ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The circumstances of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination suggest either that Islamic militants based in Pakistan are able to act with near-total impunity, or that elements within the government of President Pervez Musharraf have been complicit in attacks, or both, analysts and Western diplomats say.
The government’s version of events surrounding the attack that killed the popular former prime minister Thursday raises many more questions than it answers, these observers said. Its nearly instantaneous fingering of a culprit and eagerness to assert that Bhutto had not been shot left some observers troubled about the motives of a government that is a trusted U.S. ally in the “war on terror.”
The violent death of Bhutto, 54, an iconic figure on whom the West pinned hopes of a moderate, democratic Pakistan, was a watershed event in a nuclear-armed state that faces a roiling Islamic insurgency not only in its semi-autonomous tribal border regions, but in the streets of its most cosmopolitan cities.
The aftermath will have long-lasting repercussions not only inside Pakistan, but in neighboring Afghanistan as well, where Western troops are battling a fractured but determined Taliban movement. Any significant destabilization of Pakistan would carry risks for the entire region, analysts said.
On Saturday, with mourning rites for Bhutto still taking place at her ancestral home, her party angrily contested government assertions that she had been killed neither by bullets that witnesses said a gunman fired from only a few yards away, nor by shrapnel from the blast that rocked her armored vehicle moments later. Instead, a government spokesman said the force of the blast was such that she hit her head hard enough to suffer a fatal skull fracture.
“That’s dangerous nonsense,” said Sherry Rehman, a senior official in the Pakistan People’s Party who was traveling in the vehicle immediately behind Bhutto’s, made the frantic drive to the closest hospital with the stricken former leader, and viewed her body after doctors made fruitless efforts to save her.
Rehman said gunshot entry and exit wounds were visible on Bhutto’s head and neck, and that she was bleeding uncontrollably on the trip to the hospital.
Western diplomats, too, said they found the government statements worrying in their wider implications.
“It’s not only that this is not a credible account of what happened — that’s obvious on the face of it,” said a diplomat familiar with security matters.
“It’s that it raises questions about why the government is so extraordinarily eager to avoid acknowledging the role of a gunman, whether or not the wounds were fatal. At the very least, it’s puzzling,” the diplomat said.
Several analysts familiar with the tactics of militant groups in Pakistan said the use of a handgun in addition to self-detonated explosives represented a departure from trademark methods of groups operating here.
“This is not by any means a signature killing by al-Qaida,” security analyst Nasim Zehra said. “A targeted shooting, even in combination with a familiar suicide bombing, makes it look more like a political killing than one by some militant group.”
Others, however, noted that Pakistan’s militant organizations have often shown themselves capable of adapting to changing circumstances and adjusting their attack profile accordingly.
“Obviously, they were studying her movements in the course of the political campaign,” said Ikram Sehgal, a former military officer turned analyst. “Inside the rally, it was relatively secure; her problem was entering and leaving. She was highly vulnerable at that time.”
“It was done very professionally,” Sehgal added. “It was a ‘hit.’”
That degree of professionalism suggests to some observers the hand of Pakistan’s security apparatus, which in the past has aided and abetted militant groups, including the Taliban.
“The (security) agencies have ongoing connections with the militants,” said security analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, who has written extensively about the Pakistani military. “It’s very simplistic to talk about the militants doing this and doing that, all the while acting alone.”
The government has pointed the finger at Baitullah Mahsud, a local Taliban commander in the tribal areas on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. On Saturday, Mahsud issued a vehement denial of involvement in the killing.
“It is against tribal customs and traditions to kill a woman,” said Mahsud’s spokesman, who calls himself Maulana Omar, speaking from an undisclosed location.
The government released a transcript of a purported conversation between Mahsud and another militant leader in which they made apparent reference to the assassination and the second commander offered his congratulations.
Another Western diplomat familiar with extensive electronic surveillance operations by the Pakistani security services said if the transcript is indeed genuine, it was highly unlikely that the government eavesdropping began with this particular conversation in the immediate aftermath of Bhutto’s death.
“That raises the question: What precisely was known about his activities and plans up until now?” the diplomat said.
Mahsud in the past has been known to reach accommodations with the government. In 2005, he agreed to a truce in the South Waziristan region under which his men would not attack Pakistani soldiers, although the pact later collapsed.
The government has sought to put the blame on Bhutto and her party for security lapses, particularly her standing up in the SUV as she left the rally. Others in the bulletproof vehicle with her survived the bomb blast with relatively light injuries, as did those riding in the other cars in her convoy.
But whether or not there was involvement by rogue elements of the security forces or deliberate negligence on the part of the authorities, the attackers demonstrated an unprecedented ability and determination to kill.
“I think this degree of impunity, the fact that they are able to hold the whole country ransom and terrorize the population — all this is definitely a new level of threat and danger,” said author and analyst Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively about the Taliban and other militant groups.
The enormous wave of popular revulsion over the assassination could spur public demand that the government end once and for all its shadowy dealings with militant groups, some people predicted.
“This is perhaps the only thing that could come out of this, if people stand up and realize that the extremists are very much among us,” said Omar Qureishi, the Op-Ed editor of the English-language paper The News. “There have been alliances in the past, but a line should be drawn: no dealings with them in any way.”
The government has promised an exhaustive investigation, but as it did following an attack on Bhutto’s homecoming procession in Karachi last month that killed more than 150 people, it has declined offers of Western assistance.
Observers say that methods employed by Pakistani investigators probably have allowed crucial forensic evidence to be destroyed.
Modern forensic practices, including the sealing off and preservation of a crime scene, are little used in Pakistan. State television showed pictures of police officers, wearing latex gloves, combing the scene Saturday, picking up pieces of debris and carefully depositing them in evidence bags.
But immediately after Thursday’s attack, senior police inspectors had looked on while pressure hoses were used to wash the pavement, which was sticky with blood and strewn with broken glass. In the area where a gunman’s spent shell casings probably would have fallen, all was swept into the torrent of bloodstained water.
“How do we find out who killed Benazir?” analyst Siddiqa said. “I don’t know that we ever will.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
