Al Qaeda's Kashmir Conspiracy

As much as the events in Mumbai are a shock to the world, India is no stranger to such terrorism. The Global Terrorism Database estimates that since 1970, 4,108 acts of terrorism have occurred in India, leading to over 12,000 fatalities. Notably, in 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by Sikh bodyguards who murdered her alleging Gandhi was persecuting India's Sikh minority.

In recent years there have been countless bombings and terror attacks throughout India. Just two years predating the latest Mumbai atrocities (in October 2006), seven bombs were placed aboard packed passenger trains and in Mumbai's railway terminal (one of the scenes of the latest attack) killing 186 and injuring more than 700.

As much as the India media is pointing an accusatory finger at Pakistan or other foreign terror groups, much of the terrorism inside India is home grown and religiously motivated such as the attacks in Delhi earlier in September by an Indian Muslim group known as the Indian Mujahideen (IM). And no one has ever heard of the group that claimed responsibility for the Mumbai attacks -- the Deecan Mujahedeen -- which could be a fictitious name or yet another terror outfit that is an offshoot of either a Kashmiri, Pakistani or India Muslim terrorist organization.

But given the the order of attack against western targets, it is increasingly likely that as investigators sift through the destruction in Mumbai for clues, mounting evidence will point an accusatory finger at one or more of the Kashmiri Muslim terror organizations -- either Lashkar-e-Taibi or Jaish-e-Muhammed, both of which have received support in the past from Pakistan's shadowy intelligence organization -- the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency or ISI.

But it is important to point out that there is no evidence from any credible source so far that the Pakistani government was involved in the attacks. Indeed, the Pakistani government is going to great lengths to separate itself from the events in Mumbai. But given the fact that the only captured terrorist is according to most reports a Pakistani national, this is going to be a herculean task, to say the least.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of the attacks and their sophistication suggest that perhaps no one individual group had the capability of pulling off such a sophisticated attack. All of which points to a potentially dangerous convergence of the subcontinent's Muslim militant groups that are not only targeting India, but also Pakistan as well in a sinister terror coalition that is determined to push the subcontinent's competitors into a nuclear showdown.

Just days before the Mumbai attacks, Al Qaeda's "Dr. Evil" Ayman al-Zaharwiri called for an escalation of attacks against the Pakistani government. And U.S. intelligence officials -- pointing to the recent terror attack in Islamabad against the Marriott Hotel -- are increasingly concerned that Al Qaeda may be attempting to forment as much turmoil as possible on the subcontinent to force India and Pakistan into a nuclear war -- a war that was barely avoided a few years ago.

That is not a hard thing to accomplish. Pakistan viscerally views India as a threat, and India believes that Pakistan is determined to foment dangerous unrest inside India. Pakistan believes India is attempting to increase its influence in Afghanistan as a means to "encircle" Pakistan, and India believes that Pakistan's ISI is responsible for supporting the Taliban. A vicious circle of anger and distrust that no amount of diplomacy has seemed able to unwind.

But just as festering regional conflicts become fuses for more dangerously wider wars (think of Palestine) the conflict over Kashmir traces its long fuse back to 1947, when neither India or Pakistan succeeded during their bloody war of partition to annex the disputed territory of Kashmir, which straddles both nations' northwestern frontiers. Kashmir is one of the flashpoints in India's and Pakistan's long and heated enmity. And the Kashmiri terror organizations may have finally found a new and more supportive partner than the ISI -- Al Qaeda and the a resurgent Taliban.

That is why the United States cannot afford to permit Al Qaeda or its regional terror allies have their way on the subcontinent. A stable, democratic Pakistan more or less at peace with India and Afghanistan is an essential object of U.S. national security.

Accordingly, as the Mumbai terrorist attacks provoke an escalating war of words between India and Pakistan, it will behoove the incoming Obama administration's foreign policy team to consider expanding its diplomatic reach to include a new initiative to resolve the Kashmir conflict.

Preemptive diplomacy -- akin to a creative policy of forward diplomatic engagement -- can complement our stated goal of winning the war against Al Qaeda, stabilizing Afghanistan, and preventing Pakistan from descending into chaos. Iran also has a stake in preventing the subcontinent from descending into chaos, and thus the events in Mumbai may accord the Obama administration a unique opportunity to explore whether Iran (which is no friend of the Taliban) may be willing to play a constructive role in helping to stabilize the subcontinent's regional powder kegs. Perhaps President-elect Obama may consider appointing a special presidential envoy to the subcontinent to begin strategically linking up these myriad yet interrelated challenges to underscore the strategic challenge and the strategic goals.

