Bhutto’s Assassination: Who Gains?
By F. William Engdahl,
January 4, 2008
Assassination of prominent political leaders,
presumably protected by the best security, is no easy thing. It requires agencies
of professional intelligence training to insure that the job is done and that
no person is caught alive who can lead to those behind. Typically, from the
assassination of Archduke Francis
Ferdinand in Sarajevo in July 1914 to
JFK, the person pulling the trigger is just an instrument of a far
deeper conspiracy. So too in the assassination on December 27th,
of Pakistani former Prime Minister,
Benazir Bhutto. Cui bono?.
What was behind the murder of Bhutto at the moment
her PPP party appeared about to win a resounding election victory in the
planned January 8 elections, thereby posing a mass-based challenge to the
dictatorial rule of President Musharraf?
Musharraf’s government was indecently quick to
blame “Al-Qaeda,” the dubious entity allegedly the organization of Osama bin
Laden, whom Washington accused for masterminding the September 11 2001 attacks.
Musharraf just days after,
declared he was “sure” Al Qaeda was the author, even though, on US pressure, he
has asked Scotland Yard to come and investigate. "I want to say it with
certainty, that these people (Al Qaeda) martyred ... Benazir Bhutto,"
Musharraf said in a Jan. 3 televised address. He named Baitullah Mehsud, a
militant tribal chief fighting the Pakistani Army, who has alleged ties to al-Qaeda
and the Afghan Taleban. Mehsud denied the charge. Had he been behind such a
dramatic event, the desired propaganda impact among militant islamists would
require taking open responsibility instead.
By linking the Bhutto killing to Al Qaeda, Musharraf conveniently gains several goals. First he reinforces the myth of Al Qaeda, something very useful to Washington at this time of growing global skepticism over the real intent of its War on Terrorism, making Musharraf more valuable to Washington. Second it gives Musharraf a plausible scapegoat to blame for the convenient elimination of a serious political rival to his consolidation of one-man rule.
Notable also is the fact that the Musharraf regime
has rejected making a routine autoposy on Bhutto’s body. Bhutto publicly
charged that the Government had refused to make followup inquiry after the
October bombing which nearly killed her and did 134 followers near her auto.
Bhutto accused Pakistani authorities of not providing her with sufficient
security, and hinted that they may have been complicit in the Karachi attack.
She also made clear in a UK television interview shortly before her death that
she would clean out the Pakistan military and security services of corrupt and
islamist elements. In the same David Frost interview, Bhutto also dropped the
explosive news that Omar Sheikh
had killed bin Laden some while back. (View video) That fact would
make the alleged Bin Laden terror videos periodically delivered to western
media clear as forgeries.
Days after the Bhutto killing, Pakistani
authorities published a photo alleged to be of the severed head of the suicide
bomber who killed Bhutto. Severed heads, like Lee Harvey Oswald don’t talk or
say embarrassing things.
It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney
administration has been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of
Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on
terrorism” across the region.
Who was Bhutto?
The Bhutto family was itself hardly democratic,
drawing its core from feudal landowning families, but opposed to the commanding
role of the army and ISI intelligence. Succeeding her father as head of the
PPP, Benazir declared herself "chairperson for life" — a position she
held until her death. Bhutto’s husband, Ali Zardari, “Mr. 10%,” is known in
Pakistan for his demanding a 10% cut from letting major government contracts
when Benazir was PM. In 2003, Benazir and her husband were convicted in
Switzerland of money laundering and taking bribes from Swiss companies as PM.
The family is allegedly worth several billions as a result. As prime minister
from 1993 to 1996, she advocated a conciliatory policy toward Islamists,
especially the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Harvard educated Benazir had close ties to US
and UK intelligence as well. She used the offices of neo-conservative US
Congressman Tom Lantos when she was in Washington according to our informed reports, one reason Vice President
Cheney backed her as a “safe” way to save his Pakistan strategic alliance in
face of growing popular protest against Musharraf’s declaring martial law last
year. The ploy was to have Bhutto make a face-saving deal with Musharraf to put
a democratic face on the dictatorship, while Washington maintained its
strategic control. According to the Washington Post of 28 Dec., “For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed
during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week
before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of
secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to
Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out
Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism. . . .As President Pervez
Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only
politician who might help keep him in power.”
In November, John Negroponte, former Bush
Administration Intelligence Czar and now Deputy Secretary of State was deployed
to Islamabad to pressure Musharraf to ease the situation by holding elections
and forming a power-sharing with Bhutto. But once in Pakistan, where her
supporters were mobilized, Bhutto made clear she would seek an election
coalition to openly oppose Musharraf and military rule in the planned
elections.
A cynical US-Musharraf deal?
Informed intelligence sources say there was a cynical
deal cut behind the scenes between Washington and Musharraf. Musharraf is known
to be Cheney’s preferred partner and Cheney we are told is the sole person
running US-Pakistan policy today.
Were Musharraf
to agree to stationing of US Special Forces inside Pakistan, “Plan B”, the
democratic farce with Bhutto could be put aside, in favor of the continued
Musharraf sole rule. Washington would “turn a blind eye.”
On Dec. 28, one day after the Bhutto assassination,
the Washington Post reported that in
early 2008, “US Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in
Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous
counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units,” under the US
Central Command and US Special Operations Command, a major shift in US
Pakistani ties. Until now Musharraf and his military have refused such direct
US control, aside from the agreement after September 11, extracted from
Musharraf under extreme pressure of possible US bombing, to give the US
military direct control of the Pakistan nuclear weapons.
The elimination of Bhutto leaves an opposition
vacuum. The country lacks a credible political leader who can command national
support, which leaves the military enhanced as an institution, with its
willingness to defend Musharraf on the streets. This gives the Pentagon and
Washington a chance to consolidate a military opposition to future Chinese
economic hegemony—the real geopolitical goal of Washington.