Americans have been assured that the horror and terror that exploded across television screens from Mumbai in late November will not affect our own sense of security. Such assurances are as disingenuous as they are comforting. The murders carried out against Western tourists in India's most technologically sophisticated city have far-reaching implications for Americans, not just for those of us traveling abroad, but for all of us getting up everyday and going about life's routines.
Those who have prescribed this analgesic of comfort have focused on where this event took place. Far and away more important are the terrorists' strategies and tactics.
The attacks were carried out almost simultaneously on multiple targets. Airing during the Thanksgiving holiday, the attacks were designed to draw major media attention in America. The targeting and execution showed sophistication, extensive planning, and precision training. The terrorists had a low probability of evading authorities and a high probability of getting killed.
In terms of strategy and tactics the parallels to 09/11 and Al Qaeda are patently obvious. Consequently, it was not surprising that the group involved, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is affiliated with and cross trains with Al Qaeda.
In Washington, analysts in the law enforcement and intelligence communities will be putting together "after incident reports" on Mumbai. So too will terrorists in Islamabad, Kabul and Gaza.
What few politicians will say publicly is that the terrorists will see these incidents as data points, probes, and simulations for the inevitable next events. And as we are being reassured that the events in Mumbai will have no implications for our future, terrorists are already planning our future against the lessons of Mumbai.
When those events take place, the first line of defense will not be Special Forces sliding down a helicopter-drawn rope, but ordinary police, who are largely untrained and ill-equipped to deal with well trained and heavily armed terrorists.
The targets will be indistinguishable from those that have already blasted across our television screens: train stations, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and schools, places where large numbers of unprotected people gather like sheep for the awaiting slaughter.
So, what do the terrorists want? In a word, "Attention."
Attention is not just directed at the source of grievances, but is also directed at the communal group whose support is vital to terrorist operations. The greater the horror, the greater the attention; the greater the attention, the greater the substitution of symbolic political strength for real political weakness! It is this idea that makes America and Americans anywhere targets of choice.
If you think about what ten terrorists in Mumbai were able to accomplish with automatic weapons, grenades, and bombs against the Indian special forces and military, you realize that a similar attack against modestly-armed American police with a few special weapons teams would create even greater havoc. Certainly, the military would be mobilized in response, but all of that takes time, especially in our multi-layered federal system with its historic emphasis on local control. In the initial hours of an attack, the terrorists would vastly out-gun the police. The police would hardly be able to contain the situation let alone bring it to denouement.
As we debate whether Iraq or Afghanistan is the more important theater in the war on terror, we need to consider that the war's first-line defenders are not manning the streets of Baghdad and Kabul, but the streets of American cities. Without a rapid response team at the local level capable of going toe to toe with hard core terrorists, the tragedy of Mumbai will play itself out in similar or worse proportions in the streets of American cities. Meeting the challenge of the terror war means reconsidering who really stands on the front lines of this war and how to prepare them for the inevitable test that awaits them.
Those who have prescribed this analgesic of comfort have focused on where this event took place. Far and away more important are the terrorists' strategies and tactics.
The attacks were carried out almost simultaneously on multiple targets. Airing during the Thanksgiving holiday, the attacks were designed to draw major media attention in America. The targeting and execution showed sophistication, extensive planning, and precision training. The terrorists had a low probability of evading authorities and a high probability of getting killed.
In terms of strategy and tactics the parallels to 09/11 and Al Qaeda are patently obvious. Consequently, it was not surprising that the group involved, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is affiliated with and cross trains with Al Qaeda.
In Washington, analysts in the law enforcement and intelligence communities will be putting together "after incident reports" on Mumbai. So too will terrorists in Islamabad, Kabul and Gaza.
What few politicians will say publicly is that the terrorists will see these incidents as data points, probes, and simulations for the inevitable next events. And as we are being reassured that the events in Mumbai will have no implications for our future, terrorists are already planning our future against the lessons of Mumbai.
When those events take place, the first line of defense will not be Special Forces sliding down a helicopter-drawn rope, but ordinary police, who are largely untrained and ill-equipped to deal with well trained and heavily armed terrorists.
The targets will be indistinguishable from those that have already blasted across our television screens: train stations, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and schools, places where large numbers of unprotected people gather like sheep for the awaiting slaughter.
So, what do the terrorists want? In a word, "Attention."
