I'm No Terrorism Expert But...

Commentor "Frank" asked me what I thought about the Mumbai attacks because he, " heard you hold some expert knowledge in the field of terrorism.' Right off the bat, let me correct you. I have NO expert knowledge in terrorism. I took one course in the subject at Columbia over the summer. I can tell you what I think, but it's really only half a degree above a lay-person.

First, from the reports I've read, here and here, it's not yet clear who did this. What I think we do know so far is that the attackers were young men, that the targets were the Indian elite and U.S. and British foreigners, that the attacks were dramatic and involved direct action by terrorists rather than timed explosives as in previous attacks, that they were fairly sophisticated in their planning, that a little known group, Deccan Mujahadeen, has claimed responsibility, though this group may not exist. The Indian Prime Minister has implied that Pakistan is linked to the attack and this may be true. The issue of Kashmir is a big one for India and Pakistan -- apparently Pakistani intelligence runs an organization named Lashkar-e-Taiba associated with Kashmir and maybe they helped plan this attack, though this group has denied it.

This is what occurs to me: Making the target the commercial capital of India, elites and foreigners, and making it such a big and sophisticated attack, using a direct attack instead of bombs, these are all strategic choices aimed at escalating the degree of notoriety and getting international media attention. Modern terrorism is pretty much defined by the use of modern media, which multiplies the effects of limited actual violence to make a small event into a really big one. Why do these militants want the attention? Maybe it's a show of force and makes militants get taken more seriously; maybe it ups the profile of the issues involved like India's growing economic power, it's elite classes, India perhaps becoming "owned" by foreigners (I'm just guessing here); maybe it is really about internal politics -- just anger filled Muslims saying, "no one is safe, not even the elites; maybe it's an attempt to globalize a local grievance by Indian Islamic militants playing to a global Muslim audience. The fact that U.S. and British citizens were taken hostage is interesting since these are the two main countries involved in Iraq. Maybe this is a way for Indian Muslims to exploit the Iraq War, getting their local situation noticed by a global Muslim community angry over Iraq.

Also, commentor Frank seems confused by the fact that the attacks were not suicide attacks. Well, yes, many attacks throughout the world are suicide attacks, but many are not -- the Madrid and London train bombings weren't, for example. There could be many reasons why they're not: greater possible damage; a longer event -- and longer media coverage -- as hostages are taken and held for days; the particular character of a group which rejects suicide terrorism, perhaps. There are many possible reasons.