International Political Will

The streets 15 miles away from the scene are eerily quiet for a weekday afternoon, and many store shutters are closed. Hushed conversations at outdoor lunch tables lack the usual boisterous crowds. It seems Mumbaikars want to move on – but the nightmare is not yet over.

There are still at least two locations in south Mumbai where gunmen are holding hostages, more than 15 hours after the attacks began. I hope to see news that the rest of the hostages miraculously emerge unharmed. I hope to see that the city has returned, that I can once again walk the streets free from worry.

Instead, it continues. And from every news source and on the CNN crawl, I’m fed the same repetitive warning that the terrorists are “targeting British and Americans.” I can’t help but wonder why this keeps getting repeated (only 6 of the 101 people killed - so far - were foreign nationals). The warning seems only to divide. Aren’t Indians, Americans, British, Japanese, and Australians all victims in this tragedy? Can’t we at least find a common thread in our grief without the media dividing “us” and “them?”

Trying to ignore the fear-mongering, I am already searching for answers. Who is responsible? And, more importantly, why?

There are reports filtering in that the terrorists arrived by boat the night of the attacks. The fact that these men did not merely crawl out of the woodwork in a crowded city like Mumbai suggests two likely scenarios, neither with home-grown Indian suspects.

If the terrorists are of the Al Qaeda persuasion, then they intentionally targeted foreigners. This would mean it was more an attack on U.S. and British interests overseas, rather than against the Indian government. Any connection between Al Qaeda and this attack is tentative, at best. In all likelihood, there is only an ideological connection, not a conspiratorial one.

If there is any real strategic cooperation, I fear the worst. Considering the terror alert for New York City’s subways only hours before the Mumbai attacks, this could merely be a distraction – meant to draw attention away while other operatives execute a bigger, deadlier attack in another city or country. But I think I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong - because otherwise, it could signal a new and deadly resurgence of Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism.

There are two glaring discrepancies that appear to discount the Al Qaeda theory: First, despite media reports, there is nothing really “suicidal” about this attack. The lack of suicide-vests that finish the job is not a characteristic of Al Qaeda. These terrorists are not suicidal - they are still held up in buildings trying to figure a way to escape.

Secondly – and most importantly – are the casualty numbers released by the Mumbai police: 95 Indian nationals, 6 foreigners killed (as of 2 p.m. Thursday).

A blind man can’t take a piss in south Mumbai without hitting six foreigners – whether they’re tourists, business travelers, or ex-pats. The fact that only 6% of the victims are foreign points to an indiscriminate attack. Story after story (and the CNN crawl) report that the terrorists “targeted British and Americans.” After the initial carnage, there is no doubt the terrorists were rounding up Westerners at the hotels. But for what?

The other theory is that this is the work of Lashkar-e-Tayiba – a terrorist group from Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.

Lashkar-e-Tayiba is known less for their use of explosives, and more for their brazen guerrilla tactics – and their penchant for taking hostages. Their grievance is with the Indian government, not with the U.S. or the U.K.

This group wants Kashmir to become part of Pakistan (they would also likely settle for Kashmiri independence). If it is Lashkar-related terrorists, it would explain the truly indiscriminate nature of the victims (95 Indians killed vs. 6 foreigners). They are targeting India – not foreigners.

And if the Lashkar-e-Tayiba is involved, it would also explain why Americans and British were sought out as hostages. The group has been successful in the past at kidnapping high-profile targets and holding hostages for ransom and/or assurances of escape.

Imagine the minds of these terrorists. They have just rampaged through Mumbai’s streets, killing indiscriminately, and have now holed up in two of the city’s most luxurious hotels (frequented by more than just rich foreigners – also by India’s economic upper-class). How could they escape?

Hostages.

And who are the best hostages to take?

Westerners.

Nothing grabs the developed world’s attention quite like a white Christian with a gun to their head. If they wanted a bargaining chip for their safe getaway, there’s no better choice.

As the story continues to unfold, the same “eyewitness reports” about “British and Americans being targeted” continue. The media reinforces the idea, once again, that being an American in a Muslim-populated country is dangerous.

Perhaps. But with an eight-year-old boy killing his father and his friend with a rifle, a man driving cross country to murder his wife in church, and people with too many guns frequenting shopping malls, former places of work, and the urban streets of America’s biggest cities, I wonder if “dangerous” isn’t a relative term.

We are not told to fear eight-year-olds, church-goers, or co-workers. We were never warned to avoid all disaffected white suburban high school students after Columbine, nor to be wary of all Caucasian Gulf War veterans after Oklahoma City.

Why is “Islamic terrorism” any different?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS