Who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Who killed Benazir Bhutto?
(Or, the emerging vigor of Baitullah Mehsud)

On Monday, in Pakistan’s northwest province of Waziristan, six gunmen overran an elementary school. According to the local police chief, Hamza Mehsud, the gunmen rounded up some 25 children and seven teachers and held them at gunpoint for five hours.
     Pakistani forces, as per protocol, surrounded the building. “We don’t stand for extended [hostage] standoffs,” Mehsud said after the event, meaning Pakistani forces were going in firing.
     Pakistani forces did not go in firing. The gunmen surrendered to a local warlord. In exchange for releasing the hostages and giving up their weapons, the gunmen received safe passage. They walked out of the school, according to various reports, and dispersed into the crowd.
     The incident exposed the broad authority of the local warlord. Who is this man? How is it that a warlord can have more power than a police force, more power perhaps than a government?
     Police Chief Hamza Mehsud echoed these questions. “This [release of the hostages] could not have been achieved without the assistance of Baitullah Mehsud,” he said. “He is the law of Waziristan.”
     The province of Waziristan is divided into a north and south, like California. Like California, there’s a natural division and a slight distrust. Apparently, if one reads into Hamza Mehsud’s statement, Baitullah Mehsud has transcended that division and distrust.
     If this doesn’t strike you as chilling, it should. The province of Waziristan borders the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan. Unconfirmed reports over the last few years suggest that Osama bin Laden, through the assistance of Waziristani warlords, crossed into Pakistan and disappeared in the sea of humanity that is South Asia. Is it possible that this particular warlord aided Osama in his escape?
     Let’s take a closer look at Baitullah Mehsud. As with most warlords, there is a lack of factual evidence. Consequently, there is a great deal of mythology surrounding his profile. To cut through some of the fiction, I turned to three very different sources. Syed Shoaib Hasan is a journalist for the BBC. He interviewed Baitullah Mehsud in person in 2007. George Little is the personal spokesman for CIA director Michael Hayden. He was willing to talk in general terms. Zulfiqur is the public mouthpiece of Baitullah Mehsud. While it is said that Baitullah Mehsud has no formal education and may be illiterate, Zulfiqur is not. His e-mails could be verbose. His e-mails could be eloquent. His e-mails could be challenging. All of this in English. According to Zulfiqur, he speaks five languages. He listed them for me: Pashto, Urdu, Dari, English, Arabic. I don’t doubt his language dexterity.
     I asked Zulfiqur about the education of Baitullah Mehsud. I meant schooling. Zulfiqur wrote back, “He is a man educated in war. He is a soldier. He has two teachers, the gun and Allah. He puts his faith in both. Elhamdullillah.” Or, praise be to God.
     Journalist Syed Shoaib Hasan took Zulfiqur’s profile a bit further. “A few years ago Baitullah Mehsud was a Pashtun foot soldier fighting in Afghanistan. He joined the Mujahideen in Afghanistan as a young boy. According to legend, he met Osama bin Laden during this time. I can’t confirm this. I can tell you, though, that he most certainly met Mullah Omar [the Taliban supreme commander] during this time. If Mehsud has a role model, Mullah Omar is that man. Mehsud, I would go so far as to say, patterns his life after Omar.”
     Baitullah Mehsud, like Mullah Omar, joined the Afghani war against the Soviets in 1989. Mullah Omar was 49-years-old. Baitullah Mehsud was 15. He is 34 today. Like Mullah Omar, Mehsud adheres to the strictest version of Sharia, or Islamic Law. According to Journalist Syed Shoaib Hasan, “Omar’s version of Islam makes Iran look almost secular.” Like Mullah Omar, Mehsud believes in jihad against foreign occupying forces in Afghanistan and the establishment of an Islamic state. Like Omar, Baitullah Mehsud is carving that belief out of his local terrain.
     My next question addressed geography and national allegiance. “If Mehsud is Pakistani,” I asked journalist Syed Shoaib Hasan, “why did he join in the liberation of Afghanistan?”
     “Baitullah Mehsud is part of the Mehsud tribe of Waziristan,” Syed Shoaib Hasan answered. “They are historically shepherds and supreme fighters. During the age of colonialism, for instance, the British could not conquer the Mehsud. But the Mehsud are of Pashtun descent. Their language is Pashto. They might live in modern-day Pakistan but that’s more a function of drawing boundaries. The Mehsud are similar to the Kurds in that their lands span a multi-national region.”
     This also explains why Baitullah Mehsud and Hamza Mehsud have the same family name. One member of the tribe becomes a police chief. Another member of the tribe leads the rebellion. It’s a civil war, as well as a national war, and an international war.
     Baitullah Mehsud and Mullah Omar share another trait. They are both reclusive. According to journalist Syed Shoaib Hasan, Mehsud does not allow his picture to be taken. In 2005, when the Pakistani government signed a peace accord with Mehsud – because the Pakistani army couldn’t uproot him – he attended the ceremony with a robe totally covering his face and head.
