Our sources have confirmed that Gen. Kayani will be replacing Major General Nadeem Ejaz, the Director General of Military Intelligence (DGMI), after the completion of parliamentary elections. Sources cite that Kayani has been presented with an opportune time to rid himself of Nadeem Ejaz as Ejaz is not only unpopular among the Army’s top brass but also because his 3-year tenure as DGMI is nearing an end. Maj. Gen. Ejaz is well known for the high profile role he played in the ouster of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.

Insider Brief sources go on to further state that Gen. Kayani also intends on clipping the wings of the office of the Director General of Military Intelligence, giving the next general less responsibility and power than in the past.

Replacing Nadeem Ejaz will significantly reduce President Musharraf’s influence in the army and Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus. It will also go a long way in furthering Gen. Kayani’s process of removing the military from national politics and re-directing its efforts towards solely national defense.

Kayani’s task is a daunting one as he essentially seeks to re-engineer the Army’s culture which has been shaped by over 60 years of interference in the country’s governance and national affairs. It will be interesting to see how he balances his goals with the outcome and consequences of today’s parliamentary elections. The Army Chief may be forced to step into the fray and play referee if Pakistan’s political leaders — Musharraf included — get out of hand; an act that would highlight not only the difficulty of his objective but also what we stated in our last post: that for the for the near-to-medium term, the Pakistan Army will continue to have a role to play as the guarantor of the Pakistani state.

ELECTION FOOTNOTES:

• Voting in Pakistan’s parliamentary elections has come to an end. Ballot counting has now begun.
• Election turnout was comparatively low due to fear of violence, which killed at least 9 people today in bombings and shootings.
• Based on results that have started trickling in, projected winners for 3 of the provinces currently stand at:
  • Punjab: PML(N), PPP
  • Sindh: PPP, MQM
  • NWFP: ANP, PML(N) [in Hazara populated districts]
• With projections shaping up the way they are, Pakistan looks to be headed towards a broad coalition government which is the best Musharraf can hope for. In a coalition, the national government will likely be locked in gridlock allowing Musharraf to carry on with his policies unchecked. It will also allow his civilian allies — the PML(Q) — to hold some degree of influence. We’ve been projecting this outcome since October.

In addition to military action, sources also report that a major facet of the newfound campaign involves choking off Baitullah’s sources of funding and logistics. This will be done in part by assailing the business interests of the Mehsud tribe from which Baitullah hails. By pursuing the tribe’s assets and businesses, primarily focused in more developed areas such as Karachi, Tank, and Dera Ismail, the Army seeks to indirectly pressure the tribe and show them how self destructive it can be supporting Baitullah.

If history has taught us anything about the Pushtun tribes it’s this: money talks. The Army’s strategy should not only prove effective but also go a long way in driving a wedge between jihadist militants and the tribes that support them. As extremist Islam fast becomes the primary vehicle of Pushtun nationalism in Pakistan, making this wedge permanent is a vital objective in ensuring Pakistan’s territorial integrity.

Pakistani intelligence is also increasingly wary of Indian collusion with Afghan intelligence in fomenting instability along Pakistan’s borders. They consistently point to the presence of six Indian consulates in Afghanistan, four of which are not only close to the Afghan-Pakistan “border” and are in areas where few if any Indians reside. Recent news of resurgent militant Sikh activity in India after years of quiet may be warning shots from Pakistan that it too, can return the favor.

… AND RETREATS.
Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is living up to his reputation as a professional soldier. Sources state that the general has initiated the process of making sweeping changes in organization in the Army. On top of having re-instituted the role of Director General of Planning, the head of what amounts to the Army’s think tank, Kayani is systematically withdrawing the Army from the political arena.Told to us by sources months ago, Gen. Kayani’s directive that all officers abstain from interfering in politics under the threat of court martial has become widely reported. Now, sources have stated that the Army Chief has also directed Military Intelligence (MI) to desist from interfering in politics at all levels.

The big question is now this: when’s the ISI’s turn?

