

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Benazir Bhutto's murder increasingly resembles an Agatha Christie whodunit in which all the potential suspects look guilty as hell.
Pakistan's now civilian dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, pleads innocent. But his henchmen ordered the crime scene hosed down, destroyed evidence, and forced doctors who examined Benazir's body to make the preposterous claim a fall, not bullets, killed her.
On Oct. 23, days after the first attempt to kill Bhutto in Karachi, she told me she "suspected" the chief of a government security agency staged the bombing. She repeated to me accusations that two other high-ranking Punjabi government officials, one a chief minister, were out to kill her.
On Oct. 25, Bhutto told me her phones and e-mail were being tapped by Musharraf's security services. A week later, she e-mailed me, saying she feared imminent arrest. A week before her murder, she repeated by phone that Musharraf's supporters were gunning for her.
On Oct. 30, I sent a long e-mail to Bhutto that outlined a new political strategy for her Peoples Party. In it, I concluded, "for your public appearances, follow India's tight security measures for its prime minister. Consider new, lightweight body armour, Dragonskin." By phone, I warned of snipers.
The government accuses tribal militants belonging to Pakistan's Taliban. But they strongly deny involvement. Al-Qaida's Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed authorship of the assassination. My hunch says it was al-Qaida.
Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, refused an autopsy on his wife's body, ordering it buried with haste, in keeping with Muslim custom. But an autopsy would have determined the true cause of death and exposed government lies.
President Musharraf got national parliamentary elections postponed to Feb. 18, hoping sympathy for the slain Bhutto would diminish. He called in Britain's Scotland Yard to investigate her murder, but only after all evidence was destroyed.
Ironically, when Bhutto became prime minister after the assassination of her family's bitter foe, my old friend Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, she ordered the ongoing investigation of his murder quashed and evidence destroyed.
WASHINGTON'S MAN
Washington still backs Musharraf as the man to wage its war in Afghanistan.
Though few westerners yet understand it, the 2001 U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and spreading resistance, ignited the current explosion in Pakistan.
The Bush White House must keep spending billions in secret payments to Pakistan's army and intelligence services -- dispersed by paymaster Musharraf -- to help fight its war in Afghanistan and growing regional rebellions in two of Pakistan's four provinces.
Meanwhile, Bhutto's bereaved Peoples Party just elected her husband and 19-year-old son, Bilawal, as co-chairman -- using a fake will, charge disgruntled family members. I met Bilawal in London in October. He is a highly intelligent young man who shows lots of the Bhutto fire. But he's far too young to sit in parliament, and 16 years too young to become prime minister.
In the interim, papa Zardari will rule the party as regent. Whether he will run for PM is uncertain.
Known to all as "Mr. 10%" from his time as a government minister in charge of contracts and procurement, Zardari is dogged by grave corruption charges and three ongoing cases in Europe.
A FAMILY BUSINESS
The Bhuttos are believed to have amassed a large fortune stashed away in Europe. This great feudal landowning family of southern Pakistan considers the Peoples Party as their own family business, a legacy to be passed from one generation to the next.
Musharraf's popular support is down to 10%. So to win February elections, he must rig them. The U.S. appears ready to assist.
The best solution for Pakistan is a coalition between the Peoples Party, Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League, the incorruptible Imran Khan's small party, and Muslim parties. If they do not hang together, Musharraf will surely hang them separately.
With only three weeks left until elections on January 8, Pakistan's President Musharraf is trying to set the stage for free and fair elections by lifting the Emergency Rule he had imposed on November 3. While declared in the name of the war on terror, the 42-day Emergency Rule was used to eviscerate the judiciary by sacking independent judges and replacing them with Musharraf supporters. It was also used to crack down on the press, a press that had become one of the few checks on the military government. It's hard to consider the upcoming elections as legitimate when two key democratic institutions-the judiciary and the press-have been destroyed.
