Mumbai Terror Could Cascade Across Region

The bloody terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, have the potential to cascade across the region. If Pakistan's army and intelligence service, which have long supported anti-India terrorist groups, are deemed responsible for the attacks, the results could be catastrophic.

In 2001, an attack on the Indian parliament, carried out by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorists, brought the two countries to the brink of nuclear war.

This time, even if it doesn't go that far, the results could be far deadlier than the attacks themselves, which killed more than a hundred people. The assault could upend the peace process now underway between Pakistan and India. That, in turn, would strengthen the hand of Pakistan's military establishment, which is already brooding about the new civilian government that replaced President Musharraf, the army dictator. And the army could use the renewed tension to redouble its alliance with radical-right, anti-Indian Muslim groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan. By doing so, the idea of negotiations between various Islamists components of the Taliban movement, on one hand, and the civilian governments of President Karzai in Afghanistan and President Zardari in Pakistan, on the other, might be put on indefinite hold.

It isn't completely clear yet who was responsible for the Mumbai attacks, but it seems almost certain that the terrorists had professional help, and that they have ties -- or once did -- to the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service. The ISI chief, newly installed, is going to visit India to assist in the investigation, which suggests that the attackers, if they once had ISI ties, no longer do. But India's prime minister has blamed elements "based outside the country," and India's foreign minister said "some elements in Pakistan are responsible."

Bruce Riedel, a former National Security Council expert on South Asia, who led Barack Obama's advisory task force on Pakistan, has written how the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament may have been carried out by ISI-connected Kashmiri terrorists. The attack, he said, protected Osama bin Laden, then under assault by US forces invading Afghanistan Bin laden was scuttling over the Afghan-Pakistan border, and Pakistan's forces weren't there to seal the border, despite Musharraf's pledge to the Bush administration to help nab Al Qaeda leaders. "By diverting Pakistan's army to the east, to the border with India for the next year, the Parliament attack helped save Al Qaeda," wrote Riedel.

The attacks could vastly complicated the problem that Obama will face in Afghanistan, where US and NATO forces are losing the war, and in Pakistan, where Islamist militants have seized control of large areas in that country's northwest region. Obama is already committed to an escalation of the Afghan war, and if the prospects for negotiations recede, he may be tempted to send even more US forces into that quagmire.

Comments (13)

1. 'Bruce Riedel, a former National Security Council expert on South Asia, who led Barack Obama's advisory task force on Pakistan, has written how the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament may have been carried out by ISI-connected Kashmiri terrorists. The attack, he said, protected Osama bin Laden, then under assault by US forces invading Afghanistan Bin laden was scuttling over the Afghan-Pakistan border, and Pakistan's forces weren't there to seal the border, despite Musharraf's pledge to the Bush administration to help nab Al Qaeda leaders. "By diverting Pakistan's army to the east, to the border with India for the next year, the Parliament attack helped save Al Qaeda," wrote Riedel.'

   Whew! Sound the alarm bells. More troops to Afghanistan immediately. Unintended consequence and reaction to it have a tendency to lead to disastrous results, and a sinking deeper and deeper into the quagmire. Riedel's quote should be placed in historical perspective....Kashmir yes, Al Qaeda no.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/28/2008 @ 11:31am

2. What cooler heads?

   All the heads around Obama are heads that cooked up or applauded the invasion of Iraq.

   Change?

   Forget it.

   It's war. And more war.

   Pentagon & Co win, We the People lose.

   Posted by sloper at 11/28/2008 @ 11:32am

3. I would think that the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are rather busy at the moment. Diplomacy sometimes requires multitasking. Negotiations can continue with those elements of the Taliban that have national goals for both countries. Since two nuclear powers are involved in a dispute over Kashmir, it is not helpful to speculate on who is responsible for these attacks. We need to wait for the real facts on the ground before jumping to conclusions. Whoever is responsible for this attack, it is in no ones interest to have a war between two nuclear powers.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/28/2008 @ 1:06pm

4. Kashmiri separatists are a good bet, but in the complex, arcane political world that is South Asia, who really knows who's sleeping with whom?

   It's a dangerous situation no matter who is responsible, and it's clear that Pakistan is sending the ISI head to India to try to defuse the political situation as well as help the Indians investigate the incidents.

   Posted by jackwells at 11/28/2008 @ 2:40pm

5. It must be those "soft on terror" Indian liberals' fault!

   Now all they need to do is blindly invade the wrong country, completely shit on their own economy, and they'll be on the same page as the US!

   Posted by TexasFlood at 11/28/2008 @ 3:33pm

6. Posted by TexasFlood at 11/28/2008 @ 3:33pm

   If India was led by Dubya...

   they'd be talking up an invasion of...Myanmar, the Deputy PM would be saying that General Than Shwe had "reconstituted his nuclear program", and that "Myanmarese will welcome us a liberators" and "Burmese oil will pay for the war...$50 Billion total cost...tops!"

   Posted by Mask at 11/28/2008 @ 10:56pm

7. Why is it that we are being cursed with yet another preznut--this one elected by the left--who is obsessed with killing brown people? Plus ça change....

   Posted by feinfein at 11/29/2008 @ 1:31pm

8. Posted by Mask at 11/28/2008 @ 10:56pm

   And don't forget, the absolute longest it will take to "win" the unwinnable war is....SIX WEEKS!

   Ahahahaha!

   Isn't it hilarious how many "educated" Americans fell for that line of bullshit, hook line and sinker?

   I think about it every time I need a chuckle.

   Posted by TexasFlood at 11/29/2008 @ 2:23pm

9. "The attacks could vastly complicate the problem that Obama will face in Afghanistan..."

   If I didn't know better, I'd think Obama is the Pres of Afghanistan.

   Posted by NukularProficy at 11/30/2008 @ 01:46am

10. This is a bit of a strange article, not sure what it is saying.

    It seems like speculating could be more dangerous than anything else.

    Posted by marilynm at 11/30/2008 @ 4:31pm

11. Like my boss said concerning foreign policy.

    "Leave them people alone."

    Posted by bleedingheart at 11/30/2008 @ 10:59pm

12. *Like my boss said concerning foreign policy.

    "Leave them people alone."

    Posted by bleedingheart at 11/30/2008 @ 10:59pm*

    Seems to be anathema to American governments since about World War II. One could argue as far back as Wilson.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/30/2008 @ 11:33pm

13. Of course there is going to be war, no matter what we happen to do, or not do. It is only a matter of how far it will go. We can easily speculate on who the terrorists are. Seems clear they are AQ related at some level...they targeted westerners wherever possible and if not found, anyone else will do just fine. Killing is easy and pleasurable for these types. Equal opportunity killers I believe. Sure, elements in Pakistan could be involved but that does not mean the government was, and I really don't see why they would be. It would be totally against their self-interest. No, these were Islamic extremists, affiliated with AQ. The big question for us is when are they going to try this here? Hope we are still listening in...

    Posted by pyeatte at 12/01/2008 @ 01:24am