12 Key Things About The Mumbai Crisis
More than 1000 Indians took part in a candlelight vigil outside the targeted Taj Mahal Hotel a week after the terrorist siege of Mumbai began.
Last week's terrorist siege of Mumbai has created a new geopolitical crisis, with many angles and complications that will make President-elect Barack Obama's life even more complicated as he attempts (in a limited way now and a more direct way in 46 days) to keep things in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India on an even keel. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are leaving some hellacious messes behind. Here are some important factors to keep in mind about this one.
** The attackers were Islamic jihadists, and Pakistani-connected. This isn't what we wanted to hear when I wrote about this last week on the Huffington Post, but even the Pakistanis are not denying this. What they do deny is official Pakistani involvement in the attacks. Meanwhile, there is much talk of the attackers being trained and advised in, and transported from, Pakistan.
** India and Pakistan had been having a slight rapprochement. The two countries have been at sharp odds since the British partition after World War Ii. The disputed, mountainous region of Kashmir has been the most frequent flashpoint between the two countries, though there have been others.
A terrorist bomb killed more than 20 people today in Peshawar, in Pakistan's northwest frontier.
** Pakistan is key to Afghanistan. It was central in the US war against the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan during the not-so-Cold War, when it was a safe haven for Afghan rebels, a staging area for the CIA, and the funnel for US aid to the insurgency. Now it's key to the US and NATO effort to hold back the Taliban resurgence. Even as it provides safe havens for Taliban and Al Qaeda cadres.
** Elements of the dread Pakistani intelligence outfit, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) played major roles in creating the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The ISI has always had a heavy Islamist influence. The Taliban were developed to bring a fundamentalist Islamic sense of order to the chaos of Afghanistan left in the wake of the Soviet defeat and America's always wavering attention span. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, working hard to end Indian rule in Kashmir, have the goal of establishing Islamic rule over South Asia.
Years of fighting over Kashmir have accomplished nothing.
** Both the Indian and Pakistani governments were shaky even before Mumbai. Last year's assassination of Pakistan's returned opposition leader, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, hastened the end of General Pervez Musharaff's regime. But the new government is shaky, trying to balance between modernist reformers, Islamic fundamentalists, the ISI, and the most stable institution in an unstable country, an army founded on British traditions. The Indian government has been under fire for past security lapses, particularly related to Kashmir, and closely pressed by its conservative religious-oriented opposition.
** There's a discrepancy about the number of terrorists taking part in the Mumbai attacks. The reports from the first few days referred to 25 to 30 gunmen, perhaps 40. That made sense, given the amount of havoc they were wreaking simultaneously at multiple locations around the city. But the official number ended up at 10, with nine killed by Indian security forces and one captured and talking about his Pakistani connection. However, other evidence suggests there were at least 15 attackers. With all the chaos and anger, Indian authorities wouldn't want to admit that some of the attackers had escaped. Although it's embarrassing to claim that it took two-and-a-half days for Indian police and elite military units to defeat 10 terrorists.
The Mumbai attacks were very disruptive to India's commercial and financial capital.
** Whatever the facts, India was always going to cast blame in the direction of Pakistan. India's home minister has been sacked in the wake of the attacks, along with the provincial governor. Calling it a homegrown attack, even if that were true, would be devastating for the government's tattered credibility. The siege of Mumbai was very disruptive to India's commercial, financial, entertainment, and tourist capital.
** Pakistan's new civilian government has been trying to rein in the army and the ISI. With only limited success. In the wake of the attacks, Pakistan's prime minister announced that the ISI director would go to India to cooperate with Indian authorities in the investigation. The ISI then announced that that was wrong, that an assistant would go later on. Yesterday, the former head of the ISI met with the prime minister and informed him that it is far more important for the prime minister to defend the integrity of the institutions of Pakistan than to open the country up to inspection from the outside.
The tactics used in the terrorist siege of Mumbai were not as unique as originally portrayed.
** The Mumbai plan looks just like a 1993 plan against New York. At first, the terrorist tactics employed in Mumbai were said to be novel. But it turns out that what took place looks a lot like an Al Qaeda plan from the early '90s, employing water-borne transportation and assault weapon and grenade attacks against luxury hotels and well-known landmarks to create large numbers of casualties and a general sense of havoc in the major commercial city of a country. That doesn't mean that Al Qaeda is behind this, even if an Al Qaeda plan is. The attacks also bore great similarities to those made by Chechen rebels, according to Russian security services.
** The Clintons have been very close to India, which may make it hard for new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deal with Pakistan. When President Clinton made a farewell tour of the region in 2000, he spent five days in India and seven hours in Pakistan. Hillary has raised so much money from Indian-American interests that an Obama campaign document described as "Senator Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)."
** It should not be a surprise that resurgent Russia is playing in this as well. The two countries earlier this year announced that they had created the world's fastest cruise missile. Now they have just announced that they are collaborating on a new multiple-role fighter aircraft. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev visited India the day after Secretary of State Condi Rice. The Soviet Union was very close to India during the Cold War, and was certainly no friend to Pakistan while that country helped create the Soviet Vietnam.
** There are no easy solutions. If the Indians don't retaliate militarily against targets inside Pakistan -- whether official, rogue official, or private -- they risk looking weak. If they don't demand the hand-over of terrorist suspects, they risk looking weak. But the first option could lead to outright war. The second option could further destabilize Pakistan. Or it could lead to a military confrontation if Pakistan did not comply.
You can check things out during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Part of the article and some of the comments concerning both Pakistan and the I.S.I. seem to overlook a simple fact. Their interests are not the same as India's or the U.S.
In 2001 the Taliban were their allies and Pakistan was looking forward to a period of stability across its north western borders. Then came the invasion and the U.S. installed Karzai government, which included many of the worst elements from the mayhem of the post soviet era warlord days. This unsurprisingly has brought us to the current sorry state of affairs, where the afghani government is despised, corruption is rampant, the rule of law is non existant. and the border is in turmoil. So from a local perspective a return of the Taliban is welcome.
Kashmir, is a land where at partition, the mainly muslim poputation wanted to be a part of Pakistan, but the ruler was a hindu and on his death ceded the country to India - very democratic. As far as Pakistan is concerned that terrorist cause is a just one, although their government can't say so publicly.
Personally I have my doubts about aspects of the storyline that has been put into the public domain by the Indian and U.S. authorities, and the demand for the handing over of certain suspects has all the hallmarks of a fishing expedition to round up the usual suspects, with the potential depressing consequence that proper investigative work will yet again not be done.
See William Bradley's Profile
A good rationalization.
>Part of the article and some of the comments concerning both Pakistan and the I.S.I. seem to overlook a simple fact. Their interests are not the same as India's or the U.S.
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to all these comments.
yours
Robert
If there is a silver lining to this attack it may be this:
The region around Pakistian is the heart of our terrorist issue.
The Indian population may now be more sympathetic to assiting the United States in sharing intelligence and assisting with American special forces activity against Pakistan.
See William Bradley's Profile
Perhaps.
The solution to the Kashmir dispute between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris must solved and solved quickly. If this dispute had been settled, India and Pakistan would be cooperating well on all sorts of things, especially counter-terrorism. It's possible there would have been no terrorist attack on Mumbai in the first place, because the terrorist organization which is implicated in these attacks has been kept going (and indeed founded) because of the disaffection of many Kashmiris, in both India and Pakistan - controlled parts of that state, with the Indian government's policies there.
No, the world community has been sitting on their hands for 60 years dithering on the subject of Kashmir. Now that inaction has come back to haunt the civilized world.
See William Bradley's Profile
Different scene now.
So when does India invade and occupy Iraq?
Nonono, Iran . . .
See William Bradley's Profile
Old frame.
This is actually what Obama said when he claimed Bush took his eye off the ball. It appears that Obama and his team were on this earlier.
See William Bradley's Profile
They weren't on this earlier, as it did not exist earlier.
As I understand it, Most of the bombings in Iraq are not investigated. That means anyone can take credit and anyone can be blamed.
This could be the same situation. There are alternative theories on the net.
Most of the accusations are coming from governments.
We as consumers may never be privy to the truth.
See William Bradley's Profile
Yes, there are alternative theories on the net. As there were on 9/11 ...
Regarding the Clinton's being close to India, I disagree that that fact will be a hinderence to Hillary's diplomatic efforts. That's like saying John or Jane X is too close to Israel to deal with the middle east peace plans.
The fact is that although various American adminstrations (notebly Nixon -- during the India-Pakistan wars) have been close to the many despotic regimes in Pakistan because of India's close ties to the Soviet Union, everty thing has changed as India has opened up it's economy to foreign interests, and is the world's largest democracy.
Pakistan, despite having a constitution, has rarely behaved like a democracy during it's 63 years of existance. The fact is that the average Pakistanis hate, and I mean DESPISE both India and America for what it satnds for. And let's not forget what was done to Daniel Pearl while he was covering the 9/11 attacks in Pakistan.
See William Bradley's Profile
Free to disagree. However, the fact is that it's an isse, as I said.
>Regarding the Clinton's being close to India, I disagree that that fact will be a hinderence to Hillary's diplomatic efforts. That's like saying John or Jane X is too close to Israel to deal with the middle east peace plans.
Oh for Christ sakes. It was only ten damn hotheads and everyone is doing a Bush mantra. Revenge, Fear, War.
Settle down the saber rattling and THINK.
Bush and his band of brothers Cngress just signed on to help India with nuclear. Who would worry about a competive India. China, China and Pakistan . So if China and American Media can get India and Pakistan into a war who benifits? China.
It was only ten hotheads??????
Have you any idea how many thousands have been through those training camps?
How many Islamist groups and their membership?
TEN HOTHEADS ???
We are in serious trouble with this sort of naive take on reality
I agree.. It is like saying 9/11 was just 20 hotheads..
Oh please, we have bigger gangs here in America.
See William Bradley's Profile
That's pretty hysterical ...
See William Bradley's Profile
Hardly.
Really.
It would be good if Pakistan creates a program of joint operations with Indian anti-terrorism officers.
If Indian officers were able to work together with non-corrupt anti-terrorism officers in Pakistan, to root out and capture these terrorists, it could hopefully help all involved. If things go well, those two countries could build constructive contacts, and defuse tensions.
It could also help quell some anger in India, if the public sees that Indians are there with Pakistani cooperation, producing some justice.
See William Bradley's Profile
Yeah, that be cool ...
Not likely.
I thought Sen. Biden said that Obama wasn't going to be tested until his first six months in office? So, what happened? Didn't the terrorists get the memo? Thank goodness we have Dubya in office to take care of this crisis! (Just kidding)
Well, administrations are "tested" because other governments perceive them as inexperienced or weak, but right now we have an unusual opposite. Bush, on the way out, has taken Lame Duck to unforeseen lengths. He doesn't seem to be doing anything but crafting revisionist history at the moment, and if we thought a new President could be a liability, one who's driving with his knee while drinking and texting is much scarier.
See William Bradley's Profile
He's checked out.
Violence begets only further violence and both these countries were originally one when Gandhi organized to fight off the British. Both countries should be invoking Mahatma Gandhi just about NOW. Plus, it still may not have been Pakistani people who attacked.
See William Bradley's Profile
I'm not sure you can blame the British for historic enmities. The fighting happened after the British left.
A Correction:
Muslim attacks against INDIA is a centuries old problem. It cooled off a bit when the europeans, especially britain, were attacking india.
Tis said, "Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it." INDIA, due to its pacifistic nature has been a bit too tolerant of islamic violence - and if people were to take a step back and really look at history, a better perspective might result.
See William Bradley's Profile
Gandhi? Really?
So what should we push for?
>>>> ** There are no easy solutions. If the Indians don't retaliate militarily against targets inside Pakistan -- whether official, rogue official, or private -- they risk looking weak. If they don't demand the hand-over of terrorist suspects, they risk looking weak. But the first option could lead to outright war. The second option could further destabilize Pakistan. Or it could lead to a military confrontation if Pakistan did not comply.
See William Bradley's Profile
I'm not sure.
The Pakistanis who attacked Mumbai used the same plan as Al Qaeda and the same tactics as the Chechens. That's not reassuring, is it?
See William Bradley's Profile
There are linkages between groups. On the other hand, I knew about the New York plan so it's not exactly a giant secret.
See William Bradley's Profile
No, it's not.
The Al Jazeera footage on the economic disruption shows that the terrorists started achieving their objectives immediately. Just 15 young guys. Amazing. Not good amazing.
See William Bradley's Profile
Yes. Thanks. They kicked ass on the Indian cops.
See William Bradley's Profile
Indeed. Not a shock, however.
I'd like to know about Kashmir. Why have India and Pakistan been fighting over it for so long? And does it really have nothing to do with this crisis?
See William Bradley's Profile
They've been fighting over Kashmir since the British left in the wake of World War II. It doesn't seem to have much to do with this operation.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
