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

September 2016

Acceptable Losses

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Home

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Tennis Lessons

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Tearing Up the Map

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Land of Sod

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Only an Apocalypse Can Save Us Now

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
 
Andrew Cockburn on the Saudi slaughter in Yemen, Alan Jacobs on the disappearance of Christian intellectuals, a forum on a post-Obama foreign policy, a story by Alice McDermott, and more
Artwork by Ingo Günther
Article
Land of Sod·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Photograph by Mike Slack
Article
The Watchmen·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Illustration by John Ritter
Article
The Origins of Speech·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

"To Chomsky...every child’s language organ could use the 'deep structure,' 'universal grammar,' and 'language acquisition device' he was born with to express what he had to say, no matter whether it came out of his mouth in English or Urdu or Nagamese."
Illustration (detail) by Darrel Rees. Source photograph © Miroslav Dakov/Alamy Live News
Article
Acceptable Losses·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Photograph by Alex Potter

Chances that college students select as “most desirable‚” the same face chosen by the chickens:

49 in 50

Most of the United States’ 36,000 yearly bunk-bed injuries involve male victims.

In Italy, a legislator called for parents who feed their children vegan diets to be sentenced to up to six years in prison, and in Sweden, a woman attempted to vindicate her theft of six pairs of underwear by claiming she had severe diarrhea.

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