ELECTION ENDNOTES:

1. A senior Pakistani official recently conveyed to the Insider Brief how deeply distraught they were at the current state of affairs in Pakistan and at how President Pervez Musharraf was single mindedly focused on ensuring a pliant parliament to maintain his hold on power. Another senior official from within the ranks of the military stated that it was only a matter of “when, not if,” Gen. Ashfaq Kayani withdrew his support for President Musharraf.
2. Sources have reported that Pakistan People’s Party members informed President Musharraf that the will produced by Asif Zardari was indeed fake and that party officials kept quiet for the sake of capturing the “sympathy” vote in February’s upcoming parliamentary elections. They intend on seeking Zardari’s ouster after elections.
3. Media outlets have widely reported the ongoing dialogue between President Musharraf and Shahbaz Sharif, Nawaz Sharif’s chief lieutenant and younger brother, through common acquaintance Brigadier (retired) Niaz Ahmed. Sources close to Ahmed state that parlays between Musharraf and the younger Sharif are over the creation of an alliance to prevent the rise of the PPP in upcoming elections and that the two will be meeting in Ahmed’s home in London. They also state that there is a strong possibility that a deal has been struck between the two seemingly antagonistic forces. If true, it marks a return to “normalcy” in Pakistan’s constellation of forces: the establishment allied with its usual proxy, the Pakistan Muslim League, against the anti-establishment Pakistan People’s Party.

Today, it did. A suicide bomber detonated himself amidst a 70-member police contingent, minutes before a weekly lawyer’s protest in front of the Lahore High Court. The body count currently stands at 20 officers and 2 civilians dead, with scores wounded.

More Attacks to Follow?
Insider Brief sources further go on to state that Pakistani intelligence was aware of 8 suicide bombers that had entered Lahore to carry out attacks. With this attack, 7 still remain at large. This is despite a major breakthrough in late December (that went unreported) when law enforcement in Sargodha busted a terrorist ring. They recovered 10 tons of explosives and numerous detonators along with a number of terrorists comprising of bomb and suicide jacket makers.

Who Was Targeted?
Accounts vary as to who the bomber intended on attacking. Dawn reports that police were the intended targets wherein the bomber approached police and immediately detonated himself. Individuals familiar with the situation stated that a number of the police officers killed were fresh graduates from the police academy. This wouldn’t be the first attack on security forces or cadets. Suicide bombers in Pakistan have had a history of attacking not only cadets, but seasoned personnel from Pakistan’s military, paramilitary and law enforcement agencies.

CNN, quoting the same or similar sources as Dawn, tells a different story where the bomber approached the site of the impending lawyer’s rally, was stopped by police and then detonated himself. This presents the most interesting angle. A suicide bombing on the police is only tactical in nature. Pakistan’s security forces are rather large in number, and Punjab’s in particular are well funded and well equipped. For jihadists to “waste” scarce resources (e.g. explosives, the bomber, and the device itself) on small scale attacks is not sustainable.

An attack on the lawyer’s rally could potentially be strategic.

The Motives
The average Pakistani currently does not trust the government. Pakistan is rife with speculation, no matter how sensational, that the government (read: President Pervez Musharraf and company) was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

A sucessful bombing of a lawyer’s rally would immediately have people guessing who was behind the attack. Consider this line of potential reasoning/questions: Jihadists? Too simple an explanation. Was the government behind the attack? Were they looking to intimidate the lawyer’s movement? Were they looking to create an excuse to postpone elections by staging bombings at the onset of Muharram?

In this case, security forces halted the attack, at great cost to themselves, and saved many other lives in the process. Had the bomber succeeded, the government’s credibility would have taken a greater hit in the minds of an increasingly disenchanted and disenfranchised population, looking for excuses to direct their rage at the establishment. The potential outcome could have resulted in another wave of violence, chaos and instability for the Musharraf government — a jihadist’s dream scenario.

Strategies for Security
To counter the growing number of suicide bombers and related instability, the Pakistani goverment must take on a two pronged approach.

First, it must actively direct state resources to target and eliminate both the leadership of jihadist organizations and their bomb making infrastructure. Worthy of study is the Israeli model that has proven incredibly successful over the past decade resulting in a significant decline in suicide bombings within Israel proper.

Aside from having developed superior anti-suicide bomber tactics for security forces (e.g. identifying and eliminating potential suicide bombers), the key to Israeli success has been the targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders and particularly bomb makers. The Israeli’s know full well that making suicide vests and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is not a simple task but one that requires immense experience and training. The news is full of “wannabe” bomb makers who regularly blow themselves up as they toy with unstable chemical compounds. Denying terrrorist organizations the ability to produce bombs is the equivalent of taking away an infrantryman’s bullets.

Second, and most importantly, the government of Pakistan must placate its restless population, whose patience has grown thin in light of the present bout of socio-economic deterioration. Countering jihadists is just a stop-gap solution to counter short-term instability and violence. To reinstill stability (if it ever existed) in Pakistan for the long haul, the establishment must find a way to bring all sections of society to the table, create a consensus and instill a sense of participation in government for the populace. The most immediate way to do that is hold free and fair elections; unfortunately, from what our sources tell us, the elections in February will be anything but.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Hillary Clinton is many things, but one thing she is not is unintelligent. Nor are those she surrounds herself with. Her foreign policy team — which includes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and of course, her husband, former President Bill Clinton — is painfully aware of how impractical her proposal for joint oversight is. After all, it was under President Bill Clinton’s watch that Pakistan defiantly tested its nuclear weapons, despite the threat of new sanctions when its economy was teetering on the brink of collapse.

So then why did she issue such an undeniably flawed policy statement?

The answer is right in front of us in the media’s response. Following her third place finish in Iowa at the hands of Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards, Sen. Clinton’s policy appears to be a ploy designed to attract attention to her campaign on the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary. With a media that thrives on soundbites, it’s a ploy that in the past has proven effective.

NUCLEAR FALLOUT
Not convinced that the proposal is a campaign tactic? Assume for a moment that Clinton is serious in proposing joint US-UK stewardship of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Implications abound, the proposal would risk severe fallout for Pakistan as well as US interests in the region:

Violent and Vocal Reaction in Pakistan. It’s safe to say that any sitting government in Pakistan that would agree to US oversight of the nation’s nuclear weapons would be overthrown either in a military coup or by an overwhelming response from the Pakistani public. President Pervez Musharraf is afraid to openly acknowledge American boots on the ground in Pakistan’s northwest, let alone American oversight of Pakistani nukes. (Just today, Pakistani spokepeople were bristling at alleged deliberations by the Bush administration to give the CIA expanded powers to operate within Pakistan.)

Spike in Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Muslim world. Pakistan is currently the world’s only Muslim nuclear weapons state. US supervision of Pakistan’s nukes would be viewed as a continuation of the American “crusade” against Muslims. Pakistanis in general have long been convinced that the US is seeking to destablize their country in the hopes of an excuse to defang its nuclear capabilities. Many average Pakistanis are convinced that the US had a role to play in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto for that very reason. Sen. Clinton’s proposal is a sure fire way of stoking anti-Americanism and bringing Islamists to power in Pakistan.

Disruption of Sino-US relations. China was heavily involved in helping facilitate the funding and technical expertise towards the Pakistani nuclear program. China’s involvement reflects a long-standing strategic relationship between itself and Pakistan. The Chinese will not take pseudo-US control of nuclear weapons in their backyard lying down. The US government should be prepared for a severe reaction from the Chinese govement including aggressive behavior around Taiwan, Central Asia and the support of a military coup in Pakistan.

Loss of Credibility for the Democratic Party in Pakistan. The Pakistani establishment has long favored the Republican Party given the party’s record of, more often than not, engaging Pakistan. Many in Pakistan have not forgotten the treatment meted out to them by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office. If Hillary Clinton pushes her policy proposal, she would be helping ensure a poor working relationship with the government of Pakistan anytime a Democrat is in office.

The aforementioned are only a handful of the potential (frightening) outcomes from the promotion/imposition of Sen. Clinton’s proposal. It’s unlikely that the likes of Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, or Hillary Clinton herself would have overlooked these.

LESSONS LEARNT
The buzz generated by Clinton’s statement lasted a heartbeat and as of now, she trails behind Barack Obama by 9 points in New Hampshire. It’s a poignant lesson for all presidential candidates who seek to use controversial statements as a short term means of boosting their respective campaigns. Instead of formulating strong messages backed by well thought out policies, they end up right back where they started while looking, well, unintelligent.

Obama has taken some rather hardline stances in the past when it has come to Pakistan. He’s stated in the past that:

• the US should unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if there is actionable intelligence re: high value terrorist targets. (He later revisited this statement.)
• US Vice President, Dick Cheney, who currently manages US policy towards Pakistan, should visit Pakistan and ask President Musharraf to step down.
• Pakistan has many problems — including an anti-democratic president and an Islamist extremist movement that operates freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Without having made substantive statements with regard to Pakistan since his botched comment over invading Pakistan (see above), it’s clear that Obama doesn’t have a detailed Pakistan policy the way Senator Joe Biden did. In fact, now that Sen. Biden has quit his election bid for president, there are few, if any remaining candidates, with legitimate Pakistan related policies. For instance, Senator Hillary Clinton’s latest proposal that Pakistan share oversight of its nuclear weapons with the US and Great Britain is ludicrous — not legitimate policy.

There is an opening here for the Pakistani foreign ministry.

With a stunning win at the Iowa Caucuses and real potential for a win in New Hampshire only days away, Barack Obama’s chances for the White House continue to grow. It’s in the interest of the Pakistani foreign office, particularly the Pakistan Embassy, to be as accessible and as engaged as possible with US presidential candidates, particularly those such as Obama, in the hopes of shaping future US foreign policy towards Pakistan for the next half decade.

Campaign donations wouldn’t hurt either.

Bilawal Zadari is a 19-year old with no political experience and questionable Urdu skills, having lived most of his life abroad. Sources have indicated that Benazir had provided a list of advisors who would serve as a sort of council of regents for Bilawal with his father as principal advisor until he was politically able and legally eligible to run for office.

The question begs to be asked: will the PPP survive?

The Short Answer
Yes.

The Long Answer
In the short term, the PPP will ride the crest of emotional outpouring and sympathy arising from the death of its leader and likely emerge as the winner of the next parliamentary elections. But what about the long term? Bilawal Zardari will not be taking on full party leadership for another 5 years. Can the party hold together and maintain its popularity until then? If history is any indicator, the answer again is yes.

Pakistani Precedent. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was probably Pakistan’s most popular politician after Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder. His name and that of his family continues to elicit a cult-like following in all four of Pakistan’s provinces. Aside from being an impressive orator (just search YouTube), intelligent, and charismatic, Bhutto was the first politician that spoke for Pakistan’s poor and brought forth a populist message. Despite his many flaws, even those in middle and upper class were enthralled with the man.

Consider this: Zia-ul-Huq rose to power in 1978. He hanged Zulfikar Bhutto in 1979. After Zia’s mysterious death in 1989, a decade later, Benazir Bhutto swept elections and became prime minister. Two truncated premierships later and after nearly 8 years in exile, Bhutto returned to Pakistan as one of the most of the popular politicians in Pakistan’s political landscape.

The power of the Bhutto name is demonstratedly immense.

Subcontinental Precedents. In Pakistan, it’s the Bhutto’s. In India, it’s the Gandhi’s. The Gandhi dynasty of India presents a similar story of the power of a name tied with the longevity of a party. Indhira Gandhi, headstrong Indian prime minister and chairwoman of the National Congress party was assassinated in 1984. Her politically inexperienced son, Rajiv Gandhi, then an airline pilot, took on party leadership and became prime minister that same year. He was assassinated in 1991, following his parliamentary defeat in 1989. In 1998, 7 years after Rajiv’s death, his Italian-born wife, Sonia, became chairwoman of the Congress Party which finds itself in power today.

Sindhi’s, Seraiki’s, and the Poverty Stricken. Beyond emotionalism and the sentiment attached to the Bhutto name, there is the simple fact that the PPP has a solid, core constituency upon which to rely. Without the PPP, Pakistan’s Sindhi’s, Seraiki’s, and many of the nation’s poor, wouldn’t have a party to represent them. Punjabi’s after all, have the Pakistan Muslim League in all its lettered variants. The Sindh has the PPP. (Province-centric parties are ultimately dangerous though and only heighten the risk of ethnic/sectarian strife in Pakistan.)

The PPP survived the loss of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. So too will it surive the loss of Benazir.

TV: Fox News Channel
On Thursday morning, I made an appearance on Fox News Channel discussing Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and the situation in Pakistan when rioting and violence had just began to erupt in the streets. Click on the thumbnails below for larger screenshots; transcript and video footage to follow when available.

Radio: The John Batchelor Show
Tonight, I appeared on the John Batchelor Show (my favorite) discussing American media coverage of Bhutto’s assassination. My appearance was preceded by that of Najam Sethi, editor of the Daily Times.

John’s show airs on Sundays, WABC 770AM in New York from 7-10pm EST (webcast), and KFI 640AM in Los Angeles from 7-10pm PST (webcast).

• The government does not intend on imposing martial law at this point in time.  (The possibility however, can not be ruled out.)
• The Pakistan Army has been deployed to 16 of Sindh’s 23 districts.
  • This is surprising, I would have thought that the Rangers, a well equipped and well trained outfit, would have been adequate in combination with the police for internal security.
• The Army has now also been deployed in force to all vital installations.
• Banks and trains have been subjected to looting by criminals taking advantage of the situation. 

Chaos and looting continue across the country. Police struggle to maintain control. (Updated: 11:47am US EST/9:47pm PST)

Bhutto reportedly had a bullet in the head and one in the neck. The shot to the head is being ruled as the immediate cause of death. Grisly. (Updated: 10:05am US EST/8:05pm PST)

Nawaz Sharif has arrived at the scene, consoling PPP party workers. (Updated: 9:42am US EST/7:42pm PST)

Cause of death was the bullet wound to the neck, was on oxygen for 12 minutes. Bullets were fired through the front of the vehicle. Driver tried to speed away when the bomb blast occurred. Sherry Rehman has survived and is okay. Naheed Khan reportedly in critical condition. (Updated: 9:38am US EST/7:38pm PST)

Asif Zardari, Bhutto’s husband, refuses to speak to the media. Leaves for Karachi. (Updated: 9:24am US EST/7:24 pm PST)

Chaos and violence has broken out in Lahore. Tires are being lit on fire. All stores closed. Ambulances everywhere. (Updated: 9:19am US EST/7:19pm PST)

Individuals in the establishment that I’ve spoken with believe that the Chaudhries of Gujrat were behind the attack. Speculation will likely continue, but be mindful that many of my contacts believed the Chaudhries would make attempts on Bhutto’s life before she arrived in Karachi months ago. (Updated: 9:07am US EST/7:07pm PST)

Official time of death was 6:16pm Pakistan Standard Time, Rawalpindi General Hospital. Chaos is breaking outin Rawalpindi. Roads shut down. More chaos likely. Potential reimposition of emergency rule? (Updated: 9:00am US EST/7:00pm PST)

Details are coming in of the attack. Two shots were fired before the explosion, one of which struck Bhutto in the neck. This was a very precise attack. Likely culprits? Jihadists. (Updated: 8:35am US EST/6:35pm PST)

It has now been confirmed that Benazir Bhutto is dead. She succumbed to her wounds in the operating room. May God rest her soul. God save Pakistan. (Updated 8:26am US EST/6:26pm PST)

Just received a call – Benazir Bhutto dead? (Updated 8:23am US EST/6:23pm PST)

Benazir Bhutto has supposedly left the operating theater and stable. Unsure of real condition, no one being allowed into hospital. (Updated 8:19am US EST/6:19pm PST)

The Countdown Begins
Musharraf stepping down from his post as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) would mark an interesting turn of events, especially in light of the recent attempt on Benazir Bhutto’s life and strife in the country’s border regions. One would have reasoned that given the level of instability, Musharraf would have dragged his feet on shedding his uniform, but instead, we’re potentially witnessing the opposite. He may step down as COAS to facilitate a Supreme Court verdict in favor of his presidential candidacy; though it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule against Musharraf, lest it’s seeking to trigger a governmental crisis.

Musharraf’s expedited schedule can also be interpreted as a vote of confidence for Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Musharraf’s successor in the army. Musharraf would be signalling that he trusts Kayani enough to run the army without fear of being ousted or betrayed, though many in the opposition have long been anticipating the day that Musharraf doffs his uniform as it has been his only source of power. If and when he does remove his uniform, Musharraf will rely more than ever on the loyalists he has strategically placed throughout the military and the government.

Shaukat Aziz to Remain Premier
Sources are also indicating that the powers-that-be intend for Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to remain prime minister after general elections. They describe Aziz as being a “non-controversial” public figure and cite his proven track record in managing the economy. They go on to categorically state that Benazir Bhutto will not be the next prime minister.

This news, coupled with our previous reporting that Musharraf will not be abandoning his current civilian allies (read: the Chaudhries), rules out a major power-sharing agreement between Bhutto and Musharraf. It is likely that government intends to continue to dangle the idea of a power-sharing accord in front of Bhutto as a means of keeping both her and the public occupied while it prepares for general elections.

Though there may not be a major power-sharing agreement between Musharraf and Bhutto, we do foresee them coming to some sort of political accommodation along with the rest of the players on Pakistan’s scattered political field.

The government should be wary though not to underestimate Bhutto’s popularity or political abilities – she may just end up surprising everyone.

WHAT WE DO KNOW
The tactics and means involved in the attack make us believe with near certainty that they were carried out by Muslim extremists. Suicide bombings have not been the modus operandi for any of Pakistan’s more politically motivated organizations or those of insurgent tribes (e.g. Baloch nationalists).

The investigations being conducted right now are by and large a police affair though intelligence agencies are also heavily involved and coordinating efforts. My sources close to law enforcement investigations have revealed the following findings:

• There was only one suicide bomber. Though multiple severed heads have been found at the killing grounds in Karachi, there was only one “striker sleeve” found. A striker sleeve is the mechanism that the suicide bomber manually pulls to detonate the bomb.
• The bomber was a Muslim extremist. In addition to the mode of attack (suicide bombing), the actual mechanism – manual usage of a striker sleeve – hints to authorities that the bomber was an Islamist. Prior attacks by Muslim extremist groups in Pakistan have used the exact same mechanism.
• No IEDs used. When improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are planted, their explosions leave craters/holes in the ground. None were found at the scene.
• No car bombs used. Initial surveys indicate that there were no car bombs used. Authorities investigating have observed that all cars at the site were blown inward, not outward, the latter of which would indicate a car bomb.
• No grenade used. The media is widely reporting that the initial blast was a grenade. Sources have said that there were no signs of a grenade being used in terms of evidence found at the scene. They do however admit that a great deal of evidence was likely destroyed in the confusion and panic that ensued after the blasts.

Initial findings that no grenades or IEDs were used, leaves a glaring question – what caused the first blast? Details of the actual attack will continue to become available as investigations progress, but an even bigger question remains – who organized and funded the attackers?

WHO DONE IT?
A number of conspiracy theories have been floating around, particularly one in which some say Benazir Bhutto was behind the bombings as a means of boosting her own popularity – this is very unlikely. The consensus among authorities and officials in the government is that the bombing was too close for comfort and that Benazir could have legitimately lost her life in the process.

Bhutto did however announce that she had provided President Musharraf with a letter naming three individuals whom she believes were behind the attack. A well placed source revealed that the three named were:

1. Brig (retd.) Ejaz Shah - Intelligence Bureau (IB) Chief
2. Ijaz-ul-Haq - Religious Affairs Minister and son of the late dictator, Zia-ul-Huq, who hanged Bhutto’s father.
3. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) official who was heading up the investigation into Bhutto’s alleged corruption scandals

The Ijaz-ul-Haq and the NAB official’s inclusion on the list has led many in the government to brush off Bhutto’s allegations as politically motivated. But the mention of Ejaz Shah is always both interesting and controversial.

A retired army brigadier, Ejaz Shah is head of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) which falls under the purview of the Interior Ministry. He is also known to be a close friend of Musharraf’s who engineered the electoral rise of the Chaudhry cousins who now head up Pakistan’s king’s party, the PML(Q). By taking a swipe at Shah, Bhutto may be looking to weaken the Chaudhries by taking aim at their chief sponsor.

There is a flip side though. Ejaz Shah may have very well felt threatened by the return of Bhutto as it endangered the Chaudhries’ role in power and thereby his influence in government. Recently, one top official told me, “Ejaz Shah is more sincere to the Chaudhries than he is to Musharraf.” For some time now, there have been some very negative undercurrents flowing in the establishment against the unsavory Ejaz Shah.

I had also reported a month ago in “Benazir Makes a Date” that some sources were speculating that the Chaudhries would likely seek to assassinate Bhutto upon her return. Though both Shah and the Chaudhries have a lot to lose with Bhutto’s return, their roles in the Karachi blasts are highly speculative. This information is provided here for you to make your own informed decision. Plus it’s important to keep in mind that this attack boosted Bhutto’s popularity; Ejaz Shah and the Chaudhries would have known this. With the level of influence and resources they have at their command, they would have been able to ensure an attack large enough to effectively eliminate Bhutto.

Many in the establishment are convinced that these attacks were entirely organized, funded and executed by the Taliban/Al-Qaeda nexus. They have the means, motivation and resources to see this sort of operation through from start to finish.

MORE ATTACKS?
Some lower level intelligence sources on the ground have stated that chatter in Islamist and “Taliban” circles indicates that there are more attacks to come. They’ve heard that militants planned on welcoming Benazir Bhutto with a “21 blast salute” of which they say three blasts have already been executed. They claim that there were three blasts in Karachi, not two as has almost been universally reported. This makes us doubt the veracity of these claims but there is always the possibility that the third bomb may have failed to go off.

Bhutto’s return has proven to be explosive in the most literal of senses. The terrorist attack in Karachi is the largest in Pakistan’s history. If there were ever a time for the forces of moderation to band together against extremism – it would be now.