Let us not forget that underneath much of the recent turmoil on the Indian subcontinent lies the determined strategy of Osama Bin Laden, who after all hoped to provoke the U.S. into a war against the Arab world by his 9/11 attacks and cause muslims to rise up in revolt to overthrow America's Arab allies. The Mumbai attacks may have a similar goal: to cause India into a retaliatory war with Pakistan which could include an invasion of Kashmir that could topple Pakistan's democratically elected government and lead to a Muslim militant resurgence that will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and reestablish Taliban control over Afghanistan. It is a nightmarish scenario dreamt up in the caves of Waziristan.

Comments

[deminmo]

The two countries don't like each other much, and Pakistan
wants Kashmir. Would it matter if there is strong evidence
or not that Pakistan was involved in the terror attacks in India?
Kinda like Bush with Iraq. Reports say ......but can you trust the
source? What would it take to set off a nuclear war between
India and Pakistan? How would the US protect troops in
Afghanistan? Then there's Iran, but I guess that's a seperate
peice of the puzzle.

[swkidder]

It will be refreshing to see how the State Department, under Hillary Clinton's leadership, in an Obama Administration both conceptualizes and addresses some of the global "flashpoints" with a regional focus. There are intelligent, kind, wise, and experienced people within the State Department that have been crying for years for an approach in the Middle East that recognizes the pivotal role played by the festering mess in Israel created by its policies towards the Palestinians. And all we get when someone seriously raises the issue is an argument over whether "apartheid" is an appropriate description. The surrogate Indian/Pakistani conflict has only been confined to the borders of Kasmir in our imagination. It's time to take the "little" conflicts as seriously as they deserve to be taken, and to give them the attention they merit. I'll be there is "general rejoicing" within the State Department at the thought of a potential return to some semblance of a sane approach to our Foreign Policy.

[Chrissy S]

The one way to prevent a nuclear war between these two countries is to denuke Pakistan. Condy Rice has said in the past that we have prepared to secure Pakistani nukes in case the country melts into chaos or jihadists takeover.

Lets take away those nukes and then leave India free to take military action against the terror groups. Without any nukes the Pakistanis will not try and stop the Indians. And since the Indians have no interest in occupying Pakistan, they will leave after destroying terror camps, which is good for the civilized world.

[playchessordie]

And what is this civilized world?
Would you please elaborate further on your pompous and self righteous world view...

[chaos4700]

Yeah, that's wise. Let's take the military advantage away from one of the the two countries we are allied with and encourage the other to attack them with impunity. That'll prove to the rest of the world that we aren't simply on a crusade against Islam by making Islamic countries vulnerable to military actions by our proxies.

Even if what you're saying wouldn't simply be throwing fuel on the fire for terrorist recruitment efforts, just how exactly do you propose we negotiate with Pakistan to "de-nuke" them? Or are you proposing we send the US army in to secure those errant WMDs, just like we did in Iraq?

If you think the Indians would stop at simply destroying terrorist camps, you are sadly mistaken. Any more than Pakistan would stop at terrorist camps in India, if the situation were reversed.

[billw8017]

Since the US supports the Indian nuclear program, another way to denuke India is to denuke the United States. UN troops can be stationed at American research and development centers. I'm sure that we Americans would greet an occupying army with showers of flowers. What we really want is some alien power to save us from ourselves.

[Chip W]

Hello. I am a visitor from a distant planet. I have lived here on Earth for 3000 years, yet still I don't understand what's going on. Or, to use your vernacular, I haven't a clue.
Actually, I think I do understand all of your animals except for one: human beings. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I like them very much.
Please, will someone explain human beings to me. I must return soon to my home planet and give my recommendations on whether to use you for food.

[subasu]

These terrorist attacks in India are taking place against the background of three different developments. First is the election in Kashmir where for complex reasons a segment of Muslim population decided to exercise their franchise and thus undermined the claims of militant insurgents there. Second, India and Pakistan held talks and both sides agreed to co-operate in curbing such insurgencies. Third, terrorists would also like to provoke reactions from majority Hindu community which would now possibly rally around the slogan of national security and repressive laws and thus would opt for Hindu nationalist political parties in the coming elections. This obviously would create a political situation of confrontation and communal polarization that would be a bonanza to terrorists.
Today all major South Asian states are in trouble. Afghanistan has a dysfunctional state imposed by US, Pakistan exists on the verge of implosion, Nepal witnessed a prolonged civil war, Bangladesh is politically unstable and Sri Lanka is going through a civil war. Against such background, using local grievances, major international terrorist organizations decided to select India as their playground. They were also challenging US and UK through organized terror on Indian soil. Indian state"s responsibility has thus increased manifold. It needs to be tough on causes of crime. It needs to create more holistic developmental approach, a far more effective non-majoritarian secular agenda of national security policy and more effective delivery of goods to people in order to create stakes in political system.

[NABNYC]

I don't think that it is helpful to speculate about who is behind these attacks or what is their motive. For heaven's sake, to take it so far down the road that it now is speculated as being some mastermind trying to start a nuclear war seems like the exact same type of Bush-thinking that got this country into its current dismal condition. The only people I know who want more wars are the neocon politicians and the corporations who own them. Most people want the U.S. out of these wars.

Since nobody knows who is behind these attacks, it clearly is something to be handled by India. We do not need to get involved, nor should we. The U.S. has no moral credibility anymore, and few people in our country understand the Kashmir, assuming that has anything to do with this issue. I would say India's biggest problem is that its upper classes have aligned with the U.S. neocons to enslave their own people and destroy their resources, making billionaires of the few while so many starve. Not so much ideological as simply a betrayal of the people by their own government. You know, like in this country. But let India solve it. We've got our own problems.

[Michale32086]

@bosse

}}}}}
and read world press, you will seethe answers, you seek.
{{{{{

I don't NEED to read the world press to know the answers. For nearly a quarter of a century I lived it, experienced it, TRAINED for it..

}}}}}
If we resettle all the jews to Montana or Arizona with their temples and rocks we will be better off.
}}}}}

Really.. And how exactly does this bigotry inspired hatred tell you that? And what happens with the NEXT group that you don't like? Ship them off somewhere else??

}}}}}
How would you like if some one snatched your living room and your car, and said it was written so in the book of mormons!
{{{{{{

Using your reasoning, you must think it's fully justified for the American Indians to murder you and your family in your sleep because your house is on what used to be their land, 200 years ago..

That was then and this is now.. It's a shame, but hay.. It's a rough world.. A war was fought and the Palestinians were on the losing side. That's how these things work..

But you don't respond to that with terrorism. Terrorism simply negates ANY moral or ethical position that might have been held...

By resorting to terrorism, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have given up ANY right to ANY consideration. It is groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that are preventing the Palestinians from having a better life...

Michale.....

[abluevoice]

Well said Michale!

[chaos4700]

Really? Because resorting to terrorism didn't cause the Jewish militants who founded Israel to forfeit any rights. In fact, we rewarded them with a country of their own. For that matter, resorting to what the British Empire labeled terrorism is how the United States itself was founded.

Bombing innocent people is always a crime against morality -- whether you're using a suicide bomber or a stealth bomber. This notion of "Oh! Native Americans and Palestinians both lost their wars, so they should just lay down and be bulldozed over" just goes to show what sort of moral fiber you really possess.

[joebaggadonuts]

I don't have much hope that this will not devolve into a real (nuclear) war between India and Pakistan. Bush sending Conde will not help matters. I pray that I am wrong. But if we do see millions of human beings wiped out and nuclear dust floating down round the world poisoning millions more thousands of miles away, maybe then we will know that war is not the answer.

Don't you know that already? Can't you stop this madness?

[WritusMaximus]

"Trust but verify" has never been more appropriate. If there is a Pakistan connection, then have the Pakistan government put the screws on those responsible, have trials, then sentences, and then have the sentences carried out, all on live tv.

"People may doubt what you say, but believe what you do."

[playchessordie]

Al Qaeda? Try U.S.
After all, it is U.S. that's fueling and financing this conflict. Why else did U.S. endow two unstable, poverty stricken, contentious neighboring countries with nuclear weapons instead of economic aid and diplomatic intervention.
Besides Pakistan has long served as America's third war. Obama's "invade Pakistan" talk will eventually legitimize all the horrific clandestine bombings and countless civilian deaths. In the meantime, Pakistanis will be framed as cruel terrorists who smile as they viciously kill innocent rabbis.
Sounds way too familiar.
Get ready people, our tax dollars on their way to a third useless war.
Give me a break.

[Nebris]

~One of my favorite quotes is "If you're not paranoid, then you're not paying attention." To follow politics, both domestic and international, I have found that one needs a healthy dose of paranoia. Please note I said healthy.

Regarding the attacks in Mumbai, I invoke another quote, one that comes out of our own legal system: Cui Bono, an ancient Latin phrase meaning "To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?"

The fingers are all pointing at Pakistan at the moment, but I do not believe the Pakistani government is behind this. These actions harm them greatly, isolating them from their only real ally at the moment, the US, and at a time when relations between Washington and Islamabad are rather shaky.

They also derail Pakistan's negotiations with India which also negatively effects the relationship with the US and creates more chaos and fear in its domestic political life.

Of course, the obvious candidates are al Queda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency - the same fellows who wet-nursed The Taliban - or factions thereof. The former are almost certain to be involved in some fashion.

But if the latter are behind this...then Pakistan is probably doomed and, quite likely, so are tens [or even hundreds] of millions of Indians, as that kind of a political agenda is functionally suicidal and makes a nuclear war between these two states almost inevitable.

[Nebris]

con't....

I could see the raw terror upon the face of Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan's Prime Minister, when he vehemently denied his nation's involvement in these attacks. And New Delhi might be 'talking strongly', but they too know the stakes. Both are doing their best to balance caution against domestic passions.

So, Cui bono?

Al Queda and The Taliban to a certain extent. This destabilization could be to their benefit. But I do not see them taking such an action without at least the tacit approval of the ISI, and I like to think the officers who run the ISI these days have learned something from 9/11.

There is however one actor in this drama whose name I have not heard mentioned at all anywhere: China.

China is a 'third party' in the Kashmir dispute that is at the heart of the conflict between India and Pakistan. China has defeated India in a series of borders wars. Pakistan was once China's client before the US barged into region after 9/11. And India is China's main Asian rival economically, militarily, and in now in space.

I'm not pointing any fingers here. I'm just asking that old Roman question: Cui bono?

[Michale32086]

A well thought out, articulate and quite interesting analysis..

And you are correct. China is an unspoken possibility...

Michale.....

[Shrinath]

General destabilization. The biggest democratic ally in the region is India. Taken that into account, and the growing Indo-US relationship, it would be in the interests of China. However, a slowdown in the economy would greatly affect China's growth. Much of the economic boom is through exports.

But if India attacks Pakistan, even if a limited strike at the terror camps, it would be a legitimate cause to pull out troops from the North and North Western front and concentrate on east, the border region with India. It would also solve a major problem at home for the Pakistani government which is finding it tough to explain its role as an American ally. Also remember, it is in the interest's of the politician's of Pakistan to keep the Kashmir issue alive so that they can point some cause and divert the attention of the people from the real problems facing them. Pakistan's economy is crumbling and has just got approval for a $9 billion loan from IMF. The state budget of the smallest state in India is around $12 billion. Some food for thought.

[truthseeker7]

Good point and yes, the question "To whose benefit?" always needs to be asked. But as we should have learned fairly convincingly by now, very little happens without the knowledge and complicity of the good old US of A. The ever-strengthening relationship between India and the US is viewed as our move in controlling China in that part of the world. "Assisting" India in becoming THE power in the area over a Pakistan "overun by extremists" is a logical path in the western banking interests desire to further expand their one world govt. and economy into that part of the world.

Who should we fear more; China or our own government who acts as the political arm of the power-mad banking and financial leaders? Trust no one but educate everyone!

[bosse]

THere are a lot of smart people, to suggest that they will use nukes. The capitals of each nation is barely 200 miles apart.

[deminmo]

Russia and Iran have worked business deals with India, as well
as the US. Wonder if Bin Laden is really alive, or did he get killed
early on? Why has the search for him been scrapped for all these
years? If he doesn't lead al Queda, who does? And if Pakistan
wasn't really the one involved in Mumbai, then who was? Lot's
of questions about that region but no real answers.

[macgupta]

The impression that the honorable Ambassador is trying to convey is that of a Pakistan headed by a civilian government, with a cooperative military and intelligence agencies, and with rogue elements of the military, intelligence helping outlawed organizations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Taliban and sundry fundamentalists who infest only the western frontier of the country along the Afghan border.

That is simply not true. As this news-item will make amply clear (this is from September 30, 2008):
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1194581
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan government has granted permission to the chief of the Pakistan-based terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, to import a duty free bullet-proof Land Cruiser, worth Rs 25 million.

According to the interior ministry sources in Islamabad, the LeT chief, who fears a possible attempt on his life by his "external enemies", had sought the government permission to import a duty free bullet proof Land Cruiser in view of the rising number of terrorist acts across Pakistan.

The sources said that after some lengthy deliberations on the issue, the government has decided to give him a go ahead to import a fully armoured Land Cruiser for his use from Dubai. It was for the first time that the leader of a banned jehadi group had made such a request to the government and it is also for the first time that the government has acceded to such a request.

[Michale32086]

chaos4700

}}}}}
Since they weren't actually planning anything of that scale, any attempt to state a preference of that sort would be moot.
{{{{{

And you know this for an absolute fact because.... ?????

}}}}}
The evidence was flimsy and a number of British officials have stated their opinion that the whole case was altogether false.
}}}}}

Can you quote me some of these British officials that are NOT politicians and don't have an agenda???

}}}}
In other words, you were duped.
{{{{

Like I asked, would you have preferred that they killed thousands, so we would be SURE of their intentions???

Michale.......

[chaos4700]

Couldn't answer me back in the original thread? Not very brave.

[Michale32086]

Yer kidding, right?? :^/

I wasn't aware that how one posts constitutes a test of bravery...

What's next?? Dueling hai-ku at 20 paces???

Michale......

[thebassguy]

cause of all this is primarily hatred of Jews and countries sypathetic to Israel (US and Brittain won't allow Arab nations to attack Israel directly). Is there any doubt about this???


the Jihad will stop when Israel is taken back by the Muslims, or the Arab Muslims. Duh!

(otherwise, it's that whole world domination thing from the Kuran.)

so to summarize, the basic cause of most of this anti-American, anti-Western murder is support of Israel and protection of Jewish People. Now tell me how wrong I am....

[Michale32086]

You are utterly and completely wrong in oh so many ways, it's hard to know where to begin..

Do you HONESTLY believe that if, all of the sudden Israel ceased to exist and the country was open to all comers, that there would, as if by magic, be peace and love in the world??

What about all the tribal feuds that have nothing to do with Israel. What about the Sunni and the Shiite hatred.. That all goes away?? PLO and Hamas would suddenly bask in the glowing sunlight of their new found admiration for each other??

Might I ask what experience, training or expertise allows you to come to such a horrendously wrong conclusion???

Michale.....

[chaos4700]

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Where did you go to college, Michale? Your debate technique... leaves a little bit to be desired.

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Damn! Nice to see we can actually agree on something.

[bosse]

Michael IF you put down your small hat and think and read world press, you will seethe answers, you seek. Fighting between tribes and brothers do not destroy the world.If we resettle all the jews to Montana or Arizona with their temples and rocks we will be better off.
How would you like if some one snatched your living room and your car, and said it was written so in the book of mormons!

[bosse]

I have been saying this for years. and even HUFFPOST wont publish it.This policy of ours cost us 9/11 and the commotions in the world since.There must be a way Americans see this and act wiser. I am happy to see most of our foreign policy will not be decided in Jerusalem or from orders from the Knesett/

[Raster]

Amb Ginsburg tries mightily to avoid the most obvious underlying fact: at least some significant elements of the Pakistani Military and Intelligence Services were without doubt orchestrated and were tactically involved in such an obviously sophisticated operation as the Mumbai attacks. The ball is now in the court of Indian ruling circles. If they do not retaliate with a severe counterattack against Pakistan, extreme right Hindu forces within India may come to power and do the job in a much stronger and on a broader front.

[bosse]

That indeed is a rel and prent danger. Similar to what India's founding fathers faced. Unhappy and poor and racist elements will flare up hatred of the Moslem living amongst them. And hindu parties try to win the next elections.