Drone War on Pakistan Parallels Nixon's Bombing of Cambodia

This article should give pause on the latest strategy in the so-called War on Terror, Pakistan Front, involving the use of drones as a military tactic - in a country, Pakistan, against which we have not declared war:

Like President Obama today, Nixon had come to power promising stability in an age of unrest and with a vague plan to bringing peace to a nation at war. On the day he was sworn in, he read from the Biblical book of Isaiah: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks." He also spoke of transforming Washington’s bitter partisan politics into a new age of unity: "We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another, until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices.

Sound familiar? The description of Nixon's bombing of Cambodia, ostensibly to "target" the "headquarters" of enemies bent on "harming Americans" sounds just like Obama's drone war in Pakistan - both, notably, targeted areas inhabited by civilians, both were against a nation against whom we were not at war in order to target a supposed leadership of a supposed group against whom we were at war...

In the late 1960s, Cambodia was ruled by a “neutralist” king, Norodom Sihanouk, leading a weak government that had little relevance to its poor and barely educated citizens. In its borderlands, largely beyond its control, the North Vietnamese and Vietcong found “sanctuaries.”

But it gets worse, if the comparison is taking to its ultimate conclusion.

In the meantime, sheltered by local villagers in distant areas of rural Cambodia was a small insurgent group, little-known communist fundamentalists who called themselves the Khmer Rouge. (Think of them as the 1970s equivalent of the Pakistani Taliban who have settled into the wild borderlands of that country largely beyond the control of the Pakistani government.) They were then weak and incapable of challenging Sihanouk -- until, that is, those secret bombing raids by American B-52s began. As these intensified in the summer of 1969, areas of the country began to destabilize (helped on in 1970 by a U.S.-encouraged military coup in the capital Phnom Penh), and the Khmer Rouge began to gain strength.

Ahhh, the drone war, if this analogy works, could lead to a Taliban strengthening, perhaps a win, or a new killing field...

Just to get the idea, think about how the invasion of Iraq became a motivating tool for Al-Qaeda in Iraq (not to mention elsewhere). Think about how the American drone attacks on civilians in Afghanistan alienated those civilians. And think about how drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan could alienate Pakistani civilians, living under a weak ruler in an unstable political environment, where things are going not-so-good. Then look at history:

Like the Taliban of today, many of the Khmer Rouge were, in fact, teenaged villagers who had responded, under the pressure of war and disruption, to the distant call of an inspirational ideology and joined the resistance in the jungles.

If you ask me why I joined the Khmer Rouge, the main reason is because of the American invasion," Hun Sen, the current prime minister of Cambodia, has said. "If there was no invasion, by now, I would be a pilot or a professor."

What's worse was of course the Khmer Rouge's genocide of its own population, starting with enemy number one, those who are educated. It's a sort of war of resentment. And who do you think the Taliban would want to eliminate first? Then ask, does the war in Pakistan, conducted, like Nixon's "Operation Breakfast", at arm's length in the cold, dispassionate, calculating distance of the gamer (referred to commonly as strategist) where human lives don't bleed in your face...is that drone-safe war really a war on terror? Or a seed? Is it, in reality, the instigator, the generator of terror?

Are we really fighting a war on terror? Or are we just playing with guns, posturing for political - international and domestic - power, and in the process victimizing all the soldiers involved in one big, testesterone-fueled, destructive, destabilizing, demoralizing, planet-threatening, hope-and-change-eliminating, peace-blasting runaway train to hell?

Benazir Played Miss Congeniality III: Unarmed & Endangered

Benazir Bhutto's assassination was easy to predict: in fact, her survival, both politically and physically, was something of a dark horse. With many enemies and no army, strong pro-US anti-terrorist rhetoric right in the heart of Al-Qaeda Country, and without any political clout except being the titular head of a political party that was not really in the running, she had no one watching her back except the remote-control promises of a maligned superpower (with the Oh-so-trustworthy Bush administration), and her old nemesis, Pervez Musharraf who only allowed her back in Pakistan under U.S. pressure. By her own account:

"There was one suicide squad from the Taleban elements, one suicide squad from al-Qaeda, one suicide squad from Pakistani Taleban and a fourth – a group, I believe, from Karachi,” she said.

So why did the geniuses at Bushco put her up to it? Her gushing, smiling interviews before her "triumphant" return to Pakistan gave her the innocent look of a True Believer. I asked myself, "Does she actually believe this war on terror crap? Does she really think the United States is trying to bring democracy to Pakistan? She looks for all the world like she really does..."

Bhutto was the perfect answer to America's public relations disaster in Pakistan - our Great White Hope for a Democratic Pakistan. A disarming - but not demilitarizing - smile, general good looks, a woman who is nonetheless Muslim, she has name recognition, a following, a way with words (first female president of prestigious Oxford's Debate Club) ... what more could she ask for?

