Many Indians have called the attacks in Mumbai "India's 9/11." Asan American who lived in India, I can feel India's anguish over these horrificand indiscriminate acts of terror.
Most Indian observers, however, were critical in 2001 (and after) of how exactlythe Bush administration (i.e. Dick Cheney) responded to September 11. They wereright, and they would do well to remember their own critique at this fatefulmoment.
What where the major mistakes of the United States government, and how mightIndia avoid repeating them?
Remember asymmetry
The Bush administration was convinced that 9/11 could not have been the work ofa small, independent terrorist organization. They insisted that Iraq mustsomehow have been behind it. States are used to dealing with other states, andmilitary and intelligence agencies are fixated on state rivals. But Bush andCheney were wrong. We have entered an era of asymmetrical terrorism threats, inwhich relatively small groups can inflict substantial damage.
The Bush administration clung to its conviction of an Iraq-al-Qaeda operationalcooperation despite the excellent evidence, which the FBI and CIA quicklyuncovered, that the money had all come via the UAE from Pakistan andAfghanistan. There was never any money trail back to the Iraqi government.
Many Indian officials and much of the Indian public is falling into the Cheneyfallacy. Even if the attackers were from the Lashkar-e Taiba, we shouldnot jump to the conclusion that this mission was planned or authorized by thePakistani government, which has cracked down on the LeT since 2002.
Advertisement
Keep your eye on the ball.
The Bush administration took its eye off al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and insteadput most of its resources into confronting Iraq. But Iraq had nothing to do withal-Qaeda or the Taliban. Eventually this American fickleness allowed both al-Qaedaand the Taliban to regroup.
Likewise, India should not allow itself to be distracted by implausibleconspiracy theories about high Pakistani officials wanting to destroy the OberoiHotel in Mumbai. (Does that even make any sense?) Focusing on a conventionalstate threat alone will leave the country unprepared to meet furtherasymmetrical, guerrilla-style attacks.
Avoid Easy Bigotry about National Character
Many Americans decided after 9/11 that since 13 of the hijackers were SaudiWahhabis, there is something evil about Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia. But SaudiArabia itself was attacked repeatedly by al-Qaeda in 2003-2006 and waged a majornational struggle against it. You can't tar a whole people with the brush of afew nationals that turn to terrorism.
Worse, a whole industry of Islamphobia grew up, with dedicated televisionprograms (0'Reilly, Glen Beck), specialized sermonizers, and politicalhatchetmen (Giuliani). Persons born in the Middle East or Pakistan weresystematically harassed at airports. And the stigmatization of Muslim Americansand Arab Americans was used as a wedge to attack liberals and leftists, as well,however illogical the juxtaposition may seem.
US law enforcement did ensure that despite some stray initial hate-crimes,Muslim Americans largely remained secure, and India might emulate thatcommitment.
Advertisement
The silver lining in these dark days in India is that, despite the danger ofit, there has been no mob action against Muslims, which would have ineluctablydragged the country into communal violence.
The terrorists that attacked Mumbai killed and wounded Muslims along withother Indians. So it was not an attack on non-Muslims alone. There has also beena welcome tendency to view terrorists as terrorists alone, and not as Hindu orMuslim terrorists, particularly since the arrests for the earlier Malegaonblasts.
Besides, from all indications, the terrorists were not Muslims in anymeaningful sense of the word. They were cultists. Some of them brought stocksof alcohol for the siege they knew they would provoke. Even ifthey were trained by the LeT, they were clearly not pious Muslims.
Address Security Flaws, but Keep Civil Liberties Strong
The 9/11 hijackings exploited three simple flaws in airline security of aprocedural sort. Cockpit doors were not thought to need strengthening. It wasassumed that hijackers could not fly planes. And no one expected hijackers tokill themselves. Once those assumptions are no longer made, security is alreadymuch better. Likewise, the Mumbai terrorists exploited flaws in coastal, urbanand hotel security, which need to be addressed.
But Bush and Cheney hardly contented themselves with counter-terrorism measures.They dropped a thousand-page "p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act" on Congress onenight and insisted they vote on it the next day. They created outlaw spaces likeGuantanamo and engaged in torture (or encouraged allies to torture for them).They railroaded innocent people. They deeply damaged American democracy.
India's own democracy has all along been fragile. I actually travelled in Indiain summer of 1976 when Indira Gandhi had declared "Emergency," i.e.,had suspended civil liberties and democracy (the only such period in Indianhistory since 1947). India's leadership must not allow a handful of terroriststo push the country into another Emergency. It is not always possible for lapseddemocracies to recover their liberties once they are undermined.
Avoid War
The Bush administration fought two major wars in the aftermath of 9/11 but wasnever able to kill or capture the top al-Qaeda leadership. Conventional warfaredid not actually destroy the Taliban, who later experienced a resurgence. Theattack on Iraq destabilized the eastern stretches of the Middle East, which willbe fragile and will face the threat of further wars for some time to come.
War with Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks would be a huge error. President AsafAli Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani certainly wouldnot have had anything to do with those attacks. Indeed, the bombing ofthe Islamabad Marriott, which was intended to kill them, was done by exactly thesame sort of people as attacked Mumbai. Nor was Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kiyaniinvolved. Is it possible that a military cell under Gen. Pervez Musharraftrained Lashkar-e Tayiba terrorists for attacks in Kashmir, and then some of theLET went rogue and decided to hit Mumbai instead? Yes. But to interpret such athing as a Pakistan government operation would be incorrect.
With a new civilian government, headed by politicians who have themselvessuffered from Muslim extremism and terrorism, Pakistan could be an increasinglyimportant security partner for India. Allowing past enmities to derail thesepotentialities for detente would be most unwise. India would do well to makecommon cause with and get the support of sympathetic elements in Pakistan whohave the same enemy in these terrorists, no matter how limited their sphere ofinfluence is.
Don't Swing to the Right
The American public, traumatized by 9/11 and misled by propaganda from corporatemedia, swung right. Instead of rebuking Bush and Cheney for their sins againstthe Republic, for their illegal war on Iraq, for their gutting of the Bill ofRights, for their Orwellian techniques of governance, the public gave themanother 4 years in 2004. This Himalayan error of judgment allowed Bush andCheney to go on, like giant termites, undermining the economic and legalfoundations of American values and prosperity.
The Bharatiya Janata Party, which has extensive links with Hindu extremistgroups, is already attacking the Congress Party for allegedly being soft onMuslim terrorism. Let's not forget that the BJP almost dragged India into anuclear war with Pakistan in 2002, and it seeded RSS extremists in the civilbureaucracy, and for the Indian public to return it to power now would riskfurther geopolitical and domestic tensions. More importantly, India lost itsfocus at that time in its fight against terrorism which should have beenconcentrated on strengthening security and intelligence resources and responses.
India may well become a global superpower during the coming century. The choicesit makes now on how it will deal with this threat of terrorism will helpdetermine what kind of country it will be, and what kind of global impact itwill have. While it may be hypocritical of an American to hope that New Delhideals with its crisis better than we did, it bespeaks my confidence in thecountry that I believe it can.
