Another Vietnam?

The following is a guest post from WashDCDemocrat, a Washington-based student.

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.

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?