Does India need or want help?
Quote:
We are really babes in the woods when it comes to understanding and effective engaging in this region. If the Isrealies have a spcecial bond/relationship that is good...but it brings it's own special challenges as well. A perception of US sponsored, Jewish CT activity is likely to have negative consequences that far exceed any immediate effect.
Great comments, we too often illustrate our lack of understanding by our desire to immediately run to the sound of gun fire and get involved so we can make things better. Historically our engagement in many countries has often failed to improve the situation for a number of reasons. A couple of them are posted above.
Partners need our support and cooperation, just as we need theirs. If they think they need our assistance they will ask for it. If we think they need our assistance, but they don't want it, then we continue to diplomatically pursue areas where we they may accept our assistance. The bull in the china shop approach hasn't worked well in the past.
Mumbai News and Commentary
I've placed numerous links to news and commentary concerning the Mumbai attack on the SWJ Daily Roundup
30 November Roundup
29 November Roundup
28 November Roundup
27 November Roundup
What are the lessons for the rest of us?
With more information available now (still with loads of spectulation), I think we have enough to at least consider the implications of this type of attack on our own homeland security readiness. While there is some justification to criticize India for some its readiness shortfalls, especially the severe equipment shortfalls of its police and commando forces (no night vision devices, etc.), how ready are we (the U.S., Europe, other Asian nations) to respond to similiar attacks?
Obviously there is no pat answer as there are several variables that can impact readiness on any given day, and obviously some cities such as New York City is probably much more prepared for this type of attack than say a mid sized town elsewhere in the U.S., but it is still a question we should grapple with.
Assuming the press reports are accurate, and even if they're not, the type of operation that they outlined could easily be replicated anywhere in the world.
You have a mothership (any cargo ship), a handful of dedicated Jihadist lunatics who are very well trained and armed, a few rubber raiding crafts, and a limited support base in the target city to conduct your target reconnaissance and even guide you to your target(s) if required. There are large Muslim populations around the globe from Tokyo to London to Miami etc., and out of that population base it only takes a couple of converts to radical Islam to provide the required support.
Here's the scenario, you're the police chief, it's your town, it's 2230hrs, surprise, you now have 10-15 Jihadists running around executing a well rehearsed plan, now respond. Respond with what? Local police? Are they grossly overweight (indicates they are not dedicated) and poorly trained? The national guard? Normally not trained for this type of response, and it would take hours to mobilize them. Federal forces? How long would it take for a credable response?
You can excuse a government for reacting to a bomb attack and cleaning up the mess, then pursuing the culprits, but it is another issue all together when you're under attack in your home town, and the government can't mount an effective counter attack in a timely manner. The perception of failure jumps out, regardless of how unreasonable it may be to expect every city/town to have a capable response (think about the effect of school shootings, a much smaller scale problem). The Los Angeles police department is relatively well trained and equipped, and I think most of us remember the challenges they had responding to two bank robbers armed with high powered rifles and effective body armor. My point is that police forces, just like military forces, are trained and equipped (barely) for probable threats. The Mumbai attacks were not a probable attack until last week.
See the next post for India's initial lessons learned, and what they should mean to us.
Excellent commentary by all
As to the "who will blame who" in efforts to sidetrack popular frustrations.
Can't see any way this won't happen considering historic practices which apparently noone likes to learn from(didn't that end up being a big part of what brought about WWI?); how about something different for a change.
Perhaps everyone could actually blame the idiots who keep pulling off these attacks. Extremists!
Maybe thats too much to ask for:confused:
Appropos of India and their strategic choices -- and of ours...
I agree with most of your postulations but question this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
...4. We could absorb a strategic disaster like launching a completely unrelated invasion of a traditional enemy's territory in the name of retaliation and national security. What happens internal to India if they try a similar gambit? What credibility do we have to talk them down from such a policy given our own recent actions?
Three points.
A 'stategic disaster' is in the eye of the beholder -- I haven't seen one since the Brothers Kennedy decided to boost the US economy by sending me to Laos a long time ago.
Not at all a completely unrelated invasion, rather a very poorly publicly justified effort. It was a response to a large number of ME provocations, attacks and probes against US interests worldwide from 1979-2001 and it was sorely needed and long overdue; something needed to be done and do recall that Afghanistan is not in the ME. It may have been poorly planned (and whose fault is that?) and executed (same question?) but something was needed. While most of the west did not and does not understand that, the ME (and most of Asia) understood it for what it was; you will have noted that European hearth objections were heartfelt and different from the pro-forma mumbles out of the ME and Asia. The major problem with the action in Iraq as a totality and the rest of the world was an incredibly poor job of stating the rationale. The major problem with total effectiveness of the overdue response to probes from the ME was in the execution. That happens...
Back to the actual thread and point at hand. To answer your question quoted, no one including the Indians knows what would happen internally; and our credibility in the world has not been great since I started paying attention in 1947 or so. It has fluctuated over the years but it has never been adequate to jawbone other nations into doing much they they didn't want to do (unless we bribed them, that works -- sometimes). Been that way for years and I see no change in that.
Nor am I at all certain why we should be excessively concerned with 'talking them down' from a policy they are probably not going to adopt. In the unlikely event they adopt such a policy, it will be (as is too often true here) more a result of domestic politics than anything else -- and that milieu is a little too opaque for most of us to sort -- and I'm pretty sure that pressure would trump anything we tried.
I'll leave the politics to others
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Icebreaker
...2. How can ten (10) men, even armed with automatic weapons and grenades, hold off hundreds of commandos and police officers for sixty (60) hours?
but provide an answer to this. Easily.
What room or rooms in what buildings? Intelligence and / or technology available to the commandos and police to determine said locations? Their familiarity with each others work processes and ability to cooperate? Hostages involved? More importantly, respective levels of training. Most importantly level of dedication of the ten and their willingness to die to complete their mission.
Not at all difficult to do. Sixty hours is really pretty good time. Fighting in cities is never easy...
This LINK was just one of the buildings involved, it alone could easily take over a day to clear after the assault team arrived (12 hours away) and got prepped (another 4-6 hours minimum).
One of my favorite Hurricane pictures.