COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

'Almost Certainly Al Qaeda'

A Pakistan analyst discusses who killed Benazir Bhutto and what her death will mean for Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto Dies

 
Sponsored by
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

Bruce Riedel, a former defense and intelligence official who helped make South Asia policy in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, says he believes Benazir Bhutto's assassination "was almost certainly the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's Pakistani allies." He says, "Their objective is to destabilize the Pakistani state, to break up the secular political parties, to break up the army so that Pakistan becomes a politically failing state in which the Islamists in time can come to power much as they have in other failing states." He says the United States should press the government of President Pervez Musharraf to go ahead with the parliamentary elections—perhaps after a brief pause. "The only way that Pakistan is going to be able to fight terrorism effectively is to have a legitimate democratically elected secular government that can rally the Pakistani people to engage Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist movements," he says.

Let's start with an obvious question. In the aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, who do you think was responsible?
It was almost certainly the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's Pakistani allies. Al Qaeda has been trying to kill Ms. Bhutto for decades. She has been the target of assassination attempts by Al Qaeda before. They were most likely responsible for the attack on her when she first returned to Pakistan. Their objective is to destabilize the Pakistani state, to break up the secular political parties, to break up the army so that Pakistan becomes a politically failing state in which the Islamists in time can come to power, much as they have in other failing states where Al Qaeda knows its chances for success are higher.

There is supposed to be a parliamentary election on January 8, two weeks away. What will happen? Will they be postponed?
There is a good chance that President Pervez Musharraf will postpone the election, at least temporarily, in part to give Ms. Bhutto's party, the PPP [Pakistan People's Party], a chance to select a new front-runner and to organize itself. If he tries to postpone the election indefinitely, or to in effect shelve them, there will be a very strong backlash in Pakistan because Pakistanis across the political spectrum want an opportunity for elections to produce a new, more legitimate government. I don't think they would find the argument that terrorists killed a leading figure in the democratic movement an appropriate excuse to shelve democracy. We will see soon how Musharraf acts. I hope he will adhere to the principle of elections with a date certain, even if they are postponed temporarily to give the Pakistan People's Party a chance to reorganize.

Do they have an obvious replacement for her?
This party was very much Ms. Bhutto's party. There is no heir apparent on the horizon. They have a significant problem. This might be a boon to the other secular parties, including the one run by Nawaz Sharif. Sharif is clearly not seeking to be elected through this kind of tragedy. He has been an advocate of elections with all political parties running.

Does President Musharraf have a political party?
President Musharraf has a party. It is a splinter of the Sharif party, the Pakistani Muslim League [PML-N]. By most accounts and most polls, [Musharraf's] party will come in very poorly in this election. There is a widespread feeling among Pakistanis that the Musharraf dictatorship has gone on too long. A recent poll (PDF) by the International Republican Institute shows somewhere around two-thirds of Pakistanis would like to see Musharraf step down and give up power now. It [also] suggests that in a fair election, the opposition parties are likely to do very well. But because they are divided, it was unlikely and it remains unlikely that any single opposition party will have a majority in the new national assembly—there would have to be coalition building.

Would the PPP have won outright?
I don't think it would have won a clear majority, but no one knows. Of course another factor is that no election in Pakistani history has ever been entirely free and fair. Every Pakistani election has been tainted by widespread allegations of fraud. It had been expected, even by Ms. Bhutto, that the elections would be tainted by fraud. The question was always going to be whether the level of political machination and rigging of the election would be beyond the pale—that is, so gross and massive that no one would take the election results seriously—or be within the norm of Pakistani politics.

 
Discuss
Member Comments
  • Posted By: shaista @ 01/23/2008 11:53:38 PM

    Comment: You have rightly analyzed the situation and one thing you should to focus is that Musharaf is the Pakistani Mechile G.C and he make the country worst
    He make the army anti public
    destroy judiciary
    make parliment a rubber stamp
    make the administrative personalize
    and make the agencies role to protect him
    he make all the sources personalize not nationalized
    dam on suuch institutions who are responsible

  • Posted By: carladschuler @ 01/06/2008 3:00:33 PM

    Comment: Why did the Parade that came out in todays Sunday paper 1/6/2008 make it sound like Benazir Bhutto survived?

  • Posted By: kaneandabel @ 01/06/2008 8:29:27 AM

    Comment: Al Qaeda does not have its best interest in the killing Benazir under the current geo-political situation in Pakistan. On the contrary! The rise of Benezir and the expected tussel of power balance between her and Musshraf would mean a political scenario of weakness of central govt. in Pakistan and that is the best possible scenario for Al Qaeda to florish and strengthen its foot-hold in Pakistan. And Baitullah Mahsood is a genuine pashtun maverick - and like he said - he would not attack and kill a woman ( that would be not manly enough for a Pashtun's sense of chivalry). And if he did he would claim it so that he does not become lower ( in the eyes of his follower ) in the Pashtun sense of honour ( he rides a black horse to his battles; for god's sake!).,

    Musharraf would not directly order Benazirs killing, because smart that he is, he knows that the only way for his political survival was the American sponsored deal with Benezir to hold on to the power albait with reduced authority. But removing Benazir - and the inevitable rumour of claim that he was responsible - has removed the only sure leg, of the three pillars( the other two being thew Army and ISI) of his survival beyond the election. Having removed the judiciary (by force) and the current legislative coalition by their being seen as complicit for the destruction of democracy, Musharraf would not want to eliminite his own absolutely sure pillar ( that Benazir would have been post election) of the three. Why the Army and ISI not the sure pillars that all say are for Pakistan.

    So having taken out the possibilities of a sure motives for Al qaeda, Baitullah Mahsud - taliban, Musharraf and the Army; the ISI is the only plausable organisation that gave the orders to pull the trigger.

Sponsored by
 

 
PAKISTAN

How will Musharraf's decision to postpone Pakistan's elections affect the fortunes of Benazir Bhutto's political party?

 
 
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
NATIONAL SECURITY
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu