Mumbai Massacres: We Can’t Respond Without the Facts
Doing so would not only be stupid — it would be dangerous.
On a business-as-usual morning in March 2004, terrorists launched a coordinated attack on Madrid commuter trains killing 191 people and wounding 1,755. The government, with only three days remaining before general elections, quickly blamed Basque-separatists groups. Almost all the conclusions reached in the immediate wake of the bombings turned out to be wrong. The government fell. Many blamed the miscues on misspeaking after the disaster, not how officials responded to the carnage. In the aftermath of last week’s attacks in Mumbai, it is worth reflecting on the lessons of Madrid. Responding to terrorist incidents with conjecture and guessing, rather than facts, is just not a good idea.
Much of the Mumbai speculation on the three days of running-gun battles between terrorist and security forces so far verges on the ridiculous. Suggesting, for example, that these attacks are particularly “sophisticated” and bear the “hallmarks” of a particular group seems premature. It may turn out that the coordinated strikes with small arms and explosives launched across the city were the product of a well organized conspiracy, but it is hard to conclude that just by the attacks themselves. After all, it does not really require much effort to outfit ten men for an afternoon’s killing spree or organize simultaneous attacks at several locations. Nor does it take a terrorist mastermind to case targets beforehand or adopt inconspicuous dress before the assault. (Both measures were apparently undertaken.) In short, armed assaults are among the simplest attacks to organize, particularly when aimed at public, undefended targets and when the perpetrators are not worried about getting out alive. Frankly, any group of “gang bangers” could have pulled off the massacres in Mumbai.
Likewise, analysts were too quick to jump to conclusions based on the nature of the sites attacked. The Western media made much of the fact that places struck included those frequented by foreigners. Shootings, however, also occurred at, among other places, a crowded train station where the likelihood of finding tourists and overseas businessmen would be pretty slim. In fact, many more Indians than foreigners were killed. The dead and injured also included Hindus as well as Muslims.
Finally, the government and many analysts zeroed in pretty quickly on Pakistan-based insurgent groups as the likely source of the conspiracy.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
James Jay Carafano, a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation, is the author of the books "G.I. Ingenuity" and "Private Sector, Public Wars."
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
28 Comments
1. Typewriter King:I’m not seeing what the downside of the Indian military operating on the fairly safe assumption that Kashmir-based terror groups are loose accessories to what happened.
I don’t see what would be so damaging about diplomatically pointing out Pakistan’s long pattern of disregard for it’s responsibilities as a sovereign nation-state to crack down on the Kashmir insurgency.
I don’t understand why it’s so en vogue for the wizards of smart in the think tanks to tell us all the chill when our highly evolved analogue brains piece together a pretty clear pattern.
Dec 1, 2008 - 1:56 am 2. Lewis B:http://www.hotklix.com/?ref=content/152704
People you have to watch this video in Urdu/Hindi from a major Pakistani cable TV program where in an analyst is going on about how just like 9/11 was orchestrated by Americans and Israelis, this one in Mumbai was orchestrated by ‘ Hindu Zionists ‘. The anchor agrees all the while saying ‘ sahi hai ‘ meaning that’s right. The theory is that just like US used a fake 9/11 to attack Muslim lands, India will use this fake attack to go into Pakistan. There’s a lot of taunting of the victims and assertions that the attackers were actually Hindus. This will be believed as usual by a lot of people in the Muslim world.
This isn’t a fringe program. It’s a very popular TV show hosted by Qudsia Qadri and the analyst is Zaid Hamid. I understand the whole thing but I don’t know ehere to send this clip fpr professional translation. The MEMRITV site was unfriendly.
Dec 1, 2008 - 3:06 am 3. cedarford:Agree. With lots of nuke bombs and troops within 100 yards of one another “ready to go” both India and Pakistan need to think hard about it, ensure all evidence is assembled - and seriously ask if this is worth a general war in which 100 million could die.
For Pakistan, will they tolerate terrorist groups that almost triggered a nuke war with the terror attack on Indian Parliament in 2002 and now this - or will they have to make a strategic decision to end sponsoring terror as a national survival thing. If they do anything less than full cooperation, India may very well decide it’s time to wreck the Pak economy, its Navy and AF.
India has to be cool about this - right now, the average Indian and those in elite posts are anything BUT cool. They are angry not only about murderous thugs from their archenemy rampaging, but angry about 60 cops fleeing in fear from the train station rather than fight the 2 Paks there, about their commandos taking 60 hours to whack 8 guys, about their Navy getting nowhere on warnings of a sea attack. They need to get the full enemy interrogations done, track the electronic signals, verify the terrorists stories as true or false, listen to the Pakistani Gov’ts response to details of the attack.
Dec 1, 2008 - 3:19 am 4. chuck,:angry about 60 cops fleeing in fear from the train station
That verified? If true, it could plant a dangerous idea in the other side’s leadership that India would be a walk-over .
Dec 1, 2008 - 3:46 am 5. MarkD:Since they have one of the terrorists alive, I think the facts will be forthcoming.
Dec 1, 2008 - 6:55 am 6. Jason S:Lewis B:
Yeah, right. India orchestrated the attacks themselves using….er…paid suicide attackers, who didn’t mind getting themselves killed for a government operation? *sigh*
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are ridiculous, unbelievable and discredited. Quite frankly anyone who thinks they hold water is an idiot. To then cite this nonsense in order to lend credence to an equally ridiculous Mumbai conspiracy…oh man.
And the evidence so far? A “major Pakistani TV channel said so.” Of COURSE theories like this are going to be solid currency in Pakistan. Ask yourself, how much unmitigated, unfounded bulls*it is broadcast on Muslim TV stations throughout the world on a daily basis? Here’s a clue - even more than gets broadcast on our TV stations.
Dec 1, 2008 - 6:58 am 7. tanstaafl:I don’t understand why it’s so en vogue for the wizards of smart in the think tanks to tell us all the chill when our highly evolved analogue brains piece together a pretty clear pattern.
Indeed.
After all, it does not really require much effort to outfit ten men for an afternoon’s killing spree or organize simultaneous attacks at several locations.
I think a lot of organizing and training were involved to get those guys into Mumbai to effect carnage. It was written that they knew (for example) the layout of the Taj better than the hotel’s own security forces.
Dec 1, 2008 - 7:20 am 8. Saltherring:Cedarford (#3) is correct if the AP report I read this AM is accurate. It stated most of the 60 policemen were armed with batons and WWI rifles. Even so, the guys with the Enfields should have prevailed. Apparently India is woefully unprepared for random attacks, a supposition their senior government officials are readily admitting, some as they offer their resignations. Get ready for more of this, possibly in Europe.
Dec 1, 2008 - 8:28 am 9. dan:pakistan is the geostrategic black hole. india will be dragged in, one way or another; the more atrocities, the more the present government will lose legitimacy, the more an anti-Pakistan, pro-war faction will prevail. tactically, it seems like the most India could do would be to send in troops through kashmir, blackout the media, and do what needs to be done. on the other hand, if they intended a real conquest of pakistan they would be doing everyone a gigantic favor from which india could really take its place as a strategic bulwark of Anglophone modernity in Asia.
there’s going to be pain either way. pakistan is not going to be a soluble problem. something drastic must be done.
Dec 1, 2008 - 8:29 am 10. Tom Holsinger:The signals intelligence failure is the tipoff. “The dog did not bark during the night.”
Terrorists do not have that kind of secure communications ability unless they have government support. This was an ISI operation.
Dec 1, 2008 - 11:35 am 11. T C:Hey James Carafano, don’t comment on something you know nothing about. The Lashkar e-Toiba has been carrying out terrorist attacks against India since 1989. That’s right — 1989, and TENS of thousands have been killed in Kashmir and elsewhere! And it’s one group, along with Jaish -e- Mohammed that’s singularly responsible for almost all of these attacks. Go do some research.
“Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation”. My rear end.
Dec 1, 2008 - 11:45 am 12. Alan Srout:Lewis B:
Please send it to Michelle Malkin at writemalkin@gmail.com
and Rush Limbaugh at ElRushbo@eibnet.com
Dec 1, 2008 - 11:46 am 13. Shaan:I wonder what you think tanks would advice even if there is evidence.
Dec 1, 2008 - 11:49 am 14. Andrew Ian Dodge:The facts are coming out and they get more disturbing the more we hear. War between India and Pakistan is more likely by hour.
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:08 pm 15. Douglas Bogle:Never fear Obama is here.
Normally I am not an Obama fan, however this is an opportunity for him to create common ground, between the Pakis, india and the US, focal point,islamic terrorists.
The Indians have already confronted the pirates.
Pakistan wants proof to procede forward, give it to them and force them to act.
Obama can attack Pakistan, but from within.
But will he. Or will Bush do it.
Never fear Obama is here.
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:14 pm 16. uburoisc:I think Lewis B’s point is that the Muslims, at all institutional levels, have been systematically refusing to face up to the truth that it is Muslim terrorists who commit mass murder all over the world. When you have national TV offering up idiotic and preposterous theories to a largely uneducated public about Jews and Americans being behind 9/11, and now this, it makes it impossible to consider that there are reasonable or intelligent people in charge in Pakistan. And if good people in Pakistan will not stand up and demand that the their intelligence services and the people who put this together face swift punishment, then India has no other alternative except to wage war against the whole populace. Either the Pakistani people will root out the jihadis internally, or they will face a full-scale war against a vastly superior military; spinning fantasies about a Jewish Hindu conspiracy is just going to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:53 pm 17. WestGuard:Indias weak security has been exposed to islamic terrorists. Cops still using ww1 rifles and lacking even basic radio communications with each other, in addition to a lack of will to fight by some, have emboldened islamic terrorists, everywhere, tremendously.
India had better budget lots of money to upgrade to modern poice weaponry, security training and communications if they are to survive in that part of the world. It is shocking that a country with the ability to successfully put a probe on the moon lacks the ability to protect its own citizens and visitors from a handful of islamic punks. Will they be better prepared next time if there are 200 terrorists attacking instead of just ten?
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:56 pm 18. R W:I posted this on the 27th:
While watching today’s events in Mumbai, I couldn’t help noticing a few things. It appeared the first responders, looking like local police types, were armed with ancient Enfield bolt-action rifles. Nothing brings confidence like being completely outgunned.
I also noticed that many times an officer was walking around and not only showing each individual soldier which direction to point his rifle, but also placing each soldier in position - including how to sit or lay. I couldn’t tell if these were military, paramilitary or police units.
The Indian army is an all volunteer force and is known as a professional well-trained organization. Nevertheless, what I saw this morning was typical of a poorly trained, top-heavy, military/paramilitary force whose only trained professionals are the officer class.
Dec 1, 2008 - 2:24 pm 19. cedarford:Indias weak security has been exposed to islamic terrorists. Cops still using ww1 rifles and lacking even basic radio communications with each other, in addition to a lack of will to fight by some, have emboldened islamic terrorists, everywhere, tremendously.
I would not take a good read of this “emboldening terrorists everywhere”. That is another media cliche` like various dumbass police brass and security officials here quoted repeatedly: “We heroes have to be perfect everytime, and the terrorists lucky only once. If they are, we lose, and the terrorists win!”
That from “hero” government officials that gave us Katrina with 1/3rd of the police force deserting and the airport fingernail clipper confiscation follies…And many of them happen to be the last kid in your 1st grade class able to tie their shoes properly, or the momma one job out of welfare into a TSA uniform.. while some terrorists are sadly among the high IQ Muslim “best and brightest”.
Anyways, on the above quote:
1. Mumbai cops have radios on a unit level.
2. India’s police, like other Indian socialist bureaucracies - have cursed the country with red tape, unresponsiveness, and a “that’s the way we have done it, always” complacency. Like elsewhere, failure can be good in forcing improvement. Better training in emergencies, less focus in their bureaucratic world. While NYC cops did well on 9/11, NYC firefighters were forced to confront some ugly truths about their high casualties being as much a function of their lack of professionalism, ability to follow orders in their 9/11 Fiasco as “bad radios”.
3. “WWI” does not mean obsolete. Many law enforcement, certain military outfits, and a great number of private citizens prefer the WWI Colt .45 Semiauto. Same with all the 1898 Mauser variants that were the most common infantry weapon in BOTH World Wars, and are the basis of most modern bolt-action hunting and sniping rifles. The Indians had Enfield .303s. They shoot a more powerful and accurate long distance round than the AK-47, just not as many per minute. From a defensive position or in squad tactics “aimed” at taking out gunman in a hostage situation, they are better than excited cops charging a gunman in the middle of a large crowd with machine guns. The rifle is not the problem - it is the Indian lack of training, and perhaps testicles (and not a problem unique to Indian cops - we have our own USA examples).
4. Incidents like this always bring the usual American gun nuts out to assert that such an attack is impossible in “citizen-armed Red States” or that any attack would be quickly stopped by American gunowners pulling out their beloved, oiled&polished everyday “pieces”. Despite similar incidents in Red States involving deranged madmen that typically have 10-30 minutes to freely wreak carnage before armed resistance organizes and gets over the initial shock and disorganized steps to create a response. Even in City Hall shootings or in an Atlanta Courthouse with dozens of armed heroes (including the one the gunman got his gun from to start with).
Add the understandable prediliction of gunowners to think self-defense 1st and getting to safety and using their gun if need be to protect themselves and family, but not charging in in some sort of ad hoc assault.
5. Such an assault could happen anywhere if you have intelligent, thinking enemy. And it would be a huge waste of manpower and money - have millions of Draftees armed with M-16s “watching our coasts, our elementary schools” in a deluded attempt to create “perfect safety”. At best you end up with the Airport Charades.
Dec 1, 2008 - 2:33 pm 20. Tom Holsinger:In 16 seconds, the Indian birthrate negated their losses in Mumbai to terrorists.
The best response to Mumbai is not “more security means pure safety!!”. That is practically impossible in an Open, democratic society. The best response is to ensure that the people behind such an attack find themselved faced with a measured, intelligent response and the last words they have, if any, as they are dragged to a cell 2,000 miles away from the ACLU or see the Hellfire missile trail headed for them is “Whooops!”.
cedarford,
Whitman in the Texas gun tower incident was pinned down and unable to shoot effectively within minutes by fire from professors who had hunting rifles in their offices.
My information is that the police in Denver, and probably also San Francisco, would be relatively useless in this situation, while the LAPD and NYPD would be effective in minutes.
Also bear in mind that the one Littleton, Colorado police officer on duty at Columbine High School took the shooters under fire in seconds of them pulling their weapons out and, with his handgun, hit the stock of one of their long arms, firing through a mass of screaming students at 50 feet distance. That was pretty good shooting in any situation, and amazing given the circumstances. Return fire drove him to cover but his immediate accurate fire also drove them inside the building where they did less damage than they would have firing point blank at a mass of students outside. So give credit to good cops, who can make a difference.
But the most effective way to stop such attacks is to keep them from happening in the first place, and here that means pre-emptive attack on the perpetrators.
Which, here, means the Pakistani state. Pakistan already is what we feared a nuclear Iran will be - a nuclear-armed rogue state which makes terrorist attacks from bases protected by its nuclear deterrent. This was a full-bore planned operation by Pakistan’s Army via its Inter-Service Intelligence Agency.