In the crackdown on the press, Musharraf did not go after the print media, since just a small fraction of Pakistanis read newspapers. Instead he targeted TV and radio stations, closing them down, beating journalists, seizing equipment. To return to the air, the stations had to sign a code of conduct promising not to broadcast anything that "defames or brings into ridicule the head of state or the military." Most of the stations signed this under duress and resumed broadcasting, but journalists all over the country continue to protest the restrictions and the nation's Press Clubs have become centers of anti-Musharraf activities.
One TV station that has still not been allowed back on the air is GEO, the nation's largest station. The government has a particular vendetta against GEO, closing not only its news channel, but also its sports, entertainment and youth channels-costing the station about $500,000 a day and jeopardizing the livelihoods of some 2,500 employees.
Ironically, it is precisely under Musharraf's rule that private television began to thrive in Pakistan. The General was used to controlling the airwaves through the state-run PTV, which the public had dubbed with the slogan "On PTV, seeing is not believing." People realized that state-run TV was government propaganda, and there was a thirst for independent TV outlets. While the Arab world saw the blossoming of Al Jazeera and other independent networks, Pakistan saw the creation of GEO.
"The channel ran into problems from its inception in 2002, as Musharraf tried to control it," GEO TV's charismatic President Imran Aslan recalled as he gave us a tour of the station's sprawling headquarters in Karachi. At a meeting with government officials in early 2002, the owner of GEO, who heads a powerful media conglomerate called The Jang Group, was informed that key members of the GEO team were unacceptable. He was told that if he hired a different crew, the station could go forward. "But what the government officials didn't know is that the owner had taped the entire conversation," laughed Aslan. "The next day we went straight to the Press Club and played the tape. The government was so embarrassed that it allowed GEO to go ahead."
The feisty station was launched in August 2002 with a talented team that innovated an all fronts, not just the news. They revived sports that were dying out-boxing, hockey, volleyball, football, polo. Ignoring the threats of religious fundamentalists, they televised marathons where men and women ran together. On the youth channel, they had call-in shows where young people from around the country could say whatever they wanted, unedited, uncensored.
They changed the debate on women's rights, launching a campaign to openly discuss Pakistan's controversial rape laws that blame the victim, threatening her with lashings or even stoning to death. Since they were enforced by Zia ul Haq in 1979, these laws have been regarded as untouchable for fear of a backlash by powerful religious extremists. GEO took the issue head on, and not from a more obvious feminist perspective, but by airing debates between religious leaders about whether these practices were in conformance with Islam. The debate, which included religious leaders labeling these practices are un-Islamic and immoral, led to the drafting of new laws more favorable to rape victims.
But what landed GEO in hot water with the government was their news show. "We would get Musharraf and top government officials on our shows and ask them tough questions," famed talk show host Hamid Mir told us. "I asked Musharraf how he could be President while on the payroll as Army Chief, or how could he let Benazir Bhutto back in the country but not Nawaz Sharif-questions he found hard to answer."
GEO reporters and talk show hosts questioned the army about missing people, about their tactics fighting in Balochistan and the tribal areas. They even pressed Benazir Bhutto so hard about the assassination of her brother, questioning how it happened under her rule, that she got up and walked out in the middle of a show.
GEO brought irreverence and satire to the TV screen with the hilarious animated cartoon called "Pillow talk", which featured conversations between Musharraf and Bush. Sometimes the two leaders would be chatting in bed, with George Bush wrapped up in a Mickey Mouse blanket.
"We alienated everyone, so I guess we did our job," joked Imran Aslan. "We were innovative, we pushed the limits, we had fun--and the people loved us. In less than six years, we had a lead of 8-9 points on other stations."
By closing the sports, youth and entertainment channels, the government's goal is to cripple the station financially. The head of GEO Sports Channel Mohammad Ali had tried, unsuccessfully, to petition the court to get the 24-hour sports station reopened. "What does sports have to do with the war on terror?", Ali asked when we met him outside the Courthouse. "We just lost $15 million dollars we had paid for the right to broadcast the India-Pakistan cricket match. The people were deprived of seeing a match they love, and we are being ruined financially."
"This is just vindictive on the part of the government; it's a blatant effort to put us out of business," said Aslan after losing the court case. "My biggest regret is that the government is jeopardizing the livelihoods of so many wonderful staff, who are among the finest minds in this country."
With the upcoming elections, GEO had been poised to play a major role. It had a campaign called "You have the vote, don't' you?, " encouraging people to exercise their right to vote. They had anticipated airing debates, educating voters about the views of the different parties and candidates, and training young people all over the country to report on the campaigns.
While the Bush Administration has been touting the upcoming elections, it has been silent on the continued silencing of GEO. It was not even mentioned in the testimony of Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher when he testified before Congress on December 6 about continued aid to Pakistan. Boucher admitted that democracy requires not only elections "but accountable government institutions, including a free and dynamic press." But instead of using the opportunity to demand that press restrictions be lifted, Boucher gave the stunning conclusion that "Pakistan is making progress toward these goals."
The U.S. government, which gives over $100 million a month to Pakistan, should speak out forcefully against the banning of GEO, and withhold U.S. assistance until GEO is back on air. And when assistance is resumed, a portion of our aid should help GEO get on its feet financially.
An independent media is the backbone of a democratic nation. If the US government is truly committed to democracy in Pakistan, it should support GEO and Pakistan's courageous journalists in their struggle for a free press.
The imposition of martial law under the garb of emergency should make it abundantly clear to everyone that dictators cannot afford even a semblance of either an independent judicial system or a free media. And neither can the assortment of criminals camouflaged as politicians who collaborate with dictators.
No one is fooled by Gen. Musharraf's latest deception to hang on to power. The war on terror has served him well so far and so why change a successful strategy; spread fear in the western capitals by invoking images of bearded men with guns and in the meanwhile brutally crush all dissent within the country, as was recently done by the Burmese Military. Having inducted pliant and amoral judges through the PCO, the next step would be to massively rig the elections while keeping the media muzzled. What he hopes is that he will again have a rubber stamp Assembly, a controlled majority and a friendly opposition, while real power will rest with him for another 5 years.
So, what we are witnessing is the first phase of the plan. Massive crackdown on the genuine opposition, lawyers, human right activists and the civil society. He is hoping that the police brutality will induce enough fear in the people for him to crush all dissent within a couple of weeks, before he takes the next step of getting himself endorsed by his pocket judges.
Unfortunately for Musharraf, everyone can see through his latest power grab attempt. No one believes that the judges were an impediment in his fight against terrorism. He has had absolute power for the last 8 years and yet terrorism and militancy is rising rapidly. What is he going to do that is different? He has had Pakistanis abducted and handed over to the U.S authorities without allowing them their right to prove their innocence in a court of law. Others have simply disappeared. Many tortured. Our own people have been bombed by helicopters and jets and when women and children have been killed, it has been shamefully called "collateral damage". No one to this day knows how many Pakistani (soldiers and civilians) have been killed since 9/11.
Most significantly his liberal credentials stand exposed completely, something he needed to make his dictatorship palatable to the west. Gimmicks like "enlightened moderation", "soft image" and "sufi Islam" stood exposed as the nation saw police boots and sticks shower on peaceful human rights protestors, lawyers and the media. All laws whether it was through PEMRA, PCOs, the 17th amendment or the disgraceful NRO were only to consolidate his power.
The time has come for the people of Pakistan to decide their destiny. If Musharraf succeeds in destroying the independent judiciary through his PCO, then I am afraid it is all down hill. His "pocket" judges will assist him in suppressing the media and in rigging the elections.
A Government formed from this unholy alliance will be a disaster for Pakistan and will ensure that it heads towards becoming a failed state.
For a start there will be a quantum leap in terrorism. His policies have alienated the Pushtuns in general and the tribal Pushtuns in particular. There are around a million armed men in the tribal areas. Does it make any logical sense that to capture a couple of thousand Al-Qaeda we invoke the hostility of around a million armed men - all natural guerrilla fighters? And that is why history tells us the British lost more soldiers in the tribal areas than the whole of the sub-continent during their Raj.
Moreover fundamentalism is on the rise in most of Northern Pakistan because of Musharraf's "enlightened moderate" media policies. There is great reaction amongst the masses who perceive this as a license to be vulgar. The Lal Masjid "warriors" belonged to this category. While in Swat & Dir, there has been a rising discontentment due to the poor governance system ever since the two regions became a part of Pakistan in 1974. Thanks to Musharraf being perceived as an American Stooge imposing an anti-Islamic agenda on the country, all these movements are morphing into one.
Another five years of Musharraf will mean that certain discontented sections of the society will lose faith in the democratic process and will also join the militants; thereby raising the prospects of Pakistan turning into another Algeria - the Army against its own people.
The other disaster of Musharraf dictatorship would be a further diversion of the country's resources away from the people. During his 8 years 1.8% of the GDP was spent on education - the lowest ever in our history and consequently today Pakistan's state school education system has collapsed. According to the U.N Human Development Index Pakistan has the worst social indicators in South Asia. Even Burma is ahead. On the other hand in 2006 Pakistan spent US $ 5.1 billion on arms. A new GHQ is being built on 2500 acres in Islamabad at the cost of billions of dollars.
Equally disastrous is the collapse of governance in Pakistan. According to Transparency International this is the most corrupt Government in our history. Hardly surprising since crooks, criminals and even terrorists (according to the Canadian Supreme Court the MQM is a terrorist organization) are sitting at the helm of affairs. The biggest scams in our history have been during the past 5 years. Rs.55 billion loans to the rich and powerful have been waived off while the common man has been crushed by unprecedented inflation.
Hence it is imperative that all sections of Pakistani society stand behind Chief Justice Iftikhar and demand his restoration along with the other honorable judges. We should not accept the PCO or those judges who have taken oath by it.
Only if Justice Iftikhar is restored will we have an independent judiciary, which is the bedrock of a genuine democratic system. The independent judiciary will protect the media's freedom and ensure free and fair elections that are vital for the country's survival only. Free and fair elections can throw up a Government that can start a political dialogue with the Militants. The war against terrorism can only be won if the people from within whom the terrorists operate, also consider them to be terrorists. If on the other hand they are perceived as heroes or freedom fighters than it is a never ending war - and history tells us that it cannot be won. Moreover, a democratic Government which comes through free and fair elections has to invest in the people. Otherwise no matter how high the growth rate it will lose the elections - as happened to the BJP despite "shining India"
Above all only an independent judiciary will stop criminals from entering politics. At the moment they know that once they are part of the power structure they are safe from the courts. The NRO is a classic case in point which under Musharraf's pocket judges will absolve politicians of their crimes that includes plunder of the country's resources as well as assassinations and target killings. Once a Prime Minister or President are not above law only then can this country develop a governance system that will make it achieve its great potential.
What needs to be done is for all sections of the society - especially the students whose future is at stake, to demand the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar and a total boycott of the PCO judges. Until our demands are accepted we should agitate throughout the country. The APDM should immediately give a call to its workers to join the lawyers and the civil society in the streets.
And finally it brings me to Benazir and Maulana Fazal ur Rehman. They are the only two "opposition" leaders who are allowed to freely roam around. The former is even given protocol. Both of them have played a major role in strengthening Musharraf by undermining the opposition at every stage. Both have used the opposition to strengthen their bargaining position with the Government for their personal ends. Most regretfully neither has demanded the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar. The APDM should tell them that we have had enough of their "Noora Khushti". If they want to be part of the genuine opposition both must demand the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar and announce a street movement immediately. But they should not be allowed to sabotage the opposition movement for their personal gains again.
The only way to explain why the US and its allies do not abandon a leader who is less popular with his people than the terrorist whom he is being paid billions to hunt is that the people of Pakistan are considered irrelevant in discussions about Pakistan.
The only way to explain why the US and its allies do not abandon a leader who is less popular with his people than the terrorist whom he is being paid billions to hunt is that the people of Pakistan are considered irrelevant in discussions about Pakistan.
At about every 20-year interval, the west has given its blessings to the military in Pakistan to usurp the writ of state. He, upon taking power, falls prostrate in our direction, vigorously rubbing our feet.
