In retaliation for the increasingly aggressive drone war, Baitullah Mehsud claims that his organization soon strike Washington, DC with an “amazing” attack.

Count me skeptical.

Terrorism is the marriage of intent and capability.  Mehsud may really, really want to attack the United States, but he hasn’t come close to demonstrating that he’s capable of it.

What about 9/11?  you ask - who knew al Qaeda had the capability to pull off the most complex attack in terrorism’s history?  Hindsight is 20/20, if you look at what AQ had done leading up to it, there was a marked increase in the complexity and quality of execution in their attacks.  From Khobar Towers (1996) to the East Africa Embassy bombings (1998) to the USS Cole (2000), AQ demonstrated the capability to execute complex, coordinated attacks in the international arena, and do so with relatively significant budgets (up to about $500k for 9/11).

Under Mehsud’s auspices, his fighters haven’t done much more than conduct a handful of semi-complex raids and assassinations in their own back yard.  The attacks are successful and deadly to be sure, but there’s a difference between convincing a bunch of foot-soldiers to shoot up a procession in your own country and a planning for the logistical challenge of an international attack.

It is possible that Mehsud could pull something off in the United States, of course. — he could be holding back.  But until I see an increasing level of operational complexity in unfamiliar operating environments, I’ll be a Doubting Thomas.

Which begs the next question - why is he making pronouncements he might not be able to back them up?  Frankly, I think he’s trying to position himself as the “new” Bin Laden.  Terrorism is as much about appearance as reality.  If you appear to be in charge, then acclaim, donations, and footsoldiers flow your way.  And since the Muslim mindset values patience, immediate results aren’t demanded.

Noah Shachtman at Danger Room poses a highly provocative question:

The US and Pakistan have just drawn up a fresh list of terrorist targets in Pakistan for further Preditor drone strikes.  The list now includes individuals with no connection to the war in Afghanistan, targeting groups known to operate in only Pakistan-based operations. So does that mean we’re at war in Pakistan?  Since we’re now giving the Pakistani government a hand in quashing their internal adversaries, aren’t we expanding the original intent of the drone program’s mission?

This move seems consistent with the Obama administration’s regional approach we keep hearing about, but I worry that it’s a bit of a tone-deaf one.

Part of reason Pakistan can’t focus on its domestic insurgents is because the majority of Islamabad’s military is perched in Kashmir staring across at India.  If Pakistani/Indian tensions were decreased, Pakistan could devote more effort to its internal issues.  Because the Obama administration knows that real peace with India is quite a ways off, it has apparently offered to handle a lot of the dirty work instead.

That’s why the new drone program must be coupled it with a significant diplomatic effort at Pakistani/Indian peace.  If it isn’t, then we’re sending the wrong signals to Islamabad - essentially “we’ll shoot the bad guys because we know you have other problems.” Giving the Pakistanis an excuse to not get their own house in order is dangerous.

Which leads me to a second caveat:  the American military has to be really, really careful about mission creep.  The military, as the Pentagon thinks it believes, can’t kill its way out of this problem, but this expanded target list only perpetuates the mindset that we can.

There have been stories floating around about how the economic crisis has occupied so much of President Obama’s time that he hasn’t turned much attention to foreign affairs.  An issue like this should draw some Presidential notice - if we’re going to have a whole-of-government approach to Afghanistan, let’s make sure the drone program meets both our immediate and long-term needs.

Pat Barry over at DA ponders who knew what, and when, about the Mumbai attacks:

Cross-posted to the Huffington Post.

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw asked President-elect Obama whether India had the right of “hot pursuit” to go after terrorists in Pakistan.  And you’d think that Obama would be there along with them-in August 2007, he famously said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [former Pakistani] President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Many Americans are likely to respond with a “hell yeah”.  Hell yeah, indeed. This is pretty much the same thing, right?

But wait. In response to Brokaw, Obama offered only vague assurances, saying, “I’m not going to comment on that. What, what I’m going to restate is a basic principle.  Number one, if a country is attacked, it has the right to defend itself.  I think that’s universally acknowledged.”

It sounds like Obama is supporting India, but he sure doesn’t seem very enthusiastic about fightin’ terror.

Let’s start with some legalese. Brokaw’s reference to “hot pursuit” is a term enshrined in the U.N.’s 1958 Convention on the High Seas that permits coast guards and navies to follow law-breaking ships into international waters. In the post-9/11 era, “hot pursuit” has been adapted to justify cross-border counter-terrorism operations in self-defense, so long as the pursuer is acting on specific intelligence.

The United States has relied on “hot pursuit” repeatedly to bomb suspected al Qaeda locations in Pakistan. So even if Obama supports that “basic principle,” why isn’t he explicit about India’s situation? Read the rest of this entry »

I started poking around some Pakistani newspapers online yesterday because I wanted to see what the view was from within. 

The Daily Times, a leading English-language newspaper, struck this somber tone:

This is no time to create unity of the people in favour of rash action. Pakistan has to make a special effort to prove that it is in control of the situation. The two sides must regain the ground lost because of the Mumbai attack.

It is time to measure Pakistan’s capacity to withstand the prospect of a multi-pronged conflict raging both within and without. No country in the world can afford to succumb to passion when its economic and political moorings have been snapped. Wisdom recommends that Pakistan take a sober view of the situation and act with flexibility rather than Quixotic bravado. This is also the advice that the Pakistani media should take to heart, and begin to show caution in place of challenge.

