by Eyck Freymann
This is just to say that the Mumbai attacks should be a flashing red light in the eyes of American policymakers.
Terrorism breeds fear. Fear breeds protectionism. Protectionism breeds radical conservatism. With India's elections in the near future, these attacks on hotels in the commercial capital will not bode well for the ruling Congress Party.
Since the British ceded control of India and Pakistan in 1947, there has been enmity between the two countries. The partition built to separate the Muslims from the Hindus (creating Pakistan and India respectively) uprooted tens of millions and created a lasting antagonism. However, the ruling political party in India has almost always been Gandhi's moderate Congress Party. This is largely due to the fact that in a nation with dozens of political parties only a well-established and centrist party can form enough of a coalition to govern. See my book review of India correspondent Edward Luce's In Spite of the Gods.
Now, with Hindu extremism on the rise and these terror attacks on Mumbai, Indians may finally turn on the Congress Party and move to the right with an aggressively anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistani government.
The US has walked a dangerous line in recent years in trying to befriend both Pakistan and India. The latter is our traditional ally, but we need the assistance of the former if we are to root out al-Qaeda. If India is run by extremists, it will become impossible to expect results from both sides.
Moreover, if we cannot win over the Pakistani population we will not be able to continue fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda out of Pakistan's northern territories.
Happy Thanksgiving weekend to you all.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
On the Mumbai Attacks
Labels: india, Mumbai Attacks of 2008, Terrorism, Young Sentinel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I consider it a grave mistake to term this a "riot". These are terrorists, and this type of incident has happened before. Vietnam, 1968: Vietcong troops attacked thirty cities and towns in South Vietnam, well south of the front lines. Some Vietcong troops were even able to assault the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. One city, Hue, was occupied by the enemy for about six weeks before being rid of enemy troops. The same thing happened in Mumbai. The terrorists kneew they would probably die. Their aim was to show the world that any place is a target, and that they have the capability to, if briefly, overwhelm our security. General Westmorland said on the offensive in Vietnam that "a bunch of punks with guns can do that in any major city." History has proved him right.
WashDCDemocrat:
If theDeccan Mujahedeen, (or whoever perpetrated the attacks on Mumbai,) simply wanted to show that no nation is safe from terrorism, they would have used suicide bombs, which are more potent than the grenades and AK-47s that were used. Moreover, because suicide bombs prevent terrorists from being captured by authorities and are almost always present in highly funded attacks, there must have been another motive for this attack, which used terrorists that were not only susceptible to being captured, but seemed, (from what I have noticed of the lone survivor,) willing to confess details of the attack to Indian authorities. This motive can be broken into two parts:
1.) To rekindle the Indian-Pakistani conflict:
By implicating Pakistan in the Mumbai attacks and creating a neoconservative protectionist Indian government, (refer to Young Sentinel's piece for more on the latter,) the group responsible for the Mumbai attacks could create conflict, a violent and restless populace, and antipathy toward both India and Pakistan; all of which are factors that are vital to the proliferation of terrorism.
2.) To destroy the Indian commercial economy:
As India's commercial capitol, Mumbai is vital to the social and economic progression of India. Therefore, even the deterrence of tourists and investors from the city can have a negative impact on the Indian economy that could be large enough to decimate the Indian economy and create the widespread poverty ideal for terrorist recruitment.
Suicide bombs have a "terror span", if you will, of a few seconds. Once the explosion is over, you treat the wounded, put out the fire, and clear the wreckage. These terrorists are, most likely, Pakistani-based. They are certainly from the Arab world. But the chilling similarity to Vietnam suggests to me that this was an attack carried out to establish brief control over parts of the city, with no intention of getting out alive. I do agree that this will rekindle the Indo-Pakistani conflict, and will decrease tourism, if briefly. But terrorists try to influence government. What better way to do so than to show them that they can't control their own cities?
By the way, thanks for re-terming this an attack rather than a riot. I didn't notice until now.
I agree that the Mumbai attacks created a public anti-government, pro-protectionism sentiment, (I should have made that more clear in my rebuttal.) To say that their motive was simply to "show the world that any place is a target, and that they have the capability to, if briefly, overwhelm...security," though, is a different matter. Propaganda is rarely the true motive of terrorists, who already have many propaganda talking points as well as Fundamentalist Islam to use for recruitment.
Also, to show that a city cannot defend itself and to show that a city cannot control itself are completely different things. I will assume, though, that the latter is what you believe to be that which the terrorists wanted to do.
Post a Comment