-
The Chinese Waltz
May 24, 2013 | 2 comments
-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
At Large
Murder and Mayhem in Mumbai
A carefully planned operation such as this required local contacts.
A consistent theme of most of the world press has been what it considers the unusual nature of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. The fact is that the terrorist organization used what it had most readily available and organizationally useful: trained men and light arms.
The men who attacked multiple targets simultaneously were merely executing in a low-tech fashion the ordinary targeting associated with their political ambitions. Their operational and political logic is quite easy to divine. Their intent was to seek out foreigners, preferably British and Americans, symbols of Hindi economic success and decadence, a Jewish center in Mumbai, and lastly but most specifically, the local Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS).
On September 13, 2008, on the occasion of a series of bombings of markets and businesses in New Delhi, an e-mail threat reportedly was delivered by the organization “Indian Mujahideen” that in the future they would attack the ATS in Mumbai for harassing Moslems. Three other bombings in Jaipur, Bangalore and Ahmedabad already had been attributed to the IM since the previous May. In all 130 people had been killed.
There have been clear indications that the leadership of the IM wanted to embarrass the security forces of India’s great financial and entertainment center of Mumbai by establishing and maintaining for as long as it could a military-type presence in this immense city. Bombings could not accomplish its sophisticated, if brutal, ambition and at the same time challenge the ATS directly. An actual special operations-type strike was required.
India, and Mumbai in particular, provides an environment of historical religious division that offers a ready support structure for terrorist operations. Diplomatically stated, Mumbai’s police do not have a reputation for incorruption. Covert information gathering on security matters from cooperating local police, plus the widespread potential of materiel support from the city’s long-time organized crime element and impoverished Moslem community, created access both to essential intelligence and physical assistance.
Much has been made of the possibility of terrorist personnel and equipment being off-loaded from an unidentified cargo ship. Transportation from the coast of such a force with all its weapons, ammunition, explosives and other equipment and supplies does require considerable local assistance. It would have been easier, and carry less security risk, if stockpiles had been created beforehand easily accessible to an infiltrating fighting force.
Similarly, both the Taj hotel and the Oberoi had professional security protection whose circumvention or countering necessitated a detailed casing operation beforehand. All this adds up to careful planning made possible by well-developed local assets providing accurate information. What carried all the earmarks of a well-trained operation was actually a carefully thought out covert operations procedure — information for which was available through many public sources.
It is the execution phase of this activity that indicated the personnel involved had professional-level training and well-disciplined motivation. The Indian Mujahideen, of which the Daccan Mujahideen (the group taking responsibility) is said to be just another useful nomenclature, had already been cited by Indian government authorities as an operating instrument of Lashkar-e-Toiba. The LET has been said to be a Pakistani intelligence-aided instrument originally created to operate against Indian rule in Kashmir.
The connection to Lashkar-e-Toiba is also indicated by the lightning strike force tactics that had been used in the past by LET-associated Moslem terrorists in their attacks on Kashmiri targets. There are many terrorist elements that have been aligned with al Qaeda, gaining both financial and material aid. LET is considered one of these — though quite independent of al Qaeda’s directives.
Ultimately the bloody attacks in Mumbai were aimed at a propaganda objective. The lavish international lifestyle of the Indian city that has become the subcontinent’s finance center and film capital has taken a direct hit. The attacks have also embarrassed Pakistan’s President Zardari, who had only recently sought to reinvigorate peace talks with India.
Disruption of normal life in this most cosmopolitan of Indian cities also sends a message around the globe that nations cannot ignore the Islamic ambitions in South Asia. The mayhem in Mumbai is a forceful reminder that jihad is not limited to any particular region, but has worldwide objectives.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/01/murder-and-mayhem-in-mumbai
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The (Real) Great Divide
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Melvin| 12.1.08 @ 7:25AM
When is the world going to get serious about fighting terrorism. I'm not talking about creating a police state so secure that we lose all of our freedoms.
I'm talking about, actually calling these, "militants" for what they really are, "murderers, and the enemy."
We didn't call the Germans and the Japanese, "militants," we called them the, "enemy," and set out to destroy them and their sanctuaries.
This playing footsies with these barbarous thugs who hide behind religion must be stopped.
Only when the enemy is denied safe haven and their will to fight is destroyed will we as freedom loving nations actually and truly be free again to walk the street without fear.
frost| 12.1.08 @ 8:07AM
If we were to only look at the good side and say (in Politically Correct fashion) that 99-percent of all Muslim-Americans would never turn on their own government. That would still leave a mere 60,000 potential terrorist sympathizers. That ain’t chopped liver… And, lest we forget, during a “skirmish” between Israel and Hezbollah a couple years ago mostly Muslim-Americans and their sympathizers, protested outside of the White House against Israel and the United States. Most of the mainstream media totally ignored the fact that almost 10,000 of these mostly Muslim protesters were shouting, “Rah, rah, Hezbollah! Long live Hezbollah!” Our fellow citizens cheering a terrorist organization that had already proudly killed hundreds of Americans? So far as I’m concerned, those “good” Muslims have done absolutely nothing about the atrocities being committed in their name. Hence, the line between the good and bad Muslims is becoming increasingly blurred. And, as is often said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. And the problem(s) is/are perpetuated by the press - - we heard nothing, literally nothing about the Islamic community (mostly in Syria and Lebanon) endorsing Barack Obama recently, remember? The media kept it quiet, but jihadist websites positively drooled at the prospect of a Democrat win. American Muslims, when asked how they voted ‘way back in 2004, 71% said for John Kerry, vs. just 14% for George W. Bush. More historic proof? Also in ‘04, our US was delivering many millions in aid to mostly-Muslim Indonesia after a tsunami (if memory serves, more than the rest of the world COMBINED). A newscast caught the picture of a US soldier handing a sack of rice to an Indonesian - who was wearing an Osama binLaden T-shirt. And so it goes. These are the more modern versions of the Dancing-in-the-streets after 9/11. Gets scarier and scarier almost daily, 'ay?
And finally, compound all the aforementioned stuff with that Indian press photographer who noted that the Indian police were not firing at the terrorists in the railroad station...?
It appears that we're seriously outnumbered, gang!
Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 1:16PM
Let's please dispel the myth that the Mumbai operation was a stunningly professional operation. It was not. Why? Because the assault force was sacrificed for an objective that was not attainable. These "terrorists" are not professional, because the do not apply terrorist tactics to achieve concrete, attainable political goals.
Indian civil service is based upon pay-offs. It is far easier to make a single payment to one or two people to "smuggle" a few people and their baggage containing weapons into the country, than it is to have to try to maintain secrecy while weapons are obtained and stockpiled in-country and then distributed to the shooters. Transportation in India is as simple as climbing on a train with your baggage. Then, no plans were made for the exfiltration of the shooting teams. They were supposed to die in place, which they did. Al Qaeda in Iraq learned the fallacy of that form of attack. It is too wasteful of personnel generally and trained personnel in particular.
Too top off these problems, the terrorists make no effort to actively pursue a political solution. The IRA is a classic example of a successful terrorist campaign. After struggling, seemingly in vain, for years against the British in Northern Ireland, they embarked upon a political solution through the offices of Sinn Fein. Islamic terrorist organizations have not yet learned this and are still utilizing tactics reminiscent of suicide attacks against overwhelming odds.
Little or no professionalism is evident in most terrorist activities in the world today.
Jeremiah| 12.1.08 @ 2:33PM
Frost --
"Good Muslims" are under no moral obligations to satisfy you that they are opposed to terrorism.
Rather, you assume quite a burden of proof when you decide to speak in the broad, sweeping terms you've chosen.
The Muslim community in the US is a miracle of assimilation, continuing one of our finest traditions. 90% of Muslims voted in the last election. Whom they voted for doesn't matter. The triumph is that because the vast majority of Americans are NOT prejudiced against these people -- even though it would be very easy to slide into bigotry for any of us (as many of you can attest) -- Muslims are treated as fellow citizens and are acclimating to American culture and society quite well. In Germany and France, where Muslims are treated with hostility and suspicion, things are very much different indeed.
We are living through the anxiety raised by another horrible terrorist attack.
The temptation is to respond out of fear and anger. This clouds the judgment. Vengeance seeking never works. I understand why many people are writing into this site and others with anger and hostility against Muslims. But it is the task of thoughtful people to slow down, learn something about the world, and be reasonable.
Look at the past seven years. In those instances where we've scored unambiguous victories against terrorism we find that government agencies were patiently working with information in cooperation with allies in the Islamic world. We find that essentially police work accounts for our victories, while lashing out in irrational violence simply makes us look cruel, weak, desperate, and foolish. When the plot to bomb Heathrow was uncovered, for example, we learn it was Scotland Yard -- not the USAF -- that protected us from an attack. Detectives, not infrantrymen.
If we succeed against terrorists it will be because we were smart, not angry; patient, not wrathful; clear-headed, not bigoted; and open-minded, not convinced.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.08 @ 3:54PM
Maybe Daphne is right, hmm, how about we invite our opponents to Yasgur's farm next summer for the 40th anniversary of the Woodstock Festival?
First we'll serve the peace and love militants some brown rice and tempeh.
The second course will be a Caesar salad with croutons.
For dessert the flower power freedom fighters will get apple and cherry pie.
They will all wear rainbow clothing signifying the multinational nature of the festival.
The highlight of the festival will be the Jefferson Airplane performing 'Somebody to Love':
"when the truth is found
to be lies
and all the joy
within you dies"
Jeremiah| 12.1.08 @ 5:44PM
Alan -
I don't know what you're babbling about. My posting was about adopting a clear, sober, rational approach to killing or capturing terrorists that works.
My impression of the last seven years is that our society has been motivated by fear and a desire for vengeance. The results are clear for anyone to see.
Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 7:15PM
Jeremiah,
I have to disagree with you that our society, during this war, has been motivated by a fear and desire for vengeance. If that were the case, we would have carpet bombed all of Afghanistan and left, not stayed for six years and tried to build a democracy there. We would have Muslim interment camps in the Arizona desert. We would not have invaded Iraq. And we would not be having this discussion.
The United States is at war with certain groups in the Middle East. There certain countries that we are on the verge of entering into war with. The current occupation of Iraq was simply the continuation of the Gulf War. It developed into one of the major campaigns of the War On Terror, when nearly every Islamic jihadist outside of the Palestinian Territories streamed into the country to kill Americans. Not only did we gain the opportunity to permanently retire a huge number of enemy fighters, but Iraq is becoming more prosperous that it has been in the last half century. As for how the War On Terror should be fought, it is a being fought as a team effort by worldwide military, intelligence and law enforcement resources. The military gets the most news exposure cause they have cool equipment, wear readily identifiable uniforms and blow things up. But, civilian intelligence and law enforcement agencies are also heavily involved, though less obviously.
As for Muslims in the U.S., they are welcome here; if they come to be Americans or visit as responsible guests. The problem the U.S. has comes not from the religious beliefs of most of the Muslim population, with the exception of some radical Imams and others, but with the fact that some Muslim immigrants have brought their conflicts with them. And their activities, on behalf of their former countrymen, is detrimental to the interests of the United States and the vast majority of her people. There are significant problems in both Britain and France because much of their Muslim population has a lower level of education and wealth than those in America and a lower level of opportunities for advancement in society.
The current administration and all of its security components are not in this for vengeance. They recognize that a clearly identifiable threat to the lives of the American people and the continued existence of this country exists and they are determined to destroy it, with as little collateral damage as possible.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.08 @ 7:37PM
Jeremiah,
you wrote, "I understand why many people are writing into this site and others with anger and hostility against muslims".
Maybe you shouldn't be so understanding; if we're wrong to be motivated by fear, wrath, vengeance, hostility, suspicion, and bigotry, then you should instead write,
"I do not understand why so many are writing into this site and others with anger and hostility against muslims".
If it is understandable why America reacted the way it did in the past seven years then perhaps we did acceptably well considering the pressure we've been under. And there has been no attack since 9-11.
Jeremiah, what are you saying? that it is understandable we reacted the way we did in the past seven years, but NOW it is time to slow down and be sober, rational, clearheaded?
joe| 12.1.08 @ 10:23PM
seeing that there were only 10-15 terrorists, one might wonder how things would have been different if the hotel security guards, or some of the citizens, had been armed.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.08 @ 10:43PM
Joe,
good point. but my whole thrust is the critiques of
Bush's war on terror amount to like watching a baseball game and
after it is over commenting the pitcher should have done such and such. The third baseman should have done this, the star batter should have done that.
"Bush's war cabinet style has been too insular"
"Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, the intelligence was faulty ( DUH!)"
"the surge should have commenced in 2005"
"We have been too hostile, vengeful"
"
Jeremiah| 12.2.08 @ 2:06AM
Thomas --
Much of what you say I agree with. I wish you could persuade some of your friends how important non-military agencies and agents are in fighting terrorism. I'd say in the end what's standing between us and a dirty bomb in what of our cities are forensic accountants and caffeine addicted detectives up now in a government office somewhere pouring over plane manifests.
When I was complaining of fear and vengeance I was more referring to the rhetoric surrounding the so-called "war on terror." The Republicans used fear of Muslims and terrorism to an extent I found downright ignoble, and they've given tacit permission for people to crave too much security. If it were olden days, I'd say it was unmanly.
That's not to say we can soften our resolve to fight terrorists. But again, despite all the inflated rhetoric and bone-headed jingoist calls for war against Islamists, fighting terrorism means pretty much the same thing fighting the Mafia meant: only we get fewer chances to make mistakes and the complications involved are staggering.
Giving in to xenophobia, intolerance, and bigotry is not only morally wrong, it will cut us off from the people in the world likeliest to be good friends in the fight against terrorism -- the majority of Muslims who do not support it (and who, if we were interested in facts and history, actually have suffered far more as a result of terrorism than we have).
Jeremiah| 12.2.08 @ 2:13AM
Alan --
You complain that I on the one hand descry the fear and anger of posts while at the same time saying I understand it.
I don't know what is so surprising about understanding a natural human anxiety that is raised by reports of such terrible violence. It is completely understandable, and I suppose if it makes you feel better to vent on a website, there's no harm done.
And if you want to watch 24 and have fantasies that you are a government agent kicking Muslim behind in a dark room somewhere, that's OK too by me.
It's a free country, thank God. Just to confuse these things with thinking. Especially about a topic as important and complicated as terrorism. That's all I ask.
ruth| 12.2.08 @ 5:31PM
Jeremiah, as usual, you make accusations without facts. What bigotry? Give one example of American bigotry toward Muslims since 9/11. You can't because there is none; besides, your Obamassiah is in office now, everything is going to be perfect. Why whine?
Jeremiah| 12.2.08 @ 7:18PM
Ruth --
What bigotry?
Until you can join in the discussion like a rational adult, Ruth I'm through with you.
The idea that there is no bigotry expressed about Muslims (this site being a perfect place to start looking) is just ridiculous.
ruth| 12.2.08 @ 8:34PM
Jeremiah, please don't hurt me like that. Through with me? I just couldn't take it. Add megalomania to your long list of character flaws, clown. You still haven't provided ONE fact to back up your specious claim of bigotry toward Muslims. Not one. I won't be through with you until you exhibit some integrity--and I know that's tough for a liberal.
Jeremiah| 12.2.08 @ 10:59PM
Ruth
I've been reading your comments on here since the election, when I first visited Am Spec.
You tend to circulate commonly made points on talk radio. You tend to speak in cliches. You never question any orthodox tenet of Hannity-style "conservatism" (scare quotes are there because this reactionary set of views is not genuine conservatism). You don't demonstrate empathy for people different than you. I find this odd and annoying. Ultimately, it's not fun to have debates with you because you are incapable of doubting your own views -- an absolute necessity in a good debater or thinker. Finally, your hostility tends to be directed against the downtrodden, marginalized, or misunderstood -- people who have less than you. To borrow from the great Dr. Johnson (a real conservative) to be hostile towards those with less than you is vulgar, common, and therefore disgusting.
ruth| 12.2.08 @ 11:32PM
Jeremiah, I reject comments from posters like you because they are typical of you haters on the left. You do not know me, you know nothing about me; but in your arrogance you presume to know who I am and how I live my life. I don't listen to talk radio but I bet you are a big-time aficionado of Olbermann, HuffPost and all the garbage mongers on the left. I find it amusing that you claim to be all about empathy--but have you ever once thought about an unborn child being torn from its mother's womb, the agony that child must feel? Or do you only hear 'CHOICE' echoing through the recesses of your mind? Do you ever doubt your views? I don't think so because all I hear are your sneering insults and your smug, robotic remarks. Very little self-introspection. Pardon me if I reject your sermon on how to be a good conservative because I don't find your advice trustworthy or you to be a good person.
Jeremiah| 12.3.08 @ 8:06AM
Ruth --
Not that it matters, but I'm a pro-life Democrat (there are many of us).
And, I'm here reading the Am Spec: I think it's pretty clear I'm interested in different ways of looking at things.
Here's what I do, and I'd recommend a program like this for you:
I get news from a variety of news sources. Jim Lehrer's News Hour is the best broadcast news. There are many newspapers worth reading, even some not lambasted as "liberal" by idiots who brag they don't read newspapers (WSJ).
Then I look around for different kinds of forums where people give their opinions about the news. I avoid sites where rank bigotry prevails. I avoid Huffington and Kos because I do not like them. There are many out there. The key is not to be a low information blog surfer. And not to be a hostile jerk.
ruth| 12.3.08 @ 12:05PM
From my perspective, you are the hostile jerk. I am sick of liberals insulting me, demonizing me because I am conservative. You don't debate facts, you make them up, and you still haven't provided one example of bigotry toward Muslims post 9/11.
ruth| 12.3.08 @ 12:18PM
Jeremiah, just because you grace us with your presence here at AmSpec doesn't mean you are open-minded. You sound like a typical, closed-minded liberal constantly nipping at the heels of conservative posters. You don't come up with any thing new and different; all I hear from you is liberal talking points. Boring! I've gone through the University system, I understand the tenants of liberalism, professors tried to indoctrinate me a long time ago and I rejected it then. You offer nothing new under the sun, hon.
Jeremiah| 12.3.08 @ 2:10PM
Tenets of liberalism, my dear, not "tenants of liberalism."
Sorry. It's just something I learned in college.
ruth| 12.3.08 @ 4:20PM
Excuse my error, too bad you never learned humility. Hostile jerk are your words--not mine.
ruth| 12.3.08 @ 4:23PM
And you still have not provided ONE example of bias toward Muslims. Gasbag.
Greg| 12.4.08 @ 7:53AM
To Jeremiah and Ruth-
If you were in that cafe in mumbai, and the terorrists asked you if you were an American, what would you have answered?
ruth| 12.4.08 @ 5:56PM
It wouldn't have mattered for me: I'm white.
Ms. Know| 12.6.08 @ 9:45PM
The liberal illuminati need not go sending money over to these countries, because they don't need it, and we don't have it to spare.