FX) isn’t really about Orenthal James Simpson. It’s about the trials that ran alongside his — those informal, unboundaried, court-of-public-opinion trials in which evidence was heard for and against the murder victims, the defense and the prosecution, the judge, the jury, and the Los Angeles Police Department, to say nothing of white and black America. History has freed us from suspense about Simpson’s verdict, so that the man himself (played here by Cuba Gooding Jr.) is less the tragic hero he seemed in the mid-Nineties than a curiously minor character. He comes to the center of our attention only once, in Episode 2, at the end of the lengthy Ford Bronco chase scene — which in real life was followed by a surreal cavalcade of police cars and media helicopters, as well as an estimated 95 million live viewers — when Simpson repeatedly, and with apparent sincerity, apologizes for taking up so much of so many people’s time. It is an uncannily ordinary moment of social decorum, a sort of could-you-please-pass-the-salt gesture on a sinking Titanic, in which Simpson briefly becomes more than just an archetype.

Illustration (detail) by Jen Renninger
Article
New Television·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

With its lens shifting from the courtroom to the newsroom to people’s back yards, the series evokes the way in which, for a brief, delusory moment, the O. J. verdict seemed to deliver justice for all black men.
Still from The People vs. OJ Simpson: American Crime Story © FX Networks

Amount an auditor estimated last year that Oregon could save each year by feeding prisoners less food:

$62,000

Kentucky is the saddest state.

An Italian economist was questioned on suspicion of terrorism after a fellow passenger on an American Airlines flight witnessed him writing differential equations on a pad of paper.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Mississippi Drift

By

Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'

Subscribe Today