     I asked spokesman Zulfiqur to describe Mehsud’s reclusive behavior. He argued with my word reclusive. “Before Allah, we are insignificant,” Zulfiqur wrote back. “Who are we to usurp the face of God? We should not allow ourselves the illusion of supremacy.”
      “But Osama bin Laden shows his face,” I argued with Zulfiqur. “He makes these videotapes. He thrusts himself in front of the world.”
     Zulfiqur answered, “Only jihad can bring peace to the world. Osama is the first messenger. Baitullah Mehsud is the next. Inshallah.” Or, God willing.
     I took this remarkable statement – a successor to Osama bin Laden – to George Little, the personal spokesman for CIA director Michael Hayden. He responded, “Well, that’s very disturbing news. Mehsud basically has a fortress around him. He has at least 20,000 Pashtun soldiers at his beck and call. He has many, many more foreign soldiers. He has hundreds of ready suicide bombers. He has been responsible for cross-border attacks in Afghanistan on international forces…”
     George Little then offered the first of two noteworthy statements. “The DCI [title given to the CIA director, or Michael Hayden in this case] went to Pervez Musharraf. We wanted the permission to move our forces into Waziristan, to combat al-Qaida, to combat the Taliban, to combat Mehsud.”
     The Musharraf/Hayden conference occurred on January 9. Michael Hayden flew 14,000 miles for a few hours of face time with the Pakistani kingpin. Little continued, “According to Musharraf, Pakistan has more than 100,000 troops operating in the area. According to Musharraf, there’s a ‘major offensive’ – his words – taking place.”
     “But I thought there was a peace agreement between the Pakistani government and Baitullah Mehsud,” I said.
     “We thought so too,” Little admitted.
     I continued, “So Hayden didn’t get permission.”
     “No,” Little acknowledged.
     “Will that stop the CIA?” I asked.
     Little responded with a question. “If Baitullah Mehsud is the successor to Osama bin Laden, shouldn’t we get him now, before he becomes even bigger?”
     I took George Little’s statistics – “20,000 Pashtun soldiers,” “many, many more foreign soldiers,” “hundreds of ready suicide bombers” – to both Zulfiqur and Syed Shoaib Hasan. “That’s what I’m hearing,” Hasan answered. “I can tell you this: When I visited Mehsud in 2007, I saw thousands of soldiers, most of them local, some of them foreign.”
     I clued into the last part. “When you talk about foreign soldiers, what are you talking about?” I asked.
     “Mainly Arabs,” he answered. “I think there’s some truth to Mehsud succeeding Osama. I think, if nothing else, we’re seeing al-Qaida Arabs joining up with Mehsud like they once joined up with Osama.”
     Zulfiqur responded in a different tone, of course. “In the act of righteousness, there is brotherhood. The emerging vigor of Baitullah Mehsud is a testament to his virtue. Elhamdullillah.” Or, praise be to God.
     I clued into Zulfiqur’s word choice. I asked George Little about Mehsud’s “emerging vigor.” My question: “How long is Mehsud’s reach at this point? Can he, for instance, activate suicide bombers in Iraq?”
     Little responded, “At this point, probably not. But internally, Mehsud can activate his suicide bombers at any moment.” Little then offered the second of two noteworthy statements. “Or who do you think killed Benazir Bhutto?”
     “Baitullah Mehsud?” I asked.
     Though our conversation occurred over the phone, I could feel George Little nodding his head. “What’s your proof?” I asked.
     “We intercepted communications between Mehsud and his network,” Little answered. “They took complete credit for it.”
     Was this real information? Was this typical CIA disinformation? How do you tell the difference?
     Little continued, “What you see, I think, is a change in the internal character of Pakistan. You now have this nexus that probably always was there, in some kind of latent form, but it’s become extremely active: a nexus between al-Qaida, the Taliban and the armed forces of Baitullah Mehsud.”
     The president of Pakistan responded to this “nexus” issue in an interview with Der Spiegel. “This is highly exaggerated. But I do not deny the fact that al-Qaida is operating here. They are carrying out terrorism in the tribal areas. They are the masterminds behind these suicide bombers. While all of this is true, one thing is for sure: The fanatics can never take over Pakistan. This is not possible. They are neither militarily so strong that they can defeat our army, with its 500,000 soldiers, nor politically – and they do not stand a chance of winning elections. They are much to weak for that.”
     Was this real information? Was this typical Musharraf disinformation?
     As for Zulfiqur, he responded to the assassination accusation with rhetoric. Bhutto, he claimed, “was an American pawn. She was the organ of the CIA, the Bush regime and anti-Islamic forces. Her death was imminent.”
     “Was Baitullah Mehsud responsible for her death?” I asked bluntly.
     Zulfiqur responded, “Only jihad can bring peace to the world. Inshallah.” Or, God willing.

Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email

Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web

The Gonzo Journalism of Brian Josepher

Who killed Benazir Bhutto?