The only way to stop Pakistan from doing this over and over is to destroy them with a massive surprise nuclear attack. It won’t be pre-emptive because they started the war.
India’s only choices now are to surrender, continue to suffer further attacks without fighting back, or fight back. They’re at war with Pakistan now, and we will be eventually. Assuming we aren’t already given that accounts controlled by Hamid Gul seem to have been the source of the $100,000 used by Mohammed Atta to fund 9/11.
Dec 1, 2008 - 3:10 pm 21. aladdu:I am from India, living in the U.S., so my opinion may be biased. But, think about it and Pakistan is more dangerous than Iraq. Iraq had a government, no matter what kind. Pakistan does not have a government. A lot of anarchy in the country where the army runs a government parallel to the “reported government” and the only incentive for them to keep their job security is to fund/assist groups launching attacks and supporting groups spreading terror. India being next door is a good target, but don’t be surprised if this spreads. Remember 9/11, London bombings, Madrid bombings? One common theme across all these is these people were of Pakistani origin. Since possessing nuclear weapons, this military brass has a strong advantage of holding the world hostage.
You will find it interesting how things fold out in the YEARS ahead.
Dec 1, 2008 - 4:21 pm 22. Militant-Infidel:RE: cedarford (#19)
Clearly the “soft targets” are those which are attacked. In India, as in most Commonwealth countries, anything civil is likely to be very soft due to population disarmament, both physically and mentally. In the US, by far the “softest targets” are those which are deemed “gun free zones”, can you say schools and hospitals. Our legislature has basically cherry picked the best targets for the terrorists. Unfortunately, we will have to suffer our own Beslan or Mumbai in order for this stupidity to be addressed. Ask any Israeli which civil institution is best protected in their country.
MI
Dec 1, 2008 - 6:24 pm 23. MarkD:cedarford,
Besides being wrong (remember that church shooting where the attacker was taken out by an armed female security officer) your advice, which I will paraphrase as do nothing, and die, merely encourages terror. A supply of unarmed victims merely ensures that the terrorist have free reign.
I suppose your police force is a waste, because it costs a lot too. As to protecting the schools, too bad about the kids, but more will be born anyway, right?
I wonder if you’re serious. I wonder if you’re human.
Dec 1, 2008 - 6:34 pm 24. Militant-Infidel:RE: aladdu (#21)
“Since possessing nuclear weapons, this military brass has a strong advantage of holding the world hostage.”
This is exactly why we (or the Israelis) need to shut down Iran’s quest yesterday. What are we waiting for?
Sorry about the ongoing mess in your home country. The repetitiveness of it all is what bothers me. Granted, we in the US are blessed with two relatively friendly neighbors, neither of which is armed with nuclear weapons. It just seems that India needs to try some “cowboy” diplomacy and finally get the bastards. But at the same time, the specter of nuclear war is what kept us from going “toe to toe” with the Soviets as well. It is all just so frustrating.
MI
Dec 1, 2008 - 6:40 pm 25. Rachel Peepers:James J. Carafano,
Comment writers I give a little slack as far as typos are concerned. Article writers, though, I give no quarter. So, Mr. Carafano, missing commas and missing words means your missive misses with me.
As for the content, I’m left with the uneasy feeling that in a small way you blame the United States for the slaughter.
Your transitional expression, “At the same time,” on the second page, takes your piece into an area you didn’t really have to go. Unless, of course, the real thrust of your writing was to start pinning blame where it arguably doesn’t belong.
Your headline includes the line, “We can’t respond without the facts.” Why not we “shouldn’t”? For that matter, who’s the “we” you’re referring to?
My usual philosophy in so far as taking action is concerned: “Ready. Fire. Aim.” In fact, it’s hanging in a frame on a wall not three feet away from me.
Fact is, before all your facts are gathered, it’s been my experience that it no longer matters whether you shut the barn door or not.