First, in the 1960s Pakistan was turned servile as a way to counter India's Marxist lean; then in the 1980s it was turned into our mercenary to serve as a launching paid for our proxy war against the Soviets; and now with Musharraf, Pakistan is our maid, tasked with scraping human scum out of intractable mountains. With each dictator we have given a Machiavellian middle finger to the people of Pakistan - to their right of self-determination - and said to them that Uncle Sam, in conjugal relations with Mother Military, know best.
Yet, if we do know best, why do our tyrannical experiments consistently turn tragic? Our first dictator helped tear Pakistan into two, driving Pakistan into the arms of a maniacal socialist demagogue who started not just the nuclear programme but as the Ahmadis can testify, started Islamisation.
Our next tyrant left behind a legacy of violent Islam and Wahhabi ideology so pernicious that it completely raped Pakistan's centuries-long reign of moderate song-and-saint religiosity.
The current tyrant, meanwhile, is not only less popular than Bin Laden, but he is completely inept in counteracting terrorism. He has: failed to reform the madrassas; cultivated a Kangaroo Sharia court in his backyard for six months which he could use for political benefit; killed those that kept the Taliban at bay; considered appeasing the militants by letting them implement Sharia; turned Pakistan into a state sponsor of terrorism; made alliances with pro-Taliban parties; and even engaged in what are being called crimes against humanity. My editor at Jewcy reminded me that Musharraf is so frightening to terrorists that al-Qaida mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammad literally lived within 10 miles of him. This is the man that John Negroponte at the State Department considers "indispensable."
Dictators are incapable of eliminating extremism. A dictatorship is afflicted with the original sin of having seized power with violence, and therefore has no moral authority to speak against those who employ violence. A dictatorship is bereft of the psychological calm that comes from being popularly elected and lives life like an anxious little demon, spraying bullets wildly, without aim or purpose.
Furthermore, a dictator that must pander to western democracies is caught in an Orwellian double-think because he has no way of reconciling why he denies to his own people the freedom that his allies and masters deem to be self-evident for their own populace - unless, of course, he values the lives of his own people less than the lives of his western allies. The only thing a dictator can do to resolve this tension is to create the illusion of freedom. A new subterranean world arises into which torture, disappearances and dirty hands, are swept. The dictator, hiding his own failures in order to create the chimera of freedom, harps on the corruption of the previous leaders, which is not wrong factually, but wrong logically. He does not realise that the only reason anyone is aware of the faults of predecessors at all is because they were not dictators.
There is an insanity in supporting Musharraf. His western backers are Cornelius, pouring a poison called Musharraf into the ear of Pakistani civil society, creating the conditions for the Pakistani public turning into a deranged Hamlet, brooding menacingly in a dark South Asian corridor, slowly going mad, until one day he ushers in a carnival of blood and murder.
That murder, unless remedial steps are taken now, will be in the form of an Islamic revolution like the one in Iran. Intelligent minds have already started to point out the "eerie similarity" between the state of Musharraf now and the Shah in the 1970s.
In Iran a broad coalition of liberal democrats, lawyers, professionals, students, teachers, leftists and radicals, coalesced - slowly over the span of many years - in the figure of Khomeini. If we continue to insist on backing Musharraf, the same will happen in Pakistan, and a Sunni Khomeini will rise from northern Pakistan. Already, merely 18% of Pakistanis care to fight terrorists; and 49% of them approve of homegrown extremist groups, meaning that fierce radicals are becoming acceptable. There are already people waxing romantic about those resisting Musharraf with guns. These opinions are Musharraf's fault. His ineptitude and mostly his illegitimacy.
If a revolutionary Iran-style coalition forms, the Pakistani military will neither be able to - nor willing to - stand up against it, because in the past every time a Pakistani leader has asked the military to crush street protests, the military has refused. Thus, when this haphazard coalition does take to the streets and the military stands down, the bloodbath will begin, reminiscent of years 1979 to 1980 in Iran. The Islamist maniacs will quickly slaughter all opposition, exile every secular person, and sit pretty, bordering the Iranian regime on one side, shoveling billions into a Kashmiri insurgency against India, and backing the Taliban take over of Afghanistan. The nukes are safe as long as they are in military hands, but if the Islamists run the military, then the nukes will suddenly be referred to as The Islamic Bomb and no one will be safe. Someone check out the range of the Ghauri III.
