After its bitter defeat in Iraq, it is obvious that Al Qaeda’s new goal is to incite as much strife in Pakistan as possible, and murdering the former Prime Minister may be as incendiary as was the killing of Franz Ferdinand (murdered by an Islamist Serb) in sparking ‘The Great War’:

A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. “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. Bhutto had just addressed a pre-election rally on Thursday in the garrison town of Rawalpindi when the bomb went off.

Sowing the seeds of Civil War in Pakistan is exactly what AQ attempted to do when it murdered hundreds of fellow Muslims who committed the sin of praying at the Shiite Mosque in Samarra: AQ was less concerned with innocent Muslims it murdered than it was with doing whatever was necessary to maximize the chances of chaos and Civil War. Fortunately the surge has defeated them there, but Al Qaeda is still a dangerous enemy elsewhere. And they obviously are trying the same strategy in Pakistan, although it is worth mentioning that the bombing also helps the pro-Taliban opposition leader Nawaz Sharif enormously in his war against Musharraf (indeed, it would not surprise me if Sharif were involved somehow in the plot):

Bhutto’s death also makes former prime minister Nawaz Sharif Pakistan’s top opposition figure. Sharif has attempted to appeal to Islamic militants, arguing that Pakistan needs to pare down its cooperation with the United States. Sharif has already capitalized on Bhutto’s death, visiting the hospital where she was declared dead, blasting Musharraf for providing Bhutto with insufficient security, and calling for a reunification of Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party and his own Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz.

Here is the bottom line now: Under no circumstances can we abandon Musharraf the way Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran when the going got tough (and that worked out real well, didn’t it…). Of course, this is exactly what Al Qaeda is counting on, but withdraw our support now (unless we have already found another pro-American replacement…) would be to put scores of nukes directly into the hands of sworn enemies who have vowed to bring mass murder to as many American, European, and Israeli “Infidels” as possible. At that point a US military option against Pakistan cannot be overlooked. And at that point protecting our borders takes on a whole new ominous meaning. If the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda are able to topple Musharraf, the chances of nuclear war will be greater than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, it does beg the question: with the stakes as high as they are for the entire world, can the United States really afford to elect some rank amateur as President? God help us if we do. (NOTE: as an slight modification to VDH’s list, is being the wife of a President–who didn’t even have a security clearance–more important than strategic defense of American interests–and who like her husband has been getting illegal money from the Communist Chinese and Saudi Arabia–really count as “experience” that Americans would want in the Oval Office facing down our enemies in an Armaggedon scenario? I think not.)

Said Discerning Texan @ 2:05 am | Permalink   

1. Gavrilo Princip, the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was not an “Islamist Serb”. He wasn’t a Muslim–he belonged to a Yugoslavian nationalist group. History is interesting, you should take some time and learn about the past instead of making stuff up in the present.

   You write, “At that point a US military option against Pakistan cannot be overlooked.”

   Uh, exactly what sort of military option are you talking about? Pakistan at least plays at being a U.S. ally. Our military is stretched beyond the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s topography is so difficult that a man who engineered the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 has been able to survive there for six years. And, oh by the way, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Short of dropping hydrogen bombs all over Pakistan, what sort of military option is open to us?

   And anyone who looks to National Review Online and Ann Althouse for their opinions on world affairs is not to be taken seriously. Victor Davis Hanson…I mean, you gotta be kidding.

   Comment by yootoo — 12/28/2007 @ 2:54 am

---

2. I wholeheartedly agree with you on the point of experience — my greatest argument against electing Obama. But strangely, there are those who favor him because of his experience….hmmmmm…..

   Comment by mmebrady — 12/29/2007 @ 7:25 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website