In my review of Brave New War, I criticized John Robb's focus on the technological and economic at the expense of the social. While Robb's scholarship on open source warfare, black globalization, systempunkts, and other related concepts is invaluable, he doesn’t spend enough time analyzing social systems disruption. This hurts the overall quality of his analysis. The world is composed of human systems, and economics and technology fall are part of (not above) such systems.
However, Robb analyzes the Benazir Bhutto killing’s social impact with pinpoint accuracy.
He argues for a social sytempunkt interpretation:
The assassination of Bhutto (a critical social systempunkt that rose in importance due to the evaporation of the Pakistani government's legitimacy) has plunge the country into chaos. Ethnic tensions are on the rise and critical infrastructure has been been sabotaged. The train system has been particularly hard hit -- trains burned, track destroyed, bridges burned -- such that major sections of it will be closed for a month (once repairs begin). 200 bank branches were looted and factories were torched. There are widespread shortages of gasoline, water, and food mostly due to a nationwide shutdown (a combo of strikes, fear, and a three days of mourning). Road transportation is very dangerous due to local rioters (mostly in Karachi). Paramilitary Sindh Rangers have been given "shoot to kill" orders against protesters in Karachi.
I am dismissive of the “Great Man” theory of history, but Robb’s explanation shows that one person’s fate can have a ripple effect on all societal levels. In most cases, the effect is unintended. In America, the Rodney King beating is a great example—it set in motion a change of events that ended with the destruction of a good portion of Los Angeles. As I argued in an earlier article for Defense and the National Interest, a true super-empowered individual will be able to leverage social/political systems with the most basic of weapons, not "dirty bombs" or advanced technology.
The assumption (and a big one) behind Robb's analysis is that the killers intended to delegitimize the Pakistani government. While it is extremely likely that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were responsible, we cannot dismiss the possibility that elements of the military or intelligence services--with or without the knowledge of Musharraf--carried out the hit.
I can see a small amount of complicity from the Paki military but only slightly. I think tdaxp said something along the lines of "let it happen." Maybe but they stand to gain little from the incredible disruption Bhutto's death has caused. Though I suppose the upheaval does give them an excuse to reassert martial law.
Posted by: Jay | December 29, 2007 at 02:23 PM
Good points. The clampdown began shortly after the killing.
Posted by: A.E. | December 29, 2007 at 03:47 PM
One consequence of the King riots were attacks against uninvolved but market-oriented third parties, such as the Koreans:
"By the second day the violence appeared widespread and unchecked. The Korean American community, which perceived the first day's events as an abandonment of Koreatown, swiftly organized a self-defense squad composed of veteran Marines and workers, who entered the fray. Open gun battles were televised as Korean shopkeepers and the self-defense group took to using firearms to protect their businesses from crowds of looters." [1]
In Pakistan, the KFCs are burning. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Second_day_.28Thursday.2C_April_30.29
[2] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22981031-2,00.html?from=mostpop
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 29, 2007 at 07:38 PM
At least when I began reading the site, "Democratic Underground" commentators were found on the phrases LIHOP (Let It Happen on Purpose) and MIHOP (Make It Happen on Purpose) .
DUers tend to debate whether or not Bush LIHOP'd or MIHOP'd 9/11, but they are useful concepts in spite of their fans.
In the case of Pakistan, I suspect LIHOP.
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 29, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Yeah, that's actually what I thought of when Soob used that phrase.
As for the King beating, that's an interesting connection you draw with the Koreans. I remember the riots well. Terrifying situation, really.
Posted by: A.E. | December 29, 2007 at 09:28 PM
Robert Patterson links to some evidence for the LIHOP perspective
http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2007/12/mrs-bhutto---se.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 30, 2007 at 03:04 PM
Yeah, I heard about the PMC angle.
Posted by: A.E. | December 30, 2007 at 03:30 PM