Reporting the death of a senior officer during counter terrorist operations is a difficult task for any army media organisation and one can well understand the dilemma that Pakistan army’s media wing Inter Services Public Relations [ISPR] must have faced while preparing the press release announcing the death of commanding officer of the Pakistan Army caused by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber.

Death in combat is a grim reality for a man in uniform and as such soldiers aren’t overly obsessed with fear of extinction on the battlefield. However, what most dread is being killed in an improvised explosive [IED] attack because this eventuality invariably comes without any forewarning, depriving a victim the chance of using his military skills and fighting for survival.

This is why any attempt to glamorise such an incident evokes sneers, which in turn indirectly mocks the dead. Unfortunately, this is exactly what ISPR has done yet once again.

In its news report, Dawn has quoted ISPR’s statement that reads, “A vehicle-borne suicide bomber was intercepted by the leading group, foiling his nefarious design to target innocent civilians/law enforcement personnel in Bannu City, averting major catastrophe.”

It also mentions that terrorists were located during the operation and after an “intense fire exchange, five khwarij [a term used by the Pakistan army while referring to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan [TTP] terrorists] were sent to hell by the security forces.” The ISPR statement further mentions that “However, in desperation, khwarij rammed the explosive-laden vehicle into one of the vehicles of the leading group” resulting in the death of Lt Col Shahzada Gul Faraz and a soldier.

The sequence of events that emerge after perusing ISPR’s statement:

• Lt Col Faraz was leading his troops from the front during an IBO [intelligence based operation].
• A vehicle-borne suicide bomber was intercepted by this group, foiling his nefarious design to target innocent civilians/law enforcement personnel.
• The army column also located terrorists and eliminated five of them in a fierce firefight without suffering any casualties.
• In desperation, a terrorist rammed his explosive-laden vehicle into Lt Col Faraz’s vehicle, killing him and a soldier [who was probably the driver].

ISPR’s account has all ingredients one looks for to fulfill the requirements of a stringent operational audit/ after-action investigation report- a commanding officer [CO] setting a personal example by leading from the front, timely interception of a vehicle-borne suicide bomber before he could target innocent civilians/law enforcement personnel, excellent leadership of the commanding officer and proficient battle craft displayed by the troops that enabled elimination of five terrorists without suffering any casualties.

Though impressive, ISPR’s statement nevertheless raises two extremely disconcerting questions:

• One- if the vehicle-borne suicide bomber had been intercepted by the party led by Lt Col Faraz even before contact with terrorists had been established, then why wasn’t the explosive laden vehicle destroyed or its driver killed/ incapacitated?
• Two- once a firefight with terrorists erupts, troops  follow the basic standard operating procedure [SOP] of dismounting from their vehicles and securing the area to prevent any egress or ingress of terrorists. So, how was a suicide bomber in an explosive laden vehicle able to breach the army cordon and ram into the CO’s vehicle?

It’s most likely that Lt Col Faraz was the hapless victim of a targeted vehicle-borne suicide bomb attack that happened so suddenly that he was in no position to take any evasive measures. Being a CO, he could have always deputed another officer to lead the IBO, but yet he chose to personally lead his men-a decision that speaks volumes about his extraordinary courage and leadership qualities. While there may have definitely been some security/intelligence lapses that enabled a vehicle-borne suicide bomber to target Lt Col Faraz, but this doesn’t undermine his personal valour and dedication to duty.

ISPR’s movie-like narrative of an interception, a fierce firefight followed by a vehicle bombing borders on the incredible and unfortunately portrays a well grounded professional officer as someone so rash or naïve that he violated the very fundamental tenets of counter terrorism tactics and thereby potentially endangered the lives of his men. In a way, the ISPR account tends to suggest that Lt Col Faraz met his end due to his own carelessness, which is indeed regrettable.

Will Director General [DG] ISPR Lt Gen Ahmed Shareef Chaudhary therefore care to explain why such an incredulous narrative that shows late Lt Col Faraz in poor light as a professional army officer has been concocted? While ISPR’s contrived account of the Bannu vehicle-borne suicide attack is outrageous, for an army that can disown its own dead killed in combat, tarnishing the military reputation of a soldier who’s laid down his life in the line of duty, just to project that there were no organisational failures, is certainly not a big deal!