Comments on: EDITORIAL: The knot of uncertainty tightens http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/ ... with attention to the unseen Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:49:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Paul Woodward http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/comment-page-1/#comment-1046 Paul Woodward Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:19:57 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/#comment-1046 It's never my intention to contribute to speculative hysteria. The point of my speculation here was merely to point out that alternative narratives are both possible and plausible. Syed Saleem Shahzad prides himself on the quality of his Taliban and al Qaeda sources and it doesn't surprise me that he's reporting that "Bhutto's assassination was without doubt al-Qaeda's most successful operation in the region." But the fact that some jihadists want to claim this as a success is to be expected and in and of itself doesn't prove anything. The fact that someone blew themselves up at the time that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated provides strong evidence that this plot involved jihadists. The actions of Pakistani government officials -- destroying forensic evidence, silencing doctors, concocting bogus stories about the cause of her death -- all provide ample reason why Musharraf's government, his intelligence services, and the Pakistani military can all be viewed with suspicion. This is a murky story and we may never know who was actually responsible. Even so, there is an important contest here between competing priorities. Should Americans be looking at Pakistan as a central front in the war on terrorism, or, should we be more concerned about the administration's role in undermining democracy? The assumption for the last seven years is that democracy had to take second place behind security. The result has been neither. It’s never my intention to contribute to speculative hysteria. The point of my speculation here was merely to point out that alternative narratives are both possible and plausible. Syed Saleem Shahzad prides himself on the quality of his Taliban and al Qaeda sources and it doesn’t surprise me that he’s reporting that “Bhutto’s assassination was without doubt al-Qaeda’s most successful operation in the region.” But the fact that some jihadists want to claim this as a success is to be expected and in and of itself doesn’t prove anything.

The fact that someone blew themselves up at the time that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated provides strong evidence that this plot involved jihadists. The actions of Pakistani government officials — destroying forensic evidence, silencing doctors, concocting bogus stories about the cause of her death — all provide ample reason why Musharraf’s government, his intelligence services, and the Pakistani military can all be viewed with suspicion.

This is a murky story and we may never know who was actually responsible. Even so, there is an important contest here between competing priorities. Should Americans be looking at Pakistan as a central front in the war on terrorism, or, should we be more concerned about the administration’s role in undermining democracy? The assumption for the last seven years is that democracy had to take second place behind security. The result has been neither.

]]> By: Anthony J. Van Patten http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/comment-page-1/#comment-1041 Anthony J. Van Patten Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:37:59 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/#comment-1041 Mr. Woodward I think you have violated your own implied restrictions: "What his handlers hadn’t told him was that as soon as he completed his mission, a jihadist foot soldier — unknown to the gunman — was going to make sure that the assassin would never tell his tale." Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that the shooter did not know he was to be blown up, or that the bomber was unknown to him, there is absolutely no evidence that the bomber, even if a military man, was not the agent of a group whose allegiance was not primarily Islamist rather than Pakistani military. There are many good reasons to dispatch a team of a bomber and a shooter, even if well known to each other, and mutually understanding of their respective rolls. Wearing dark glasses is a habit of many faux-macho policemen in this country. There is no reason that those with similar human peculiarities would not be attracted to such goofy activities in Pakistan, regardless of political affiliation. A hitherto apparently reliable source from ATOL, a Mr. Shahzad, reported that a source told him that the killer, from their group, whether bomber or shooter, was a radical Islamist. I see no reason not to tend to believe him. I consider your site to be one of the most, and perhaps the most, responsible sites on these matters. As such I think it is incumbent on you not to contribute to the speculatve hysteria. Respectully and gratefully, Anthony J. Van Patten Mr. Woodward

I think you have violated your own implied restrictions: “What his handlers hadn’t told him was that as soon as he completed his mission, a jihadist foot soldier — unknown to the gunman — was going to make sure that the assassin would never tell his tale.”

Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that the shooter did not know he was to be blown up, or that the bomber was unknown to him, there is absolutely no evidence that the bomber, even if a military man, was not the agent of a group whose allegiance was not primarily Islamist rather than Pakistani military. There are many good reasons to dispatch a team of a bomber and a shooter, even if well known to each other, and mutually understanding of their respective rolls.

Wearing dark glasses is a habit of many faux-macho policemen in this country. There is no reason that those with similar human peculiarities would not be attracted to such goofy activities in Pakistan, regardless of political affiliation.

A hitherto apparently reliable source from ATOL, a Mr. Shahzad, reported that a source told him that the killer, from their group, whether bomber or shooter, was a radical Islamist. I see no reason not to tend to believe him.

I consider your site to be one of the most, and perhaps the most, responsible sites on these matters. As such I think it is incumbent on you not to contribute to the speculatve hysteria.

Respectully and gratefully,

Anthony J. Van Patten

]]> By: Russ Wellen http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/comment-page-1/#comment-1038 Russ Wellen Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:38:09 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/12/30/editorial-the-knot-of-uncertainty-tightens/#comment-1038 Thanks. So sick of hearing that guy Riedel quoted. Isn't the latest that low-ranking army officers pulled this off? Maybe thought they could curry favor with high-ranking officers, perhaps even Musharraf. From a UPI story (don't know how trustworthy): "One former CIA official told a Middle East Times source that, 'It's worrying when half of your lower or mid-level Pak intelligence analysts have bin Laden screen-savers on their computers.'" http://www.metimes.com/International/2007/12/31/intel_community_military_killed_bhutto/3547/ Thanks. So sick of hearing that guy Riedel quoted.

Isn’t the latest that low-ranking army officers pulled this off? Maybe thought they could curry favor with high-ranking officers, perhaps even Musharraf.

From a UPI story (don’t know how trustworthy): “One former CIA official told a Middle East Times source that, ‘It’s worrying when half of your lower or mid-level Pak intelligence analysts have bin Laden screen-savers on their computers.’”

http://www.metimes.com/International/2007/12/31/intel_community_military_killed_bhutto/3547/

]]>