The Pakistan Observer, however, seems to be a bit more, er, rash and possibly, um, slightly conspiracy-theorist:

INDO-Israeli military connection has never been a secret but this collusion is now presenting a real threat to the security of Pakistan in the wake of Mumbai attacks. According to reports, Israeli intelligence and military authorities are in touch with their Indian counterparts to work out plans for surgical strikes inside Pakistan against, what is being propagated, militants’ targets.

While DAWN strikes a more defiant tone:

PAKISTAN, never far from the news, has been firmly in the international spotlight since the Mumbai attacks. The steady drip of leaks from investigators in India and comments by Indian and American officials suggest that a Pakistani connection to the Mumbai attacks has been irrefutably established, at least in the eyes of the wider world. There is, however, a second, sometimes unspoken line of allegations against Pakistan: that we are a state with weak governance where terrorist groups have long run amok. Enough is enough, now put your house in order, the world led by India and the US is saying to Pakistan. We wish the world, and in particular the US, was not so selective in its memories of what has brought Pakistan to such a pass. …

The Lashkar’s capabilities grew on the watch of Gen Musharraf, a military strongman supported by American dollars and a White House that believed he was its best bet to take on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the tribal areas. Even as it became clear that Gen Musharraf was not delivering on American demands and was possibly playing a dangerous double game by covertly supporting some militant groups, the Americans steadfastly stood by their man. ..

So militancy is a problem in the region not only because of Pakistan’s numerous sins of commission but also because of the sins of the US, whose interests in Afghanistan led it to back a ruler [Musharraff] who made neither Pakistan nor the region safer.

The Pakistanis seem to have captured the ringleaders of the Mumbai plot, including Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, during a raid in the Kashmir town of Shawai Nala.  I looked on the map for “Shawai Nala” - guess what?  I couldn’t find it - here’s as close as I came, click here.

Looks pretty inhospitable, right?  I’d guess that Shawai Nala isn’t exactly one of the first places you’d visit when headed to Pakistan.

If you’re going to be the mastermind of a transnational terrorist plot that kills nearly 200 people, you’re probably going to want to lay low for a while.  Heck, UBL’s been doing it for 7+ years.

But, staring a potential major military escalation with its nuclear-armed next door neighbor, the Pakistanis manage to find the Mumbai mastermind within a matter of DAYS in some of the apparently most treacherous territory in the world.

The speed of the operation in such a remote area suggests - and I repeat, suggests - three things to me:

- the link between the LeT and ISI is (was?) pretty strong. How else would ISI know right where the LeT and Lakhvi are?
- that the Pakistani government is actually starting to control the ISI a bit. Historically, there were two governments in Pakistan - the civilian and military/security services. Perhaps Zardari is compelling the ISI to follow his orders in the face of massive international pressure.
- that the LeT miscalculated. They felt comfortable enough to remain in the same place because they didn’t think the Pakistani government would bow to US/Indian demands.  Oops.

If you’re using the United States and September 11th as a frame of reference, you’d think that national security would jump to the #1 political issue in the immediate aftermath of any terrorist attack. 

Apparently, no so in India.  The incumbent Congress party actually gained control of three states - Delhi, Rajasthan, and Mizoram - in Monday’s local elections.  According to sources talking to the WaPo, voters had focused on local development issues like road, water, and power… NOT terrorism. 

What does this mean?  That Indians don’t care about national security?  Of course not - they do.  But, in a country of over 1 billion - many of whom are in abject poverty, turning on your lights and having clean drinking water trump pretty much anything else.  Just look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and wants (one of the few things I actually remember from undergrad) - things like breathing, food, and water are the most necessary, more important than “security of body” on Maslow’s chart. 

Second, the states that Congress retained generally aren’t anywhere near Mumbai.  It may be tough for you, savvy internet user, to appreciate it, but chances are that news just doesn’t travel very quickly or resonate very loudly with India’s improverished masses.

That’s why I found the election results a nice dovetail with a story about the “Two Indias”in the WaPo:

In a dilapidated neighborhood along Tulsi Pipe Road, a shoe store proprietor, David Ronel, recalled the series of seven train bombings in 2006, one of them at the Mahim Junction station, just across from his shop. He and other merchants along the dusty street rushed to carry out the injured and the dead.

The attacks, which occurred on a weekday in July at the peak of evening rush hour, killed 209 people and wounded more than 700. The bombings were thought to have been carried out by the same Pakistan-based group, Lashkar-i-Taiba, that authorities suspect organized the recent siege of Mumbai.

But Ronel, 34, said he did not recall the train bombings eliciting the kind of street protests, political resignations, candlelight vigils and procession of talk show personalities expressing fury and analysis that followed last month’s attacks. …

The recent siege brought terrorism to the doorstep of India’s affluent and struck at the symbols of their prosperity. India’s expanding elite, which has felt somewhat insulated from the heat, traffic, sporadic electricity outages and overall commotion in this fast-paced city, suddenly felt vulnerable.

In India, terrorists have usually targeted crowded markets and trains, seldom frequented by the wealthy. Typically, the victims have been the poor, including taxi drivers, deliverymen, shopkeepers and street sweepers. But the gunmen who struck several sites in Mumbai late last month focused much of their rage on the city’s two most luxurious hotels and its most likely guests: business executives, socialites, Bollywood film directors and political bigwigs.

Never before has a terrorist attack in India brought such raw outrage and calls for sweeping changes in government.

National elections are due sometime around May in India.  As much as we like to talk about “class warfare” in American politics, I wouldn’t be surprised if the results split India into the haves and have-nots, with the incumbents fairing well amongst the poor, and the opposition BJP party doing well in elite districts.