Blackwater, for one thing. But Musharraf wouldn't allow Blackwater to operate in Pakistan, leaving Benazir at the mercy of rivalvMusharraf, with those sticky fingers in the Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Islamist pie...

Bhutto was "immortalized" in Pakistani newspapers, such as this article:

Benazir Bhutto embraced martyrdom and was immortalized just like her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as another tragedy struck the unfortunate Bhutto family.She is the fourth Bhutto dying in violent circumstances.

She was killed in the same town where her father was executed 28 years ago, in an area

"... outside the Liaquat Bagh, the same park where Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead not long after the country’s independence. ... Liaquat Bagh, named after Liaquat Ali Khan, has in a way become a tragic place where participants of public rallies have been often attacked and killed and two prime ministers lost their lives in violent circumstances."

With a family known for being on the receiving end of death plots, you couldn't say she didn't know she was putting herself in harm's way. It took much cajoling and reassurance from Condi Rice to convince her to come back. Rice, too, was fully aware of the danger to Ms. Bhutto in this high-stakes, high-risk gamble. Ultimately, her love of the adulation of crowds and the high-end perks of power, combined with her trusting attitude towards American assurances, led to her "dark horse" going down.

According to earlier reports:

Benazir made the fatal mistake to come out of the sun-roof, deciding to wave to the crowd, and was shot.

You wouldn't catch Musharraf standing up in a van - he's a survivor, not a Bhutto. And he has the military, the executive power, and the conniving to back up his own security against repeated assassination attempts. He now stands accused of being either behind the Bhutto murder or deliberately laissez fair in her security. Now he's also accused of a coverup, which lends more credence to the murder plot innuendoes. Why else would he try to deny the gunman's hand and point at the suicide bomber?

The initial reports of Ms Bhutto having been killed by a gunman's bullets to her head and neck were changed later by officials in the Mubarak regime to state that the suicide bomb blast caused her to hit her head, causing her death. But new video released by nbc news shows that the official line could NOT have been the case, and that the gunman is the actual assassin who killed Benazir Bhutto. This, of course, only inflames the Pakistani public further against Musharraf.

Even before this responsibility claim was supposedly released from al-Qaeda:

"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

Bush was already pinning the tail on the donkey:

"The US strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

Of course, we all know "extremists" by name. Then why, now, are those dastardly al-Qaeda folks denying it? The Musharraf government had even named the al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mehsud, who now publicly states it would be against his tribal traditions to kill a woman, and that he had nothing to do with it. Speaking on behalf of al-Qaeda - and who in that shadowy world doesn't? - and the Taliban - or more precisely, a recently formed Pakistani version of same - he claims

"This was a well-planned conspiracy carried out by the intelligence agencies, army and government for their own political motives," he said.

So who speaks on behalf of whom? Who really killed Benazir? Check out the above video for the photo of the guy. As for who put Benazir in harm's way, we should look beyond UBL, America's favorite anti-Christ, and a little closer to home... like that bumbling, foreign-policy wizard, the one who thinks the so-called war on terror is a great idea, a guy also known as W ...

Who assassinated Benazir Bhutto?

Sometimes, numbers convey a strange sense of fatefulness. Just 12 days before the election, Benazir Bhutto is assassinated by a suicide bomber/gunman, who also took out at least 30 others on his way to his own death. In the same square where 2 other Pakistani prime ministers were also killed. It was 12-27-2007. She was 54 years old.

According to this report from the Hindustan Times,

After the major candidates from the region made their speeches, she spoke. I have heard many of her speeches and this was perhaps one of her finest, not in terms of the content but for her exemplary delivery. She mostly talked about her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and his achievements and avoided dwelling upon the current political situation in the country. She especially avoided criticizing President Musharraf. She did not name any of her opponents, but instead called them ‘political orphans’.

Later, her own trusting nature and political sense led to her death:

Benazir made the fatal mistake to come out of the sun-roof, deciding to wave to
the crowd, and was shot. The suicidal bomber then blew himself up.

Benazir Bhutto died in the hospital after almost an hour of desperate, but futile surgery.

She was "immortalized" in Pakistani newspapers, such as this article:

Benazir Bhutto embraced martyrdom and was immortalized just like her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as another tragedy struck the unfortunate Bhutto family.She is the fourth Bhutto dying in violent circumstances.

PPP founder Mr Bhutto was executed in 1979 after being deposed by General Ziaul Haq in a military coup. His execution was later termed as judicial murder and one of the judges, Justice Nasim Hassan Shah, who was on the bench that tried him on murder charges conceded sometime back that the court’s verdict was a mistake.

