Reply
Mon 31 Dec, 2007 07:31 am
U.S. Didn't Do Enough To Protect Bhutto, Aide Says
WSJ ^
In the wake of Ms. Bhutto's death, some of her aides are charging the U.S. didn't do enough to protect the former prime minister after she returned to Pakistan.
They note that the Bush administration played a central role in brokering an agreement with Musharraf that allowed her return after an eight-year exile. And they say Washington should have done more to guarantee her safety once she was on the ground and facing numerous threats.
Husain Haqqani, a longtime aide to Ms. Bhutto based in Boston, said he twice held talks with senior State Department officials in recent weeks concerning the former prime minister's safety. He said Ms. Bhutto specifically wanted Washington to pressure Musharraf to allow her to hire a private security company, similar to the one used by Afghan President Hamid Karzai upon his return in Kabul. Mr. Haqqani said that Ms. Bhutto's aides had sent a letter to Pakistan's Interior Ministry requesting permission to hire such a firm, but hadn't obtained clearance.
"I personally took the matter up with two senior State Department officials to request that the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad or the State Department ask the government of Pakistan to respond to that request expeditiously," said Haqqani, in an interview. "The U.S. response was that we shouldn't be micro-managing things of this nature and that we trust the government of Pakistan's position on this."
State Department officials said the U.S. government held numerous discussions with Ms. Bhutto's camp on ways to increase her security inside Pakistan. They said U.S. security officials in Islamabad did assessments on her behalf and recommended the names of several private Pakistani security firms that could be hired, arguing they'd likely be more effective than foreign ones. But Ms. Bhutto's team decided against hiring the local firms, said the U.S. officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ... sorry requires registration
@Skye cv,
Argh, I read through that whole second article and it was mostly stuff that I already knew. The first is interesting, though, but come on, are you serious? What more could they do?
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight
Are you addressing me?
Am I serious? Or are Bhutto's aides serious?
If you already 'knew' all the article contained why bother to read or comment at all? Do you wish to approve and/or censor articles before I post them?
I am furious again the United States is being held up to a yet another mission - even though the U.K. security forces were also requested but the media concentrates on placing blame on the U.S.
@Skye cv,
Woah, I'm sensing some hostility here. I was talking about Bhutto's aides, as I hope you could glean from my post. I didn't know anything from the first article, so that was what I commented on. But the second seems to be a summary of events that have been widely reported, so I already knew most of the info and did not comment on it.
@Reagaknight,
America's interests are best secured by a pro-Western, military dictatorship in Pakistan. Democracy would have produced a hardcore Muslim theocracy. Nope......Bhutto was not America's best friend in Pakistan, as many day-dreaming sentimentalists like to argue. :thumbdown: