- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
December 4, 2008
Exclusive: The Mumbai Terrorist Attacks – What do They Mean?
One thing I learned in my seven years of working in the White House Situation Room is that initial crisis reports are often murky, and it can take days if not weeks to figure out what really happened and even longer to see the ramifications. That will be true with the Mumbai terrorist attacks. But a few things are clear right now.
First, the Mumbai attacks were a different kind of Jihadi warfare – an urban paramilitary attack that up until Mumbai, we’ve only seen in war zones like Falluja or Baghdad. Previous terrorist attacks on countries at peace have been by suicide bombers – one-off attacks that were over once the bomb went off. The Mumbai attack was different. The attackers’ first objective was to take out India’s counterterrorism officials so they could fan out around Mumbai and put the entire city under siege for days.
Is this a new modus operandi for Jihadi terrorists – urban warfare with paramilitary units? If so, no city in the world is safe, especially coastal cities where security is usually provided by customs officials more concerned with checking passports than defending against a terrorist attack.
Second,the Mumbai attack was a major black eye for the Indian government, and they will have no choice but to respond. Prime Minister Singh has been criticized in the past for being soft on terrorism, now he’ll be blamed for failing to protect his people. If as seems likely we find the terrorists came from Pakistan and have some connection with rogue or former elements of the Pakistani intelligence services – tensions between India and Pakistan will escalate as they did in 2001-2002 following the bombing of the Indian Parliament in New Delhi by Pakistani militants. After that bombing India and Pakistan mobilized, moved troops to the border and came dangerously close to war, potentially involving nuclear weapons.
Third,an escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan will make things much more difficult for us in the Afghanistan War.Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda have made the desolate tribal regions along the Pakistan/Afghan border their home and are using it as their launching pad for attacks in Pakistan and other parts of the world.Pakistan’s current president, Asif Ali Zardari, has cooperated with us far more than his predecessors in fighting al Qaeda and has put most of his military along that northwestern border. Were tensions with India to escalate, Pakistan would have to divert its already overstretched military away from fighting the war against al Qaeda on its western border and move them its eastern border to defend against India. It would mean fewer troops on the Afghan border, and a Pakistani leadership preoccupied with an immediate crisis with India, rather than helping us in the Afghanistan War.
Finally,Pakistan is a fragile country. Its economy is in shambles, with high unemployment and spiraling inflation. Its currency almost collapsed in November. Its civilian president is locked in a political battle with the military and intelligence services over who controls foreign policy. Al Qaeda in Pakistan is mounting a growing insurgency and launching terrorist attacks inside the country. President Zardari’s wife, former President Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated less a year ago and as her successor his hold over government is tenuous.
As a bipartisan congressional report pointed out this week, Pakistan is a country that seems to be not just on the brink of disaster, but also where many of the world’s terrorists hail from. And most important of all it is a nuclear power, with some 90 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
So while an India-Pakistan crisis presents the threat of a potential nuclear confrontation between the two, an equally disturbing development would be if the Pakistani government lost operational control of its nuclear weapons. We know al Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin personally want to get their hands on a nuclear weapon or two. We know some elements of Pakistan’s intelligence services and army might be compromised with pro-Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers. If those two come together – terrorists plus nuclear weapons – it would be the doomsday scenario the world has feared since September 11, 2001.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor KT McFarland is a former top Pentagon official in the Reagan Administration and a frequent commentator on national security issues and foreign affairs. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
| Print This E-mail This |
|