This turn of events will not occur if Musharraf gives way to democracy right now. It will occur, however, if Musharraf is allowed to remain in place.
The time for sanity to prevail is now. Pakistanis consider free elections and an independent judiciary their number one priority. One of their popular leaders - the only one not in jail -- has made a call for street protests. If the other leaders were allowed out of their homes, they would mimic the call. Yet, while being aware of this Bush refuses to abandon Musharraf.
Bush did call Musharraf for 20 minutes yesterday. However, to suggest to thinking people that this call is anything more than a cute PR stunt is downright insulting when, after talking to Bush, Musharraf went to the parliament and stated that he is not "under dictation" from the US and there is "no specific time frame for holding elections."
Not only that, but even if Musharraf moves forward with elections at this point, the military expert Aysha Siddiqa notes, they will be structurally organised to benefit his own party, the PML-Q.
Furthermore, without reinstatement of the independent Supreme Court that Musharraf has so brazenly removed and replaced with a new one, any challenge to the legitimacy of the elections would not stand up anyway, meaning that Bush is giving a thumbs up to rigged elections. Bush needs to do more than just to let Musharraf provide the definition of what constitutes free and fair. Further, to really put some insecurity in Musharraf's belly, Bush and his officials should meet with Mullah Diesel, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan, and any other Pakistani opposition figure who wants to fly over.
The way things are right now, Bush and Condi's weakly wagging fingers are designed to give Musharraf the cover to carry on just as he is. After all, one of Pakistan's leading journalists, Hamid Mir, did say that according to his sources the US embassy gave Musharraf the green light for calling the emergency. Such complicity suggests that Bush simply has no idea whether Musharraf's dictatorial soliloquy is of lucidity or stupidity. Sounds a lot like what Cornelius thought of Hamlet for five acts. We all know how that ended.
1. Protest war, lose your property?
On July 17th, The White House quietly announced an Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." Among other developments, it gives Bush the power to "block" the property of people in the US found to "pose a significant risk of committing" an act of violence which might undermine "political reform in Iraq."
1. Protest war, lose your property?
On July 17th, The White House quietly announced an Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." Among other developments, it gives Bush the power to "block" the property of people in the US found to "pose a significant risk of committing" an act of violence which might undermine "political reform in Iraq."
The terms "significant threat" and "act of violence" are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush's definition of "political reform in Iraq" would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?
The vague language also includes outlawing "the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order." What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be "blocked"?
Similar to the Patriot Act, the potential implications are staggering.
2. Market meltdown
Economic fallout from the subprime mortgage market collapse has extended further, with prominent investment company Bear Stearns admitting last week that two of its hedge funds, once estimated at $1.6 billion, are now of "very little value."
Meanwhile, the prestigious Bank for International Settlements released a statement warning that the global economy could be facing a Great Depression, and that the dollar in particular "remains vulnerable to a sudden loss of private sector confidence."
Fasten your seatbelts.
3. Escalating US military operations in Pakistan
Following 911, the Bush administration propped up Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally in the "war on terror," spending billions of dollars on Pakistan's military while ignoring Musharraf's support for the Taliban. Those days might be over. Just last week, the White House announced US military forces could be deployed to strike "actionable targets" in the country - with or without Musharraf's permission.
The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" in 2001 if it didn't deal with the Taliban, but Musharraf has so far been able to convince the US that if his administration falls, then Pakistan will be ruled by Islamists. As a former CIA officer recently told National Public Radio, "I've heard Gen. Musharraf ... tell American presidents that if you don't support me, the next person will be the 'bearded ones'."
But Musharraf faces growing domestic opposition for his strong-arm tactics, and while last week's brutal storming of the Lal Masjid Mosque in Islamabad may have won bonus points in Washington, it only served to further alienate the Pakistani people.
In other words, US military action in Pakistan will most likely destabilize the Musharraf government, and may in fact push Pakistan's nuclear arsenal into the hands of a government of "bearded ones."
4. Loose nukes
It was recently reported that the US had quietly removed 130 of its nuclear warheads from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. That still leaves over 350 US warheads across Europe, but the question remains: what happened to the Ramstein nukes? The Pentagon and German Defense Ministry aren't talking, and it can't necessarily be assumed that the warheads have been destroyed. Shuffled to some different country with less stringent weapons controls or hidden away for use in future conflicts perhaps - who knows.
Meanwhile, in late June, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to fund by $66 million the production of even more nuclear warheads.
5. VP Arnie?
Schwarzenegger visited his hometown of Graz, Austria in late June, ostensibly to attend the birthday party of a friend. The warm welcome he received was quite a change from two years ago, when tensions flared with town elders over his position on the death penalty and failure to stop an execution in California. The war of words escalated until Schwarzenegger requested that Graz remove his name from a local sports stadium, and in a move reminiscent of high school crushes, he returned a ring which city officials had given him.
This time around, however, Schwarzenegger was conciliatory and local politicians clamored for photo ops - effectively sweeping bad blood under the carpet. How convenient, and how necessary, for Schwarzenegger and any ambitions he may have for 2008.
6. Cutting off Iraq's water supply
For years, the Turkish government has tried to get international funding to build a dam across the Tigris River. The potential impact on villagers and the environment has stalled the project, and both Iraq and Syria have expressed concern that the proposed Ilisu dam could give Turkey power over their water supply.
European entities considering funding the project have received strong public pressure to back out, and if they do, China appears only too happy to step in and help build the dam.
Meanwhile, an estimated 250,000 Turkish troops are amassed near Northern Iraq and just this week, the Prime Minister of Turkey threatened to invade the country.
Long story short, Turkey and China are increasingly likely to assume a major role in both Iraq and Syria. Doesn't bode well for the Bush's administration's plans.
7. GPS losing its way
The US monopoly over satellite navigation systems appears to be drawing to a close. The Global Positioning System (GPS) has enabled civilians to find their destinations and the military to coordinate troop movements and detect nuclear detonations, but the US system will soon face international competition. Global Navigation Satellite Systems are being developed by Europe, China and India while a Russian system may be operational as early as 2009 - another challenge to US hegemony on the international stage.
8. New Russian arms race?
This month, Russia pulled out of the Treaty for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, established in 1990 to reduce the number of conventional weapons (such as tanks and combat aircraft) in Europe. Russia's move signals the latest salvo in a power struggle between European leaders and Russian President Putin, who is dead set against the establishment of new US military bases and anti-missile systems in eastern Europe and central Asia. But if Russia is not convinced to rejoin the arms Treaty, then by the end of the year it can establish weapons arsenals without NATO inspections and Putin may begin pulling out of other international arms agreements, as Bush has done. Could be the start of a new global arms race.
9. Murdoch's megalomania
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has his sites on Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and Barron's, among others, and owner of stock market indicators such as the Dow Jones industrial average. Murdoch's News Corp already controls an outrageous number of newspapers, magazines, TV networks, cable channels and film studios across the world and as Business Week observed in 2004, Murdoch "is not shy about using his media outlets to pursue agendas, whether they're politically conservative causes or his own business interests."
For example, the UK's Guardian pointed out that every single one of Murdoch's 175 newspapers across the globe parroted his pro-war views before the invasion of Iraq.
News Corp offered $5 billion for Dow Jones, the board of directors gave its approval and as early as next week a final decision will be reached. If successful, Murdoch's power in the US will expand even further.
10. "Bring it on" Iran
The Senate recently voted 97-0 in favor of hawk Joe Lieberman's Amendment effectively blaming Iran for complicity in the death of American soldiers; it's worth noting that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sided with Lieberman on the vote. Meanwhile, a third US aircraft carrier is on its way towards Iran and the UK's Guardian quoted a "well-placed Washington source" as saying "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
So the drumbeat of impending doom continues, along with warnings of upcoming false flag events - a new Gulf of Tonkin or 911 - timed before Congress votes on Defense Appropriations in September.
Stay tuned...