« Lack of working memory to be the curse of 2008? | HomePage | Quality of Service and the Monopoly of Violence »

Thursday, December 27, 20071198773000

Uppity Muslim Woman Killed (Someone is surprised)

Robert Paterson thinks all is lost -- we're on the brink checkmated. (Zen has a more balanced summary.)

The cause of this suspicious death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who suffered bomb blasts and bullets. There's now a riot, possibly martial law, blah blah blah.

My question: Why is anyone surprised this happens in a Muslims country?



Broadly, most of the world "works." Aside from troublesome campesinos near the Andes and racist Pacific Islanders, if you are not in the continuous geographical Gap that stretches from the Cape of Good Hope to frontier of Russia, things are going pretty good for you. The chances of you becoming the victim of a suicide bomber, a mass rape, or good ol' fashioned genocide are remarkably small. Regularly there's really bad news from the Gap, such as a camapign of rape fully understandable by our chimpanzee ancestors or today's assassination of a talkative woman, but really, it doesn't effect our lives.

tdaxps_new_map_md


So, what next?

The Gap is actually composed of two distinct regions, an Islamic Gap in the later stages of civilizational collapse and an African Gap that never progressed far enough to collapse in the first place. We do not know how to pull off large-scale social engineering, but we do know that most of our attempts to do so have failed. So firewalling ourselves off from the Islamic Gap, doing what needs to be done while strictly limiting human migration from the Islamic Gap to the globalized core, is the best policy. Likewise, we should move away from what Muslim allies we have, as seen in American and Chinese movements away from Pakistan and toward India.

The African Gap, by contrast, needs large-scale engagement. A complete lack of inftrascuture means major opportunities -- both for profit and for power -- for those able to impose such an infrastructure.

Comments

Dan,

It isn't that we are surprised, but more that we are looking for what comes next. Bhutto's death is not a surprise because militants had promised to kill her should she return to Pakistan. Add to that the fact that she allied herself with Musharraf, and her list of enemies increases exponentially, including Musharraf himself, who as you noted in Soob's blog likely was responsible through an act of omission, as in not supplying her with enough security, a constant complaint of hers.

As for firewalling ourselves from the Islamic Gap, I think Barnett has argued that such a move will not work since the pain will eventually make it to our shores.

Posted by: NYkrinDC | Thursday, December 27, 2007

Is the idea to allow the Islamic Gap to finally implode to the level of the African gap and then rebuild?

I'm not sure our relationship with India (or China for that matter) would allow us to simply firewall Pakistan. Maybe sans nukes but as it stands...

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Thursday, December 27, 2007

Oh and I agree, her death comes as little surprise. In fact I'm surprised it took so long. Sounds pretty cold but there it is.

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Thursday, December 27, 2007

The National-Secular-Socialist wave in the Muslim world seems to have lasted from the 1940s to the 1970s, with minimal gains made into the 1990s.

Thus, it seems that truly bad ideas in the Muslim world take two generations to discredit themselves.

We can wait out Islamism for a similar time period, while we concentrate on the softer target of Africa for integration.

NYkrinDC,

Of course the pain will reach our shores. Sadly, the sort of renching social reform the Muslim world needs will increase the generated pain in the near and medium term. We need to make sure the feedback of the Muslim world goes back into the muslim world, and isn't allowed to export itself to us.

Jay,

I'm not sure it's possible for the muslim world to lose enough infrastructure to fall to African levels. Frankly, I doubt it. Fortunately, all we need to do is wait out the current really bad idea (and keep doing so until they stabilize in some form of corrupt system that we can work with.)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, December 27, 2007

I'm not sure how much her death has to do with her gender - my guess is that it was all politics. Plenty of men in political office are assassinated as well.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, December 27, 2007

"but really, it doesn't effect our lies."

Interesting typo, that.

Posted by: Dan McIntosh | Thursday, December 27, 2007

Adrian,

"I'm not sure how much her death has to do with her gender - my guess is that it was all politics."

Why are sex and politics distinct categories?

Dan,

LOL! I guess that was the first Freudian skepticism-of-public-diplomacy Slip! :-)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, December 27, 2007

Well you seem to be suggesting she was assassinated because her killers were offended that women are involved in politics. I think even if Bhutto was male, she'd have been killed for her pro-Western image.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, December 27, 2007

"Well you seem to be suggesting she was assassinated because her killers were offended that women are involved in politics. I think even if Bhutto was male, she'd have been killed for her pro-Western image."

Why is it either/or?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, December 27, 2007

I haven't seen anyone suspect Nawaz Sharif yet: I wonder why?

Posted by: Michael | Friday, December 28, 2007

"I haven't seen anyone suspect Nawaz Sharif yet: I wonder why?"

Make Sharif wasn't the one doing the hard work making sure that Bhutto was disarmed and unguarded? :-p


[1] http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2007/12/mrs-bhutto---se.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, December 30, 2007

True, but he did have contacts with the Taliban and with Saudi Arabia. Through those, he may have been able to arrange for security reductions via those fundamentalists Musharraf hadn't yet driven from the ISI and other security forces.

He was also had bad relations with both Bhutto and Musharraf, and has apparently benefited from the current situation.

I'm not saying he did do it, just that ability and motive both seem to be there. If we aren't willing to let go of our suspicions of Musharraf, we probably should forget to suspect Sharif as well.

Posted by: Michael | Sunday, December 30, 2007

Michael,

"I'm not saying he did do it, just that ability and motive both seem to be there. If we aren't willing to let go of our suspicions of Musharraf, we probably should[n't] forget to suspect Sharif as well."

Why is Sharif a more likely suspect than Musharraf?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, December 30, 2007

Sharif stands to gain from Bhutto's demise, politically. As we're seeing Mush gains little even if one considers the prospect of martial crackdown in light of civil unrest. However the policies and decisions of Mush as of late are looking more like Robert Mugabe than, say, Lee Kuan Yew. Machiavelli would not be proud. In this respect what "makes sense" and what transpired are likely to be two completely different events. Add to this the bizarre claims that Bhutto's death came about from her bumping her head on the moonroof lever as opposed to the pistol wielding fellow caught on tape and I'm inclined to lay some degree of complicity at the feet of Mush.

As you say, Dan, LIHOP.

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Monday, December 31, 2007

Post a comment