War and Conflict Journal

What is known about the Mumbai attacks as of Friday morning, Nov. 28, 2008

• Attackers entered the Mumbai waterfront via boats near the Gateway
of India monument on Wednesday night. They then hijacked cars,
including a police van, and split into at least three groups to carry
out their attacks.

• One group headed toward the Cafe Leopold, a popular spot for
Western tourists, firing their weapons at people on the street. The
terrorists then opened fire and threw grenades at the Chhatrapati
Shivaji Terminus railway station. As police toward the scene of the
attacks, the terrorists then attacked the Cama Hospital, which is a
medical facility for women and infants. Several people were killed at
the hospital, with the standoff ending Thursday morning.

• Two other groups of attackers entered the Oberoi and Taj Mahal
hotels, taking hostages in both luxury hotels. By Friday, the
authorities claimed that the situation at the Oberoi was over.

• Terrorists took hostages at the Chabad House (at 5 Hormusji Street
- Nariman House – Colaba Mumbai, 400-005 India ), a Jewish religious
center in Mumbai where several Jewish families live. Rabbi Gavriel
Holtzberg, the city's envoy for the community, was being held inside
with his wife, a member of the Hasidic Jewish movement said. Gunmen and
hostages still were believed to be in the house Friday morning when
police retook Chabad House, and reported that 5 hostages and 2
terrorists were found dead.

Explosions at the Chabad House, Mumbai, India.

• Fire brigades battled blazes at both hotels. By early Friday, it
appeared what had been a major fire at the Oberoi had been
extinguished.

• By Friday morning, 146 had been killed in the attacks, including
at least six foreigners, authorities said. An Italian and a Briton were
among the confirmed dead. More than 300 people were wounded, including
seven Britons, three Americans and two Australians.

• At least nine gunmen were killed in fighting with police by Friday
morning. Also among the dead were 14 police officers and the chief of
the Mumbai police anti-terror squad. Authorities said they believe the
attacks were carried out by a total of about 26 terrorists.

• The Indian navy had detained a ship off the west coast with the
help of the Indian coast guard. It is believed that the attackers'
boats came from this ship, and that they believe the ship is from
Karachi, Pakistan. The Pakistani government has denied any involvement
in the Mumbai attacks.

• Several Indian news outlets report a group called the Deccan
Mujahedeen e-mailed them to claim responsibility. Intelligence
officials say little is known about the group. U.S. officials and
security analysts say the sophistication of the attacks may indicate a
more-established group is involved.

Once again, the Western Indian city of Mumbai was rocked by
terrorist attacks, as at least 100 died in a coordinated terror
operation apparently aimed, at least partially, at American
and British citizens.

Early reports indicate the coordinated attacks targeted at least ten
locations in Mumbai, which is a major financial center in India.
Reports indicate between 87 to 100 people died, with several hundred
wounded.

Indian news sources indicate a group calling itself the Deccan
Mujahedeen claimed credit for the attacks. Targets included two major
hotels frequented by Westerners, as well as the train station and a
hospital. 

As more details emerge, one major thing to look for is who India
blames for this attack.  Many past terrorist attacks have been
blamed on Kashmiri separatists, who in the past have operated with
significant support from Pakistan.  There are elements in the
Indian government and in the military, for strong responses to any
sort of Islamic terrorism, and the more right-wing Hindu nationalist
elements in India will likely cry out for revenge, either on India's
large Muslim minority, or on Pakistan itself.  Either response
would likely play directly into the hands of whichever militant group
is really behind this attack. 

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.

The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, known by the names Abu Hamza al-Muhajer and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization. It is believed that these al-Qaeda leaders see more prospects for success in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Iraq.

Washington Post Article:

Indian and Pakistani forces exchanged fire across their contested common border in the Kashmir region on July 26.  This is the second such military engagement in July.  A previous clash occurred on July 10, 2008. 

India and Pakistan have fought several wars in the past, and the Kashmir region is a major flashpoint for their ongoing conflict.  Relations have improved greatly since 2002, but recent terrorist attacks against Indian targets in Afghanistan (the Indian embassy) and in Indian cities in July, most likely by Militant Muslim terrorists, have increased the tensions.

Pakistan, India trade fire along LoC–July 26

For a listing of Indo-Pakistani wars, see http://www.historyguy.com/indo_pakistani-wars.html

Reports out of Pakistan’s continually rebellious southwestern Baluchistan region indicate that recent fighting between Baluch insurgents and Pakistan’s Frontier Corps in the Dera Bugti area claimed up to 43 lives, broken down as 33 dead insurgents and nine members of the Pakistani paramilitary Corps.

Baluchistan rebels seek independence, and have risen up against the Pakistani central government numerous times since Pakistan’s independence from Britain in the late 1940s.

Source:

Fighting flares in Pakistan’s Baluchistan; 43 killed--Reuters, Jul 21, 2008

The Rand Corporation issued a report stating the obvious and the well-known to anyone paying attention to Afghan affairs:  That elements inside the Pakistani security forces have continued to aid the Taliban.  This despite the alleged alliance between Pakistan and the United States since the Allies invaded Afghanistan to liberate that nation from the Islamic Fundamentalist Taliban and its al-Qaida mercenaries.

The Taliban originally took power in Afghanistan with both covert and overt aid from the Pakistani military and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) in the 1990s.(see http://www.historyguy.com/afghan_civil_war.html for detailed information on the Taliban’s rise to power).

The United States has been making noise lately about the Pakistani government’s inability or, as this report leads one to believe, lack of desire, to rein in Taliban forces on Pakistani soil.  It is highly likely that if the current situation continues, with Taliban forces using Pakistani territory with impunity, that the U.S. will attack across the border.  Just as in the Vietnam War, when Communist forces used neighboring Cambodia and Laos for sanctuary, the U.S. may see the need to correct the problem itself. 

Whereas the 1970 invasion of Cambodia sparked massive and deadly anti-war protests in the U.S., a repeat of those types of mass demonstrations would be unlikely in America today. Without a military draft to drive millions of youths to the movement, today’s anti-war organizations will not do anything substantial.  In fact, the anti-war movement, if it can justifiably be called a true movement, cares more about the war in Iraq anyway.  Afghanistan is increasingly becoming a truly "Forgotten War," which is a true tragedy, since in many ways, the outcome of this conflict is of more importance than what happens in Iraq.

Analysis:  The U.S. is probably getting ready to cross the border to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban, but is making all of the requisite polite motions toward Pakistan’s soveriegnty first.  Don’t forget that the Bush/Cheney Administration will be out of office in less than a year, and they don’t know who or what will replace them in the Commander-in-Chief’s position.  Many analysts have harped on the possiblity they may attack Iran before they go, but more likely, in the view of the War and Conflict Journal, is a major push to crush the Islamist foe in Pakistan before next January.  And, if they find Osama bin Laden while in Pakistan, all the better.

U.S.
Troops ‘Ready’ to Aid Pakistan–Washington Post, January 25,
2008

The Pentagon is "ready, willing and able" to send U.S. troops to
conduct joint combat operations with Pakistan’s military against
al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal areas, Defense Secretary
Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

The U.S. military is also beginning to construct as many as eight
coordination centers along the Afghan-Pakistani border that will be
staffed by officers from the three countries to more closely share
intelligence and conduct combat operations, according to Maj. Gen.
David Rodriguez, the top U.S. commander for eastern Afghanistan.

The first border center is being built at Torkham Gate in
Afghanistan, a key crossing near the Khyber Pass and about 30 miles
from the Pakistani city of Peshawar, Rodriguez said.

Cross-border attacks into eastern Afghanistan have dropped by more
than 40 percent in the past three months, compared with the same
period last winter, as Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters increasingly
wage war on the Pakistani government, according to Rodriguez and a
U.S. military review of border incidents.

Suicide bombings increased more than tenfold in Pakistan — from
five in 2006 to 60 last year — while they remained relatively
constant in eastern Afghanistan, according to the U.S. military data.
"Insurgents are focusing more on gains and expansion opportunities in
Pakistan," the assessment stated.

Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, left little doubt yesterday that they believe U.S. troops –
whether in combat or as trainers — can bolster the efforts of
Pakistan’s military in the rugged and lawless Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, where U.S. officials say about 700 Pakistani troops
have been killed battling al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

"If asked to assist, I think we could do a lot," Mullen said at a
Pentagon news briefing.

