Mumbai attack holds lesson about terrorism for U.S.
Like the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in America, the Mumbai terrorist assault last week began with a hijacking. Islamic militants seized a private fishing boat at sea rather than commercial jetliners, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials. But the attackers displayed the same deadly ability to coordinate a complex operation against multiple targets.
The terrorists were from a Pakistani group called Lashkar-i-Taiba, which has loose links with al-Qaida, U.S. officials believe. The attackers began by boarding a boat in the Arabian Sea, killing the captain. They headed toward Mumbai Harbor. As they neared the coast on Nov. 26, they launched several rubber lifeboats for the final amphibious assault.
The attack was meticulously planned: The raiders dispersed to several targets across the crowded city that had been studied by advance reconnaissance teams. They maintained communications silence on the way in, U.S. officials believe. And most important, they carried with them enough guns, ammunition and supplies for a long battle inside India's largest city. Then the mayhem began: The terrorists stormed their targets - three luxury hotels, a Jewish cultural center, a railway station - turning nearby streets into a free-fire zone. It took about 10 hours for Indian anti-terrorist commandos to arrive at the besieged hotels, and it was almost three days before the attackers had been captured or killed.
The Mumbai attacks were a ghastly reminder of the threat posed by al-Qaida and related terrorist groups. Militants have the training, the logistical support and, most of all, the determination to pull off attacks. They read their enemies' tactical vulnerabilities - understanding that urban police forces have trouble combating moving bands of shooters. They appeared to have had a cleverly divisive goal of reanimating tension between India and Pakistan just as the two were beginning to make common cause against terrorism.
For Americans, the obvious question was: Could it happen here? U.S. officials say the answer, unfortunately, is yes.
The Department of Homeland Security has been worried for more than a year about the danger of seaborne attacks. With an estimated 17 million small vessels plying thousands of miles of U.S. coastline, the vulnerability is obvious. DHS announced a "small-vessel security strategy" last April to focus on ports and coastal waterways, and it has held four regional small-vessel "security summits" this year. A fifth is planned for Houston next month.
Technology is improving for detecting radiologic devices that might arrive at seaports. But defense is thin against bioterrorism, and almost nonexistent against seaborne gunmen of the sort that terrorized Mumbai.
What would happen if roving gunmen infiltrated U.S. cities and started shooting? Most police departments aren't well prepared to deal with such "active shooters," as they're called. Police are trained to cordon off an area that's under attack and call in a paramilitary SWAT team to root out the gunmen. But what if the attackers keep moving and shooting? The response can be haphazard, as was clear in such disparate incidents as the 2002 Beltway sniper attacks in the Washington area and the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech.
Forewarned is forearmed, and the Mumbai attacks are a powerful demonstration of the danger for cities around the world. The reason to discuss such threats isn't to feed anti-terrorism hysteria. There was far too much of that fear-mongering and spasmodic reaction after 9/11, which had the effect of destabilizing the United States almost as much as it did its enemies. The challenge is to understand the adversary so that, if an attack comes, the authorities will respond with cool heads and steady aim.
© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group