The replaced brigadiers were removed from their posts prematurely; Zaheer was due to retire in July with Masood due to retire in September. Sources indicate that both men were close associates of the recenty replaced and highly disliked, Major General Nadeem Ejaz, former Director General of Military Intelligence (DGMI). Made with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani’s approval, the removal of Nadeem Ejaz’s associates represents a continued decline in influence for President Pervez Musharraf within the military. As DGMI, Ejaz was instrumental in many of Musharraf’s policy decisions and was a close advisor.

What may be of greater interest is the man whom Brig. Tiwana is replacing, Brig. Masood, is said by sources to have had excellent ties with the MQM and PPP. If true, it highlights the continued drive by Gen. Kayani to disentangle the Pakistan Army and its intelligence apparatus from politics after over 60 years of national involvement. After all, cordial relations with political parties should have no bearing on the selection of a regional MI commander.

Intel Validation
At the end of February, we reported that Gen. Kayani was looking to replace the then-DGMI, Maj. Gen. Nadeem Ejaz. We listed several candidates, one of whom was Major General Muhammad Asif, Pakistan’s former defense attache to Moscow. On April 4th, The News International reported that Maj. Gen. Asif was appointed DGMI.

Editor’s Note: For those of you wondering — I’m back.

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.