If your parents were in that hotel, perhaps your response would be less measured, much less rationale and much more correct. Maybe that’s not a fair question. But, the fight or flight response is there for a reason.
Your way or my way, it appears to be a matter of survival.
Dec 1, 2008 - 11:37 pm 26. ratt:“Over the long term, it is going to require the joint action of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan to address the scourge of transnational terrorism that is rooted in the region.”
Mr. Carafano,
I assume that you are aware that Pakistan has been ruled for much of its 60 odd years of existence by the Pakistani Army. The ISI and the various alphabet soup Islamic terrorist outfits based in Pakistan have been closely linked with/supported by the Pakistani Army……..so, do you really expect Pakistan to address the scourge of terrorism?
Further more, expecting Afghanistan to combat terrorism, with what?
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:48 am 27. cedarford:Militant-Infidel:
RE: aladdu (#21)
“Since possessing nuclear weapons, this military brass has a strong advantage of holding the world hostage.”
This is exactly why we (or the Israelis) need to shut down Iran’s quest yesterday. What are we waiting for?
It is a silly conversation. We are waiting because:
1. The simple fact of Israel, S Africa, France, N Korea, India, Pakistan having nukes does not mean “Each of these nations holds the whole world hostage to it’s will.” (Or the Soviets, Brits, Chinese, or Americans who have all had the reality check of other “hostage” nations not hopping to when they snap their fingers..)
2. Whoever attacks Iran may end up being blamed for sending the world into Global Depression, and for losing the pro-Western younger generation of Iranians.
3. Unless Israel works out it’s own deal with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan on air transit - any US help in crossing those airspaces in a sneak attack to start a pre-emptive war with Iran would smear the US as fully complicit in illegal war. Strategically, Israel would be more a detriment to the US than an asset in such a situation, undoing all our present ME interests..
4. Israel has been intransigent on the matter of a denuclearized ME, even as the WMD monopoly it has enjoyed and thought it had over a century more of strategic superiority to wield is now almost over. Due to Israel’s WMD, other nations have predictably sought strategic parity. And Iran’s reasons to have the means to defend themselves from the enemies that surround it go far past just Israel. And, lacking any “guarantor” like KSA, Kuwait have with the USA? They are compelling absent a nation offering to put Iran under it’s nuclear umbrella or a comprehensive ME Peace Settlement.
A pre-emptive Israeli nuke attack on Iran would be ruinous for Israel and ruinous for the US if we back their aggression and mass slaughter.
*************
As predicted, I got a few outraged gun-lovers who attribute magical feats of crime-fighting and counter-terror to the “armed citizen” on the street with his potent, mighty weapon…
Armed citizens may be of some use in stopping criminal slaughter sprees (though not in Whitman’s case or the example of a female part-time Deputy whacking a gunman in church). But not likely to be of use in a terrorist attack unless trained and focused on a specific duty (which the “armed citizen” presently is not) and immunized from being ruined by lawsuit if they shoot or endanger citizens by acting in an unplanned, spontaneous manner or society giving them Zero benefits if they get killed or injured(presently no such immunity for “armed citizens” exist except in justifiable self defense).
Dec 2, 2008 - 4:29 am 28. tanstaafl:At one point the United States required Pakistan to ban a particular group, as a condition of continuing to receive payments of whatever.
Which group simply reconstituted itself under a different name.
Which reminds me of the wasitis or wasitisn’t Al Qaeda debate after every bombing/explosion in Iraq in recent years.
Think tankers (and others) can get very hung up on this stuff and, consequently, miss the forest while focusing on the trees.
One thing for sure is that the point of any and all of these groups (Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, wherever…) is to sow fear, doubt and, most importantly, chaos in whatever region they’re “terrorizing”. Bringing down the worldwide financial network, from New York City to Mumbai, is another major prong of the agenda.
In light of these facts, perpetrators of this action in Mumbai would like nothing better than the governments of India and Pakistan setting at each others’ throats.
Dec 2, 2008 - 6:45 am