More Bhutto fallout

The two threads of analysis from Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan yesterday are, generally, the geopolitical impact and the effects (if any) on the US primaries. Some commentators are lamenting the latter; I think it's a natural and unavoidable response, especially because it's not like a unilateral refusal to engage in politics following tragedy has served Dems very well in the past.

That said, I continue to think that the domestic political impact of this event will be minimal. Given how little people pay attention to the specifics of international events, especially in countries that aren't named Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, any interpretation of this is likely to be either (1) meta (i.e. focused on broad issues of judgment or crisis-handling or whatever), or (2) by foreign policy nerds. The meta angle tends to have an impact when it's terrorism (see: bin Laden, 2004), but not much else -- does everybody remember the huge impact of the assassination of Indira Gandhi (India's prime minister) the week before the 1984 presidential election? I didn't think so. More after the jump...

The only way this really breaks into the primaries is if somebody really screws it up, and Huckabee is (rightfully) taking flak for being completely uninformed about the situation (or, more specifically, committing the sin of revealing his lack of knowledge), and then there's the flap over Obama advisor David Axelrod. He made a point yesterday that's absolutely true and worth discussing, that Iraq has taken our focus off of Pakistan and Afghanistan (and terrorism in general); unfortunately, he did it in a way that made it sound like he was, in part, blaming Hillary for Bhutto's death. Bad choice. Fortunately for Obama, only about 300 people have ever heard of Axelrod, and most of them live in D.C.

Which brings us to the actual foreign policy impact. Pakistan is most definitely in flux right now: Bhutto's party is in disarray, as she dominated it, and there's no certain successor; the other major "moderate" party has already decided to boycott the Jan. 8 elections (if they're even held then); and violence has erupted in various parts of the country. Ironically, Musharraf may solidify his hold on power by *keeping* the elections in January since both opposition parties will either boycott or be totally disorganized in the wake of these events, and he could claim a victory for democracy even as he decimates the parties that would likely have won a plurality in the elections.

It remains to be seen whether the international community will encourage Musharraf to postpone the elections, but for the moment there's been immediate reaction toward a domestic crack-down. Any smart leader knows when to loosen control a little to let emotions run their course, and Musharraf, whatever his other failings, isn't stupid. But on a broader level, it really is quite a setback for democracy, and as I said yesterday, a huge blow to US policy, which was bad to begin with and is now essentially eviscerated.