Benazir Bhutto’s brothers Shahnawaz Bhutto and Murtaza Bhutto were killed in mysterious circumstances. Shahnawaz, younger of the two, died in France while Murtaza was gunned down outside his family home in Karachi’s posh Clifton locality. Their killers never got punished.
...
Ironically, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in the same city, Rawalpindi, where her father was executed 28 years ago. He was hanged at the Adiala jail ...(but) she was assassinated outside the Liaquat Bagh, the same park where Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead not long after the country’s independence. ... Liaquat Bagh, named after Liaquat Ali Khan, has in a way become a tragic place where participants of public rallies have been often attacked and killed and two prime ministers lost their lives in violent circumstances.

She was matchless as her name, Benazir, which could be roughly translated as someone without parallel.

And this report mentions "A suicide attacker, who was reportedly riding a motorcycle, then detonated his explosives, killing up to 30 people and injuring 60 others."

Bush, of course, has already stated his opinion:

"The US strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

There are reports in the West stating that it's the work of Al-Qaida. Just the shot in the arm we need for the war on terror to jumpstart in the hearts of America? Not by a long shot.

This is all we need to destabilize Pakistan, the Islamic world, and change the dynamics of the so-called war on terror, from a war against the notorious al-Qaida to a war of chaos, of ever-shifting factions against one another. Who can claim this was not the work of the also-notorious Musharraf?

Apparently, Al-Qaeda did claim responsibility.

"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October. Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

Those guys sure are brilliant. Whatever it is they're fighting for, it's not an Islamic state, for sure. Bhutto may have been an "American asset", but the alternative, which they now have, is the old standby, military dictatorship. So where's the "power to the people" and "anti-oppression" line they've trumped up? Benazir, for her part, practically set herself up for assassination by linking up with the U.S. & all its oppressive baggage while trumpeting, "I'm going to wipe out the extremists!" Brilliant for martyrdom, idiotic for survival.

And at any rate, one thing is certain. Any leader tied to the United States is sure to be targeted. American alliance is also the kiss of death. And the only ones who can survive that deadly embrace are ruthless dictators like Musharraf, Hosny Mubarak, and the autocratic but less ostentatiously ruthless King Abdullah and his royal clan of Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, it's the people of those nations we "embrace" who suffer.

So much for the idea that the "war on terror" is somehow pro-democracy. That's the "passion play" du jour but in reality it's the direct opposite. Maybe Benazir's death should give us fair warning that if we want democracies, we ourselves should act like one. Start with letting other nations run their own affairs. Without, please, more invasions.

As for the terrorists, why did they only target Benazir, if Musharraf is also an enemy of terrorists, as the U.S. is fond of broadcasting? Because she was more... well, democratic. Yet she espoused that "war on terror" line quite openly. She really believed that passion play. But her failure to address what "terrorism" is really all about - her mimicking of the Bush line that we simply have to "fight the extremists" - thus playing into the extremists' hands rather than playing them for fools - exposed her to their ever-present plots. Like standing up for the crowds, knowing full well her killer could be out there. If only someone in Pakistan would see ... dialogue always trumps rhetoric. If only a democratic leader could gain power - while standing up without America in the wings. If only America would stop inventing wars.

Here's a taste of life under an Emperor. We can be put in jail for not paying taxes. $10 billion of those taxes can be given unconditionally to a dictator in a far-away country, say, Pakistan, because Dick and George say they get it. And there ain't a damn thing you or Congress or anyone else can do about it. Because now it's Dick and George's money.

According to the Washington Post article:

U.S. assistance to the key anti-terrorism and nuclear armed ally _ which has totaled nearly $10 billion since 2001 _ is governed by legislative requirements that could trigger automatic aid cutoffs, but all are covered by locked-in presidential waivers, said officials familiar with a government-wide review.

Those waivers exempt Pakistan from aid restrictions.

If you look closely, you'll find a lot of those waivers. And Presidential directives. And signing statements. And there ain't a damn thing you or the Congress or anyone else can do about it. Because Dick wants George to be an Emperor, and y'all to be an Empire. An expensive enterprise, that. So far in human history, there's no nation that could ever really afford it.

Being an empire inevitably costs more than any one nation can produce, and its subjected sub-nations invariably hate the imposition, which usually leads to unrest, often civil war, and as long as it's an empire and handled militarily, rarely offers those riches and resources so desired by the invading powers.

So Pakistan, run by a military dictatorship, is actually "on the road to democracy"? And guess who's footing the bill for that democracy?

"Bush has been obligated by law since 2002 to issue waivers for most assistance to Pakistan, declaring that direct payments to Islamabad are in the U.S. national interest because they promote the transition to democratic rule. The officials familiar with the aid review conceded Musharraf's recent actions are at odds with the process of democratization but noted that unless Congress enacts new legislation or passes the new budget, the existing waivers continue to apply."

And the war in Iraq is also touted for promoting democracy. That's the whole point.

Building an empire. Democracy by force. And you pay ... or else...