Bhutto’s legacy
posted at 3:20 pm on January 2, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
David Warren knew her. Like Christopher Hitchens, his knowing her doesn’t create any desire to write a hagiography for her.
After her father’s “martyrdom” Bhutto became, from all reports, much more serious. But I think, also, twisted — and easily twisted, as the spoiled too easily become when they are confronted with tragedy. She became pure politician. Think of it: she, a libertine in previous life, submitted to an arranged marriage, because she needed a husband to campaign for office. Stood by him in power only because there was no other political option when he proved even greedier than she was.
Twisted, in a nearly schizoid way. For she was entirely Westernized, but also Pakistani. She thought in English, her Urdu was awkward, her “native” Sindhi inadequate even for giving directions to servants. Part of her political trick, in Pakistan itself, was that she sounded uneducated in Urdu. This is as close as she got to being “a woman of the people.”
Read the whole thing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Now, does that sound like somebody, or, does that sound like somebody?
OhEssYouCowboys on January 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM
So the unraveling of St. Benazir continues. The sad thing is that like Mubarak in Egypt, the alternatives are worse.
Hilts on January 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Ouch.
amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Let the piling on begin!
swami on January 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Bhutto is dead…business as usual for the islamic rage machine…
I giveth not a shite
Ochlan on January 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM
A sham marriage of political convenience; twisted by the lust for power at all costs; sounding absurdly stilted when she tries to act like “common folk”; incapable of even the barest civil communication with her underlings…
Man, we’re sure lucky we live in a country where no woman like that could ever take control!
logis on January 2, 2008 at 3:33 PM
We should have started the war on terror with Pakistan. Musharraf is incapable of leading a ‘war on terror’ and maintaining diplomatic viability. Their military is weak and they sympathize with our enemies.
Pakistan won’t get better unless we intervene. But it will be a pre-emptive war. We should just wage all out war on the tribal regions and tell Musharraf that he’s had his chance to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda himself. If they can’t beat the Taliban, they can’t beat the US military. He is complicit in the Kashmir region just as he is complicit in the tribal areas. His mantra is ‘we don’t help, but we support their cause philosophically’. Only India realizes that it is a pack of lies.
We should not have allowed Pakistani troops to ‘help’ us secure Tora Bora when we should have captured and killed Bin Laden had we done the whole task ourselves.
Bottom line, I hate that Pakistan is getting so much attention because they deserve none. Their only chance at becoming a modern society is if we clean house.
ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Maybe; but could anyone possibly be sure about that?
The most bizarre aspect of this whole situation (and that’s saying a Hell of a lot) is that the same people who screamed like banshees in protest of America’s horrible audacity in removing Saddam Hussein and the Baathists from control of the most overtly Anti-American government in the Middle East are now screaming just as loud about how we should kick asses and take names over – uh, whatever the Hell just happened – in one of the few Middle Eastern nations we can at least try to call an ally.
logis on January 2, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Nothing is as bad as RALPH PETERS op-ed the other day…Well, she certainly was no saint, but still…a driving force behind the idea of a Democratic Pakistan.
JetBoy on January 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM
No wonder she and Hillary were such good friends.
MT on January 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM
The quote doesn’t quite work… Shouldnt that be; “…when She proved even greedier than He was…”?
I mean, that’s how it is with the Clintons.
heldmyw on January 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Now if we can just convince Hillary there is a Pakistani primary…
DANEgerus on January 2, 2008 at 4:00 PM
The thing is, I’m not sure even that’s accurate. Her tenure and Sharif’s together were when Pakistan helped the Taliban take over Afghanistan, and they both exported jihadists to Chechnya, Afghanistan etc. And, her own party isn’t democratically operated. I’m not sure that there is a viable character on the scene in Pakistan who is committed to real democratization. I’m not saying that there isn’t, just that I’m not convinced that Bhutto was a democrat so much as just a hereditary ruler with the trappings of democracy about her.
Bryan on January 2, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Bryan, you posted this but what I have to say applies equally to Allahpundit and the rest of the HotAir crew.
This kind of information is why I read HotAir. David Warren’s profile is an important perspective on a very important story. But I never would have found it on my own, nor am I at all confident that CNN or NBC or my local newpaper would have run the story.
Thanks for the work you do for us.
Anton on January 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM
OhEss:
LOL! That’s probably why Hillary got the number of Bhutto’s children wrong — they just weren’t gabbing about motherhood in those heart-to-hearts from year to year.
JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Well, the more I read about Bhutto, the less the “saint” she appears…but I doubt she supported the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan because of their terrorist support.
Perhaps her government at the time was less-than-100% uncorrupt, but still…while she returned to Pakistan in the weeks before her assassination, she was pro-Democracy, and at the least, pro-West, and that’s what is in our best interest in that part of the world.
JetBoy on January 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The Taliban take over of Afghanistan was not viewed at the time the way it is today. Then, after many years of butchery and civil war following the Soviet (and American) pullout, the Taliban emerged as the lesser of all evils. Pakistan backed them in large part, for that reason – it didn’t hurt that they were “pious” as were (are) many in the ISI at the time. A great book about that period is Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.
TheBigOldDog on January 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Unintended consequences. I might add that the U.S. did it’s share in helping the Afghani jihadis clear the Russians out and create the vacuum eventually filled by the Taliban, though there was some time delay, IIRC. More of them pesky consequences. Lesser of two evils at the time. But, she sure didn’t think democratic principles applied to the PPP if she willed leadership to her son.
a capella on January 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Oops. My previous post appears to be a redundancy of the post I quoted. Sorry.
a capella on January 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Good one
oldernslower on January 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Bryan:
“….I’m not convinced that Bhutto was a democrat so much as just a hereditary ruler with the trappings of democracy about her.”
The official ascendency of her 17 year old son — under the patently corrupt aegis of his father — speaks volumes in that regard. The so-called “Lawyers” seem the most nominally democratic faction, but they lack a natural power base/constituency of their own. Unfortunately the “rule of law” so critical to stability outside of outright dictatorship, is sufficiently abstract to make it a tough sell when your competition is charismatic leadership.
I would be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater though. It’s possible that in many parts of the world some form of “tribal democracy” may be a positive interim step which allows the foundations of democratic governance to be laid. It’s interesting to me that in Iraq, the assassination of the (tribal) leader of the Anbar awakening did not result in an immediate reversion to the kind of (mindless) violence which plagues the political process from Pakistan to, alas, now Kenya.
I wonder if the ultimate lesson of our potential success in Iraq might be that even fellow muslims, like Sunni & Shia, need the meeting ground that secular government and institutions provide in order to thrive. I think perhaps Sistani understands that which is a singular bright spot, because I’ve begun to believe that such recognition is simultaneously the hardest to reconcile with the political ramifications of sharia and the key to lasting democratization in large swaths of the world.
JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM
When I posit “tribal democracy” perhaps the concept of constitutional monarchy might be a handy reference point.
JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Paging the 1920s
- The Cat
MirCat on January 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I agree. More of this kind of stuff needs to get out there.
Jezla on January 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM
There has never been real Democracy in Pakistan…ever. It’s governing structure was adopted by the Indian Muslims who demanded a chunk of India be given over for Muslims to rule exclusively*when Britain left. Pak Democracy was a British vestige quickly Islamised into something not democratic at all.
Pakistan’s most stable periods were under military dictatorship as is so often the case in any given “$hitholistan” of the repressed Caliphate. It would be folly to try to learn how to juggle Pakistani turds even though it can be done (Iraq).
You have NO friends there, just smiles with open palms. There is nothing to build with or on.
Take out their nukes and do what needs to be done in the northwest and nothing else. Pakistan was and is irredeemable because of Islam.
*like giving a piece of Serbia away to European Muslims.
BL@KBIRD on January 3, 2008 at 2:18 AM
I looked at her like Winnie Mandela. Both were feted by the leftist old hen brigade. Bhutto might have been more westernized than Mandela, at least in running to the west to take cover
entagor on January 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Comment pages: