A friend who pays a lot of attention to Pakistan (but who is actually Indian, and who cannot be considered a neutral observer) is already convinced that Musharraf is behind it.  I suspect many of Bhutto's supporters will be similarly convinced.

I'm not even sure that a full military dictatorship can save the day for the simple reason that all it will do is try to put a lid on pressures that are already far beyond such control.

An awful lot of people are going to die in the next few weeks and there's bugger all anyone can do to stop it. However, the presence of the nuclear weapons throws a nasty complication into the mix. I suspect that america and others may have to step in and clear up we helped create, or at least get the nukes out. And that will put us into an interesting situation vis a vis Saudi Arabia as it's their people we absolutely need to exterminate (I use the word deliberately).

keep to the Fen Causeway

Nothing will happen. the system is so cahotic than adding a little bit of more noise is absolutely irrelevant.. in the sense  that it can lead to anywhere int he phase . but actually there is no chance from before to after.

So the possibilities of complete cahos and complete order in Pakistan remain roughly the same.

The probabilities of a Pakistan with a pseudo-control demcoracy (which is what a lot of the western elite think it is the best) are as low as before.. but hardly lower.

The multiple Paksitani factions will still have a personal dynamics.. and there is as change now of subrevolt or semirevolt or a gathering of revolts.. but I think the same probabilities than before.

So...: I guess to sum up.. I know nothing, I am from barcelona.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

1. the americans will have to go back to the drawing board and pick a new puppet. perhaps nawaz sharif's stock will rise?

2. musharaf will use this pretext to put more martial law measures into effect.

3. who knows how the riots will play out, or if they'll link up with an ambitious and/or bhutto-tied general or two.

al qaeda or islamic radicals would have struck at the general, not an out of power politician.

Remember that a world leader with nukes does not have to kowtow to American interests.  It is clear that Pervez was not exactly towing the line for the Cheney folks.  I'm sure if I google Bhutto's recent comments there is a free-market angle to be found.  She certainly did not represent the poor and destitute of Pakistan, that is for sure.

I also think that Bhutto's presence has generated a huge amount of instability and she was taken care of to REDUCE that.  Ultimately the opposition needed her to rally around, to give it some kind of legitimacy and a tie to the "old days of Democracy" in Pakistan.

From what I've seen and recall from his takeover, Musharaf is really not some Hussein-esque dictator.  He took over a corrupt country from a corrupt leader and the nukes probably had a lot to do with it.  During his term Pakistan has largely avoided major war and skirmishes with India and other neighbors.  

If you can look past the "democracy" red-herring it would appear that he's their most competent leader in a long time.  I certainly had no hope that Bhutto's faction would do any better.

I found this 1996 news story to make rather surreal reading in light of the current situation....

Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, in a speech in parliament, accused the government of "state terrorism" against its political opponents. Leaders of the Lahore High Court Bar Association in Punjab were quoted as describing Murtaza Bhutto's killing as a murder.

Murtaza's killing "is part of a conspiracy to make Pakistan a police state and crush democratic freedom," said Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Pakistan's fundamentalist party leader.

Reports said security was deteriorating in Karachi, where thousands poured on to the streets to protest. At least three banks, a government office and a post office were set on fire, a witness said.

Tires were set on fire on many roads, and shooting and stone-throwing was reported in many places. Most shops and markets in the city shut down.

At least 20 vehicles were torched in the central Sindh town of Hyderabad.

Schools and Health centres only need renewing after you've bombed them. So, there's no campaign contributions to be gained from promoting education and welfare.

keep to the Fen Causeway

What, in god's name, for?  Do they need MORE chaos?

Do you even need to ask?

I'm hoping this isn't a Gavrilo Princip moment.

It's all sad that this Bhutto saga was kind of expected. But only cynics in power seem to know what to do in this shock, and how to do it.

Annals of National Security: Watching the Warheads: The New Yorker

Nonetheless, in recent weeks an élite Pentagon undercover unit--trained to slip into foreign countries and find suspected nuclear weapons, and disarm them if necessary--has explored plans for an operation inside Pakistan. In 1998, Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear device, heralded as the Islamic world's first atomic bomb. According to United States government estimates, Pakistan now has at least twenty-four warheads, which can be delivered by intermediate-range missiles and a fleet of F-16 aircraft.

[...]

In recent weeks, the Administration has been reviewing and "refreshing" its contingency plans. Such operations depend on intelligence, however, and there is disagreement within the Administration about the quality of the C.I.A.'s data. The American intelligence community cannot be sure, for example, that it knows the precise whereabouts of every Pakistani warhead--or whether all the warheads that it has found are real. "They've got some dummy locations," an official told me. "You only get one chance, and then you've tried and failed. The cat is out of the bag."

Overwhelming Afghanistan and invading Iraq are hardly comparable to engaging in an act of war with a country of a billion people.

Leaving aside that Pakistan has nowhere close to 1 billion people, I have to say that removing a couple of nukes hardly seems comparable to directly or indirectly killing hundreds of thousands of people.

It will piss off alot of people, true, but if Pakistan implodes, there are no good options when it comes to their nuclear weapons. Having them removed by the US might be one of the less dangerous ones, and might even be supported by parts of the current powers in Pakistan.

All this is of course pure speculation.

India/Pakistan damn near came to war several years ago and there are, unconfirmed AFAIK, reports of nuclear weapons being released to theater commanders.  Meaning, the world hovered on the brink of a nuclear exchange¹ with the 'hold' being the least stable theater commander.

India has continually repeated they think terrorist attacks in India are being supported and financed by the ISI.  Upon the military and political leadership concluding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is under, or going to be under, control of the ISI or their political allies a sufficient condition for a pre-emptive First Strike has been met.  

¹ Jargon for a small scale nuclear war.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

Overwhelming Afghanistan and invading Iraq are hardly comparable to engaging in an act of war with a country of a billion people.