Gates said that the possible joint combat operations, likely to
involve small teams of U.S. troops, are a topic of "ongoing dialogue"
with Pakistan’s leaders and that U.S. troops would join in the
fighting at Pakistan’s request.

"They have not fully thought through exactly how they intend to
proceed and their strategy going forward," Gates said. "I expect that
that will happen."

Gates said al-Qaeda has allied with other extremists in the border
area, possibly including Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader linked to
the Taliban. "They clearly are much more active and working with
other people," he said.

Rodriguez said Pakistani military leaders are increasingly willing
to cooperate in operations on either side of the border. There is "a
growing realization amongst all of them, that everybody needs to do
more together," he said at a Pentagon briefing this week.

Last year, the U.S. military in Afghanistan established a shared
computer link with the Pakistani military’s headquarters and set up
high-frequency radio communications to coordinate cross-border
operations. It also surveyed Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. border
positions, and stepped up training of Afghan border police.

Pakistan’s Violent Political History Continues
With Bhutto’s Assassination

With the political assassination of former Prime
Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007, Pakistan’s bloody
tradition of political violence continues to plague an already
fractured and unstable country.

A short list of significant acts of political
violence in Pakistan. Note that Pakistan has been an independent
nation only since 1947.

–1947-Independence from the British and the
violent separation from India (several million killed in Pakistan and
India)

–First Kashmir War
(1947-1948) with India

–1948–Pakistani
annexation of Baluchistan, military suppression of Baluch
nationalists.

–1951–Assassination of
Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan

–Pakistan’s first President, Iskandar Mirza,
throws out the constitution and declares martial law on October 7,
1958

–General Ayub Khan overthrows Iskander Mirza in a
bloodless coup d’etat on October 7, 1958.

–1958-1960–Pakistani military suppression of
Baluch nationalists

–Second Kashmir War (1965)
with India

–Bangladesh War of
Independence (1971) from Pakistan (Bangladesh had, from 1947 to 1971,
been part of Pakistan, best known as East Pakistan). India intervened
in the war to aid Bangladesh against Pakistan

–1973-1976-Rebellion in
Baluchistan, a province in southwestern Pakistan

–1977–Military coup
overthrows Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He was replaced by
General Zia al-Huq.

–1979–Former Prime
Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was executed after a controversial
trial.

–Kargil
War (Kashmir Border Conflict) border
war with India

–October, 1999–General Pervez
Musharraf overthrows
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless military coup

–Waziristan
War
(2004-Present)-against tribal rebels and al-Qaida fighters in the
Northwest border region

–2003–Two unsuccessful
assassination attempts against President Pervez
Musharraf

–July, 2003–Siege and Battle at the Red Mosque–over 100 killed.

–October 18,
2007–Assassination attempt on former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto
upon her return from exile

–December 27,
2007–Assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in
Rawalpindi

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan today provoked her
supporters to riot in the streets. This political murder comes just
weeks ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for January. While
Bhutto and her party did not have a lock on winning the coming
election, she represented a valid and legitimate challenger to the
dictatorship of President Pervez
Musharraf. With her death, most likely at the hands of al-Qaida
or a related Islamist group, the chance for Pakistan to emerge from
its current dark period of dictatorship, rebellion, and political
chaos is now quite remote.

An ironic bit of trivia which shows the depth to which political
violence has impacted Pakistan’s relatively short history as an
independent country:

Benazir Bhutto’s final speech took place in a park named
   after the nation’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was
   himself assassinated at that park on October 16, 1951. In the
   northern part of the city of Rawalpindi, Benazir Bhutto’s father,
   former President and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was
   executed by hanging on April 4, 1979. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had been
   overthrown in a military coup in 1977 and replaced by General
   Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Pakistan’s current dictator, Pervez
   Musharraf, survived two assassination attempts in Rawalpindi in
   2003.

Pakistan’s political system is frayed to the breaking point. What
happens after that system (in a nation with a nuclear weapons
stockpile), totally breaks down, is a scenario quite unpleasant to
imagine.

Click
here for the latest news on Bhutto’s death and the situation in
Pakistan.