Last week’s attacks in Mumbai were, in a word, horrific. As happens after every crisis, the pundits and analysts swarm the nearest media outlets to share their views on what happened, why, and who did it. This is perfectly understandable—a manifestation of what Nassim Taleb calls our desire to assign a narrative to every action so that it might have a beginning, middle, end, and meaning.
Rushing to judgment about the Mumbai attacks, however, is little but a fool’s errand. One of the earliest, and funniest, examples of this was a contest The New York Times recorded, between C. Christine Fair, the RAND Corporation’s resident expert on South Asian insurgencies (and one of the few Americans at all to have studied the topic), and Sajjan Gohel, the Director of International Security for the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a think tank that specializes in security and counterterrorism. Gohel pointed to the coordinated nature of the attacks as “fingerprints” that “point to an Islamic Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group.” Fair, meanwhile, noted the ways this attack was different than other al-Qaeda attacks: “Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don’t do hostage-taking and they don’t do grenades.”
The “Lashkar” Fair spoke of is Lashkar-e-Toiba, a radical Islamist group normally associated with the violent guerilla struggle over Jamu and Kashmir, two disputed regions that have been disputed by India and Pakistan since partition in 1947. Lashkar, which is sometimes abbreviated LeT, has become the primary suspect behind the attack, according to anonymous U.S. officials.
The reason so many seem to be searching for familiar groups on which to pin blame is that, as far as officials are concerned, the supposed responsible party—a group calling itself “Deccan Mujahideen”—has never before existed. Considering LeT has attacked Mumbai before—they were partially responsible for the train bombings that killed 209 people in Mumbai in 2006—it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for them to attack that city again.
Ms. Fair, however, is right to urge skepticism. On September 14 of this year, for example, the Indian Mujahideen, which has carried out terrorist attacks in Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Jaipur, threatened it would “carry out attacks” in Mumbai. The Ahmedabad attacks—twenty-one bombs in total, spaced out over July 26 of this year— killed over fifty people. Over two weeks, IM set off a series of bombs in Delhi that killed at least fifty-three people. The Jaipur attacks killed sixty-three.
Indeed, while horrific and carried out in a novel fashion, the scale and even coordination of these attacks was not unprecedented inside India. It remains too early to pin the blame for a bunch of commando-style militants wielding assault rifles on a terror group known mainly for planting bombs. There is no reason why the attacks can’t have come from a new group, or a splint faction of an old group, or something we haven’t thought of yet. People are not zombies, and, in particular, successful insurgents tend to be very creative in how they kill innocent people.
There is a curious double standard in the commentary about India, as well. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., entire countries would be threatened with isolation or consumer boycotts for daring to suggest that the U.S.’s Middle East policy was even partially responsible for the attacks. During the Republican presidential primaries, Ron Paul was routinely mocked for saying the same thing, and derided as “supporting the terrorists.”
Yet that is exactly the kind of thinking that crops up when you hear, for example, Ms. Fair remarking that India has a lot of “very, very angry Muslims.” You can detect a similar tone in Newsweek’s coverage, which seemed to blame the attacks on India’s possession of Kashmir and the “serious economic, religious, political and social causes of Muslim discontent.”

Mr Foust,
You rightly cite Riedel stating "advice should be heeded by all the flapping jaws on TV, blithely declaring this or that terror group “clearly” bears responsibility for the attacks." But I'm afraid you are one of them. Your article is based around what Christine Fair says. But she has now totally contradicted herself and been made to look quite foolish. Please look at the two links below. I take what your intention was but I think Fair has been highly inconsistent. Fair said the Lashkar-e-Toiba was not to blame before the group's name even appeared. Now she has joined the bandwagon. Please look at the links below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809384528567925.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/11/30/mann.intv.fair.ind.pak.cnn
Posted by Evan on Tue 2 Dec 2008 at 08:26 AM
I respect Foust. He has written some good things on Afghanistan but on this issue I have to agree with "Evan"
Joshua, if these attacks are sophisticated as you state, then they can't be by some unknown outfit. The whole point is to discover the culprits. The fact is that they can't be some unknown group. They killed everyone in sight including Muslims. How can we make things worse then then by talking about who they are ?
I would suggest looking at CNN's analyst Peter Bergen. He makes the point that the attack has the MO of the LeT. So it's not a question of jumpring the gun.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/bergen.mumbai/
I also suggest you read “The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups,” from the April 2005 edition of Current Trends, written by Husain Haqqani, who, is now Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani explains, is a jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion, “backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services.” He notes that “Lashkar-e-Taiba has adopted a maximalist agenda for global jihad.”
Posted by David Greenberg on Tue 2 Dec 2008 at 10:16 AM
Evan and David,
Thank you for your comments! I think, even if Fair has since contradicted herself, her initial plea to remain skeptical is a good one. I should also note that I don't take everything she says at face value, since I specifically highlight her assertion that India just has angry Muslims so that must be it.
I've read Haqqani. He is just as independent and free of contradictions as Fair. He also has an agenda to push, and he did when he was working for Nawaz Shairf, and earlier, Benazir Bhutto. That doesn't make his description of Lashkar incorrect, but it also doesn't mean a 3-year old paper has a lot to say about last week.
I'm not sure we can take what Bergen says about LeT as gospel, either. He says it is like Hezbollah because it draws from a larger base of support than other terror organizations. Hezbollah, though, functions as a complete shadow government providing public goods -- something LeT doesn't really do.
Similarly, the attack on the Indian parliament is an aberration. Lashkar uses bombs and grenades, not coordinated assaults with hostages.
But these are important things to think of. I'm not arguing that it's not LeT that did the attack, merely that we don't yet have enough information to assume it was. So this is the kind of discussion I wish we had more of. Thanks!
Posted by Joshua Foust on Tue 2 Dec 2008 at 11:05 AM
CARNGAE IN MUMBAI
Over the last few days the world watched in horror the mindless and criminal carnage in Mumbai. Nearly 200 dead, many more injured and prime real estate like The Taj up in flames. The terror operation seemed well planned and executed which must have required months of preparation and ground surveillance.
Even more shocking for me personally was the fact that I spent a whole week in Mumbai in January this year staying with my good friends Rano & Kamal Singh who live only a couple of blocks away from The Oberoi, where I had all my social and business meetings almost on a daily basis. The horrific pictures on TV screen seemed like a cloud over my wonderful visit earlier in the year.
At this time plenty of finger pointing is going on. The Indian Prime Minister initially talked about a linkage to Karachi, then news came that some of the terrorists were British born and some had Mauritian passports. Also, that some had credit cards issued by various Indian banks. The latest report from India seems to suggest that the lone survivor of the terror group comes from a village near Multan, Pakistan. BBC's Barbara Plett reported from that village this morning and no one has heard of this young man in that small village where everyone know everyone else.
The Indian Government and some foreign agencies are suggesting this was a Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LET) operation - a terrorist group initially sponsored by Pakistan's ISI and later banned and abandoned and since moved to Indian Kashmir. It is highly doubtful that this was an LET operation. This fanatical group believes that a Muslim without a beard is not a Muslim at all, whereas the terrorists were clean shaven young men.
The Pakistan Government has denied any involvement. In fact for the last several years, operations against India have seized and more recently ISI has been harnessed by the new Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kiyani, who has been working hard to rid the army and intelligence services of rogue elements. Also, Pakistan Government with the full backing of Pakistani public has been making serious efforts to kick start the slow dialogue with India in order to improve trade, tourism and cooperation in a number of areas. Each time the two countries come close to putting the past behind, something like this happens. It seems, certain forces on both sides of the border are not interested in the rapprochement.
The blame game by the Indian Government may partly be due to their long held suspicions and also perhaps for political reasons due to upcoming State elections where the opposition BJP is trying to make political capital against the ruling Congress party. The fact is that no one is really sure of who is behind this operation. A full investigation has not taken place yet and many aspects of this terror attacks still need to be examined. There is no doubt that the terrorists had local support not just on the day of the operation but for sometime before. Also, they seemed to roam around Mumbai streets as if they were fully familiar with the landscape, people just coming off the boats would not have had that kind of knowledge of the city.
A number of questions remain unanswered and need to be investigated. Some of these are:
1. Who stands to gain from this carnage, politically as well as otherwise.
2. What local help did the terrorists have and who are their local contacts and what is their agenda and have they escaped by simply melting into the crowds.
3. Who is the Mastermind behind this operation
4. Why did the Indian intelligence not know anything about it and who is responsible for this massive failure.
5. Why did the Indian Navy and coast Guard not intercept the merchant vessels or the dinghies and why did they not have surveillance along the coast.
6. If the person or persons behind it are based in Pakistan, who are these people. Rather than the blame game, this is where Indian and Pakistani intelligence need to work together to put such individuals/groups out of business for good.
7. If indeed individuals/groups from Pakistan were involved then why did the Pakistani intelligence not know about their activities and who is responsible for this massive intelligence failure.
8. Who are the elements that do not want India and Pakistan to have close relationship and want to drive a wedge.
This is a matter of great importance for the future 1.4 billion people in India and Pakistan. It is extremely important to get to the bottom of all this. An impartial and fair investigation needs to takes place to determine responsibility and to identify field operatives and Principals on both sides of the border. That task is large and complicated. India needs to engage the services of a neutral foreign intelligence agency which will have access on both sides of the border. Britain's Scotland Yard is ideal for getting to the root of such problems and is equally respected in India and Pakistan. Also, the findings of Scotland Yard will be considered free of political motives and blame game. However, both countries must agree in advance to accept their final report and commit to work jointly to identify and eliminate terrorists and their backers.
Posted by Ajaz on Tue 2 Dec 2008 at 01:05 PM
Mr Faust,
I would like to politely point out to you that you are wrong when you say the Indian Parliament attack was an abortion by the LeT. It was not even a precedent. Please look at the Australian government link below and you can see that they have carried out a number of similar assault attacks.
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/nationalsecurity.nsf/Page/What_Governments_are_doing_Listing_of_Terrorism_Organisations_Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
Best,
Shane
Posted by Shane W. on Tue 2 Dec 2008 at 02:14 PM
This is a comment on coverage at The New York Times yesterday:
The Sky News mobile phone footage of a crowd apparently beating and beating Ajmal Qasab does not quite support the idea that "he was injured in the leg during his arrest." Is this matter of being wounded in the leg an artifact of the reporting of Somini Sengupta? If not, what is the source? Why do we keep encountering Sengupta if we search this alleged fact? If Qasab was the man being punished by the crowd, it would not be surprising to find that he was wounded in more than his leg. Why is there no account of the Sky News mobile phone footage here?
If it is true that RAW sent an intercept that was ignored to the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, then we would have the familiar issue of information incoherence that caused 9/11. How exactly are students of intelligence being trained in information cohesion and coherence? If we had PhD programs in intelligence, if we had advanced labs in psychology in these matters, we could orient to them.
But events as they unfold keep telling us that members of intelligence services cannot understand what information coherence is, nor can they design training programs. Nor does it seem that any reporter in the world would even be able to formulate the question: "What would it mean to do intensive exercises based on the COBUILD English Grammar, chapter 9, on cohesion?"
If you present cohesion problems to academics, they do not orient. For example, in Harold Bloom's explanation of Emily Dickinson's "The Tint I cannot take–is best–" in his "The Western Canon," there is a catastrophic error in cohesion. What is it? If you post comment about issues in cohesion in "Paradise Lost" at the Harvard student paper (Crimson), nobody pays any attention.
What is James Jones's theory of information cohesion and coherence? How does he think the subjects should be taught to students of intelligence? In the somewhat feeble analysis of American education at the end of chapter 1 of "Global Trends 2025," there is not a word about this critically important subject.
— Clayton Burns
Posted by Clayton Burns on Tue 2 Dec 2008 at 03:56 PM
The "funniest" thing about this article is now the US government has said the LeT was responsible, it's making everything in this Faust article totally dated and wrong.
Oh and by the way Joshua, the LeT has done many assaults. The New Delhi Parliament attack was not a one off. Please check this link.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=72584&d=1&m=11&y=2005
It's kind of tragic that everyone else is having to do your homework for you.
What is TSI Executive Consulting, I wonder what their agenda is ?
Posted by Mal K. on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 06:01 AM
This is a short passage from an Edward Luttwak Commentary in The Globe and Mail today. I have just included a couple of paragraphs so that you will be able to find the range. Amazingly, The Globe and Mail closed comments on this without a single comment remaining. Nor did The Globe Commentary page or letters editor respond to my notice to them of the news story last night (Independent UK) that contradicted Luttwak. Nor did E.L. respond to an e-mail at the shoddy CSIS site. Unless CSIS performs a deep international media reading cycle in "real" time, the practitioners will be caught flatfooted again more often than not over the next four years. The Globe and Mail editors could have updated the Luttwak Commentary, but apparently they either failed to grasp the contradiction or they did not care, even if the latter seems "unlikely."
Ten men willing to die, and a pathetic security system
EDWARD LUTTWAK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
December 2, 2008 at 11:32 PM EST
India really is a democratic country. Hence the prompt resignation of the country's top security official, home minister Shivraj Patil, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks. In his statement, Mr. Patil said he was assuming "ministerial" - formal, not substantive - responsibility. He should have said nothing at all: Since he assumed his post in 2004, some 7,000 people have been killed by terrorists in India without generating any known response by his ministry. ...
All in all, what happened was a confrontation between 10 trained men willing to fight and die, and a hopelessly inadequate security system. But India is, indeed, a democracy with a free press, and what will soon happen after all the usual recriminations will be the creation of a decentralized system backed by an information net. By contrast, those who live in Tel Aviv, New York or London need not fear a Mumbai episode. If 10 terrorists were to attack, local police would quickly deal with them.
Edward Luttwak is senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The Independent (the story was available last night):
Fear of Mumbai-style attack prompts UK security review
Britain needs 500-strong rapid response force, chairman of Commons committee says
By Kim Sengupta
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
MPs are to carry out a review of national security policy amid fears that Britain is exposed to a Mumbai-style attack, The Independent has learnt.
Security agencies are aware that home-grown Muslim extremists may attempt to carry out copycat assaults on "soft targets" in the UK, modelled on what took place in India.
Patrick Mercer, the chairman of the Commons Counter-Terrorism Sub- committee, said: "What can happen in Mumbai can happen in Manchester or Birmingham. Events in Mumbai demonstrate the great urgency of such a review. There is little doubt that we need to examine whether our counter-terrorist forces are capable of dealing with this kind of attack. This is a style of attack which is very difficult to cope with and, with the Olympics coming up, we need a thorough review." ...
Robert Emerson, a security analyst, warned: "There is a lot of talk about 'dirty bombs' being used by terrorists, but what Mumbai showed was you don't need that kind of technology to have a lethal impact. All you have to do is look at underworld shootings to see how plentiful guns are in this country. I don't think we have a system in place at the moment to cope with such multiple attacks in this country."
Posted by Clayton Burns on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 06:15 PM
I'm from Germany and my cousin lost her husband in the attacks. He loved India despite all the problems of crime, corruption and hunger. Yet my blood was boiling when Christine Fair who according to this Foust knows South Asia so well. Her comments were so offensive that when my cousin read them she started crying.
Fair's analysis was offensive to everyone that understands India. It was not analytical it would a clear statement that India brought on these attacks. India is guilty of many things. There is religious discrimination just as there is language and case discrimination. But for Fair to imply that this happened because India treats its Muslims so badly is just too upsetting for words.
There is no point Foust saying that he took a part of what fair said. You have to judge the whole analysis and then compare what she said before and after. The fact she contradicts herself afterwards is even more ridiculous.
Posted by Bode on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 07:04 PM
There seem to be some pretty strong views on this page. I think the title of the article needs to be changed to "LeT's prove Joshua Foust Wrong." As everyone appears to have got after him but I think he does make some interesting points. Despite this, the US is of the opinion that the LeT is responsible and the Observer newspaper, a historically liberal publication, has come out with two articles stating the LeT's direct connection to the attacks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/mumbai-terrorism-india-pakistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/mumbai-terrorism-india-pakistan1
Posted by Chris Ryder on Sun 7 Dec 2008 at 11:30 AM
I Just came across this article by chance. I can't believe how wrong, inaccurate and outdated is it.What appalling research by Foust. Why was he so keen to say the LeT may not be responsible ? Whatever the reason his credentials and credibility on South Asia are extremely damaged in my mind.
Posted by Alvin on Sun 3 Jan 2010 at 10:23 PM