Attention is not just directed at the source of grievances, but is also directed at the communal group whose support is vital to terrorist operations. The greater the horror, the greater the attention; the greater the attention, the greater the substitution of symbolic political strength for real political weakness! It is this idea that makes America and Americans anywhere targets of choice.
If you think about what ten terrorists in Mumbai were able to accomplish with automatic weapons, grenades, and bombs against the Indian special forces and military, you realize that a similar attack against modestly-armed American police with a few special weapons teams would create even greater havoc. Certainly, the military would be mobilized in response, but all of that takes time, especially in our multi-layered federal system with its historic emphasis on local control. In the initial hours of an attack, the terrorists would vastly out-gun the police. The police would hardly be able to contain the situation let alone bring it to denouement.
As we debate whether Iraq or Afghanistan is the more important theater in the war on terror, we need to consider that the war's first-line defenders are not manning the streets of Baghdad and Kabul, but the streets of American cities. Without a rapid response team at the local level capable of going toe to toe with hard core terrorists, the tragedy of Mumbai will play itself out in similar or worse proportions in the streets of American cities. Meeting the challenge of the terror war means reconsidering who really stands on the front lines of this war and how to prepare them for the inevitable test that awaits them.
This is a very good point. One of the purposes of taking the war to Iraq was to draw the terrorists' attention away from America's homeland. It worked. Now, though, as Iraq is winding down (successfully, I might add), the terrorists have shifted their operations to other places and are once again looking at attacks on America. When those attacks come, it is very possible -- if not likely -- that the first defenders against them will be normal police and fire fighters, or even citizens themselves. While I have absolutely no doubt that more courage and effectiveness will be displayed here than was displayed in Mumbai, the effects will still be the same: death and destruction.
There's something else disturbing about the Mumbai attacks, and it's something that I think we in America need to consider carefully. Apparently, the U.S. warned Indian officials about the exact scenario that played out over Thanksgiving weekend...twice! But because the attack didn't happen in the predicted timeframe, they let their guard down.
Does that sound familiar to you?
That seems to be what's happening in America. People seem to have forgotten all about 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole, the first WTC bombing, and all the other attacks that terrorists have conducted against us over the past couple decades simply because the policies implemented by George W. Bush have kept us safe for the past eight years. Two things about that: first, for all his other shortcomings, we should acknowledge what Bush has accomplished on this, and give him our sincerest thanks for it. Second, if we become complacent, we will end up like India, with another major terrorist attack on our soil, finding ourselves woefully unprepared to stop and/or contain it. The greater point, then, is that we cannot forget those attacks, nor can we ever stop working to dismantle the terrorist networks or capture/kill the terrorists who would conduct these attacks against us again in the future. Eroding security measures like leaking financial tracking programs or wiretapping programs do absolutely nothing to safeguard Americans; in fact, they help the very people who are trying to kill us. It has got to stop, and that means we've got to stop the liberals who push those policies and ideas.
Now, couple that with this report, and we have the makings of an utter disaster:
The odds that terrorists will soon strike a major city with weapons of mass destruction are now better than even, a bipartisan congressionally mandated task force concludes in a draft study that warns of growing threats from rogue states, nuclear smuggling networks and the spread of atomic know-how in the developing world.
The report, ordered by Congress last year, concludes that terrorists are more likely to obtain materials for a biological attack than to buy or steal nuclear weapons. But it says the nuclear threat is growing rapidly, in part because of the increasing global supply of nuclear material and technology.
The report, ordered by Congress last year, concludes that terrorists are more likely to obtain materials for a biological attack than to buy or steal nuclear weapons. But it says the nuclear threat is growing rapidly, in part because of the increasing global supply of nuclear material and technology.
This isn't the first such warning, either. Let's stop and think about that for a moment. If we are woefully unprepared to handle a dozen or so guys running around with grenades and machine guns, what kind of damage do you think will be inflicted by a dozen or so guys running around with biological or nuclear weapons?
This is why we need to prevent states like Syria and Iran -- known sponsors of terrorism around the world -- from obtaining such technology...at all costs! This is why we need to build American military power to such a point that to attack us would be to invite complete destructive annihilation in return, rather than gutting the best defensive programs we have and cutting the budget by 25%. This is why we need leaders with the willpower to stare down our enemies and back up our words with action, rather than sitting down with them for some feel-good chit-chat.
With the coming Obama administration, Americans will suddenly be in much, much greater danger. This is not the change we needed.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment