Mumbai style attack in kabul..

[omarali50]

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...."

[William F. Owen]

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.

It's not new or even "Mumbai Style" - Lod Airport 1972 and the Israel Coastal Road attack in 1978 follow this same basic pattern. There are many more examples, if you look.

[omarali50]

William,

werent those attacks just one or two attackers aiming to shoot some people and die shooting, not 10-20 gunmen who capture buildings and hold out till death? I guess its splitting hairs, but as Hegel would say, at some point quantitative difference becomes qualitative...

[davidbfpo]

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.

[William F. Owen]

I guess its splitting hairs, but as Hegel would say, at some point quantitative difference becomes qualitative...

Split away. It may be useful to do so. My observation is merely that in essence, we have seen this before. It's not new. Now we may have also ignored it, - like IEDs and Insurgents - but it is a known known.

[davidbfpo]

After the hype of the initial reporting, including by the BBC, the "dust" has settled and here is one commentary: http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=2531 which is scathing on the Taliban's tactical ability:

The attack on Kabul yesterday was yet another demonstration of how inept the Taliban are at the planning and execution of a simple raid. The attack has been described in the press as “audacious” and “brazen” which is true. All their attacks in downtown Kabul are conceptually bold military moves; but they accomplish nothing. A better description of their performance would be incompetent. Seven heavily armed attackers – one in a bomb-rigged ambulance killed three policemen and two civilians, one of them a child. They failed to make it onto their objective retreating instead into the most popular market in downtown Kabul which they then destroyed. That is a dismal performance by a raid force which had gained complete surprise when they unmasked themselves in Pashtunistan Square.

Here's the BBC's Ms Doucet, who did not give the initial report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8468231.stm and the veteran BBC reporter, John Simpson has a small column within this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8464763.stm where he says:

the fact that the attack was soon dealt with is far less significant than the fact that the Taliban was able to carry it out....In the eerie darkness of Kabul I spoke to a group of Afghan special forces who had fought the insurgents - tough impressive men. I asked if the Taliban could win this war. No, they shouted. But there are other ways to win a war than simply fighting. And persuading the world that the Taliban can strike when and how they want is one of them.

[Ken White]

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.

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...

[omarali50]

Its hard to see how the ISAF psyops people could change this situation (they could easily make it worse), but someone somewhere should come up with a way to change the media theme from "bold and audacious taliban attack" to "remarkably effective Afghan response"...I think the afghan regime and its foreign supporters can win this war with or without changing the media theme, but it would help...