A step in the terribly wrong direction ... Paul Woodward in the National, here"....A decision is not expected until after Barack Obama takes office in January and in the intervening period, Islamabad's response to the Mumbai attack will determine whether Washington moves forward with such a sanction..." 'I think this event looks a lot more like a classical Special Forces or commando-style raid than it does like any terrorist attack we've seen before,' David Kilcullen, a counter insurgency military analyst who served as an advisor to Gen David Petraeus tells Fareed Zakaria in the upcoming edition of his programme GPS, articulating what US officials are saying in private. 'No al Qa'eda-linked terrorist group and certainly never Lashkar-i-Taiba (LiT) has mounted a maritime raid of this type or complexity.' "
The perpetrators of the attacks were drawn from the ranks of 500 "commandos" trained by Pakistan army and navy instructors, according to an Indian intelligence report that was leaked to The Sunday Times. Indian officials said they know the names of the gunmen's ISI trainers and handlers, having intercepted internet phone calls between them..."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Listing Pakistan as "state sponsor of terrorism"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The tendency to hold groups responsible for the actions of individuals or organizations is self-defeating - pushing those not responsible into hostility. Would the average American want to be held responsible for the invasion of Iraq? Does the average resident of Gaza deserve to be punished for the behavior of Hamas?
If there is doubt about who did what, and who they were really working for, then of course the argument is just all the stronger. Perhaps there is no doubt. Perhaps someone actually does know exactly what organization was ultimately responsible for the Mumbai attack (though I really doubt it, given the track record of pinning these things down and the large number of organizations--Moslem, Hindu, Israeli--that stand to benefit).
Be that as it may, don't we stand to benefit more from trying to enlarge the group of moderates rather than enlarging the group of extremists? We (where "we" means people in favor of security, tranquility, and democracy for all) need a policy that supports and empowers moderates while isolating extremists.
That would be Paul Woodward, not Bob Woodward.
thanks.. corrected
Post a Comment