Mumbai style attack in kabul..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8464763.stm
A few early observations:
1. The "Mumbai style attack" is here to stay. Any city in the world can be hit by 10 or 20 suicidal attackers and hours or days of chaos will ensue.
2. On the other hand, this is not the first mumbai style attack in afghanistan and ALL of them have been cleared within hours, not days. Security forces also learn (and are probably more competent in Afghanistan than they are in India).
3. These attackers were NOT as ruthless as the Mumbai attackers. Shopkeepers were apparently told to get out. This probably means that Afghans were doing the attacking, not Lashkar e Tayaba types, and afghan taliban continue to be wary of civilian casualties. This is not likely to be the case in future attacks in India or other "infidel" countries, where attackers can and will kill anyone they see.
4. Ultimately, there is no defence against these attacks in most of Eurasia except by getting the planners and organizers to stop (either by killing them or by pressurizing them in some other way or buying them off or accepting their demands). IF an organization like Lashkar wants to carry out an attack in India or Russia, its only a matter of time. Given the incompetence and general corruption rampant in most states, an opening will be found. Even a country like China can be hit provided the militants WANT to do it badly enough.
"The future's so bright, got to wear shades...."
Terrorism is armed propaganda
With a few exceptions terrorists attack targets for their propaganda impact. Only rarely do they attack key national targets, although attacks on US embassies are the exception - since Beirut - as they are suicidal.
So there is a continuity over time, as Wilf cites from Israeli history and more contemporary attacks like Mumbai are alas an escalation. They remain armed propaganda, with all the real-time imagery that technology enables.
In the UK's recent experience the Provisional IRA did mount spectacular attacks like Canary Wharf in London, the Arndale Shopping Centre in Manchester and a M-way junction. All had an impact commercially, notably Canary Wharf. They also tried twice to kill the key members of the UK government, with the Brighton hotel bomb and No.10 Downing Street with mortars - both times nearly killing the cabinet.
I am sure there are other "near misses" on key national targets, so I await how the discussion goes.
Heh. John Simpson emphasizing the supposed power
of the media to shape events. The older guys excel at that neat little mind trick. John learned it long before he got wounded and lost his driver going into Iraq seven years ago. :wry:
I do not deny they have some capability to do that but I firmly believe that capability is about a tenth of what they believe it is. Still they keep trying... :rolleyes:
where was our IO response?
Posted by BW,
Quote:
Too often leaders try to hide these points of weakness, and do not educate the jury (i.e. the populace) of what the true measure of success is. To me this is fundamental to effective IO. We know for a fact that the TB is committed to conducting such high profile attacks, be it bombings in major cities, or shooting down of a helicopter. We need to condition the populace to the likelihood of such events, and educate them as to what they actually mean in the big scheme of things.
This Taliban attack on Kabul was a failure for the Taliban and a success for the Afghan security forces who responded quickly and effectively. Yet if you only read the twisted news reports in U.S. and British rags you would have thought that the Taliban had established control of the city with this so called daring attack. The reality is that the Afghan security forces made the Taliban attackers look like the clowns they were.
Unfortunately, I didn't see a counter message to the spin that the rags put on the attack?
This type of nonsense reporting on the Kabul attack parallels the sensationalism reporting over the Christmas Bomber attempted attack on the NW airlines. I don't want to down play the seriousness of an attack on a commercial airline with over 200 people on it, but the hyped reporting (entertainment) has unintentionally given Al Qaeda an IO victory on another failed attack. Putting this in context our "international security coalition" has pre-empted many attempted attacks and we are collectively killing and capturing many AQ members around the world. On occassion the AQ and their associates will achieve a tactical success, let's not hand them a strategic success by allowing our media to report sensationalism unchallenged with a more rational view. All they really did was blow something up and murder some people, anything that happens is due to our response. FDR was right when he said all we have to fear is fear itself.
I recommend those in the IO field take BW's guidance to heart and start educating their populacess now on realistic security expectations and what these attacks mean, and that unforunately in the less than perfect world that we all live in there may be successful attacks. The typical response to date is shortly after an event the CPSAN pointing fingers theater starts to create the illusion of government action and corrective action while the reality is it is distracting the key players creating additional vulnerability, and it simply gives the irresponsible media more ammunition to create the illusion that the world is coming to an end.