Terrorists Attacking Mumbai Have Global Agenda

Pakistan's LeT, not as well known as Al Qaeda, threatens India, the West and even Pakistan

Ashley J. Tellis

YaleGlobal, 8 December 2008

	Preachers of violence: The leader of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed, left, is free; Pakistan has arrested operational chief Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, right, alleged mastermind of the Mumbai assault

WASHINGTON: Whenever New Delhi points a finger at Pakistan in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in India, a weary world seems to say, “Here we go again!” The old enmity between the two countries can tire spectators who often quickly dismiss Indian accusations of Pakistani malfeasance as little other than political recriminations. Yet, the latest terrorist assault in Bombay – involving 10 coordinated strikes that killed close to 200 and the capture of a Pakistani terrorist, Azam Amir Kasab, from Faridkot – leaves no doubt about the authenticity of the Indian charge. Whether or not the carnage in Bombay is India’s 9/11, the information now available abundantly confirms that it was not the act of domestic malcontents – another “Oklahoma City.”

The West would do well to take notice that this bloodbath was not the work of homegrown militants aggrieved by India’s failure to integrate its Muslim minority but of the most dangerous Pakistani terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), whose wider goals threaten not only secular India but also the West and even Pakistan itself.

The early conclusion that the attack in Bombay was the work of disaffected domestic protesters was arguably consoling because, if true, the threat to the international community would indeed be minimal. Moreover, the contention that New Delhi’s terrorism problem is largely domestic marginalizes the extent of foreign – primarily Pakistani – involvement in India’s “million mutinies” and accentuates the centrality of the unsettled dispute over Kashmir.

These inferences are false. As is now clear, the atrocity in Bombay was not masterminded by internal subversives – even if there were individual Indian participants. The meticulous planning, the enormous resources committed to a complex mission across great distances and long periods of time, and the burdens of a difficult sea-land operation, rule out virtually every indigenous terrorist group in India, Muslim or otherwise. The attacks involved months of training in Pakistan and extensive reconnaissance of targets in Bombay; after these were complete, the terrorists appear to have left Karachi by as yet unknown means, hijacked a fishing trawler on the high seas and, upon reaching India’s territorial waters, transferred to inflatable speedboats which landed at two different locations on the city shores from whence the assaults began. No domestic terrorist group has previously demonstrated the capacity to undertake anything as complicated and it would indeed be shocking if any did acquire such capacity unbeknownst to Indian or Western intelligence.

All evidence points to LeT as the perpetrators of the killings in Bombay conducted under the nom de guerre “Deccan Mujahideen” and reflecting its classic modus operandi: suicidal attacks, but not suicide, involving small squads of highly-armed individuals, intent on inflicting the largest numbers of casualties at symbolic sites. Such violence is emphatically not directed at remedying the grievances of India’s Muslims or resolving the dispute over Kashmir. Although LeT has long operated in the disputed state of Kashmir, it’s not a Kashmiri organization. Rather, it consists primarily of Pakistani Punjabis financed, trained, armed and abetted by the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – a product of the latter’s war against the Indian state dating back to the late 1980s.

LeT’s objectives from the beginning have had less to do with Kashmir and more to do with India and beyond. To begin with, India’s achievement in becoming a peaceful, prosperous, multi-ethnic and secular democracy remains an affront to LeT’s vision of a universal Islamist Caliphate begotten through tableegh, or preaching, and jihad. Further, India’s collaboration with the United States and the West in general against terrorism has marked it as a part of what LeT calls the detestable “American-Zionist-Hindu” axis that must be confronted by force. Finally, New Delhi’s emergence as a rising global power represents an impediment to LeT’s objective of, in the words of its leader, Hafiz Saeed, recovering “lost Muslim lands” that once spanned much of Asia and Europe.

Given this ideology, the LeT attack is an attempt to cripple India’s economic growth, destroy national confidence in its political system, attack its open society and provoke destabilizing communal rivalries, all while sending a message that India will remain an adversary because its successes make it a hindrance to LeT’s larger cause. In this context, the struggle over Kashmir is merely instrumental. To quote Saeed, Kashmir is merely a “gateway to capture India” en route to LeT’s other targets.

Such statements are not simply grandstanding. Outside of Al Qaeda, LeT today represents the most important South Asian terrorist group of “global reach.” With recruitment, fundraising and operations extending to Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia, Europe, Africa and Australia, LeT has rapidly become a formidable threat.

Washington’s concern with Al Qaeda, however justified, should not obscure the reality of other terrorist groups in South Asia that seek to promote obscurantist versions of Islam by attacking democratic societies. The US also ought not to be diverted by spurious analyses that link the carnage in Bombay to the complaints of India’s Muslims – however genuine those may be. Whatever their grievances, the Indian Muslim resentment against the Bombay attacks was most clearly exemplified by the refusal of every Muslim cemetery to accept the bodies of the slain terrorists for burial.

The incoming Obama administration should also not be distracted by calls to interject itself in resolving the Kashmir problem, because as Saeed had publicly declared in an interview in 2001, “Our struggle will continue even if Kashmir is liberated. We still have to take revenge for East Pakistan.” Obviously, this vendetta seems never ending. Saeed had given notice in 1999 that “jihad is not about Kashmir only. About fifteen years ago, people might have found it ridiculous if someone told them about the disintegration of the USSR. Today, I announce the break-up of India, Insha-Allah. We will not rest until the whole (of) India is dissolved into Pakistan.”

The barbarity in Bombay thus represents the ugly face of Islamist terrorism that threatens India, the US and its allies, and the larger international system, but fundamentally also Pakistan. Saeed has unequivocally declared that the Lashkar intends to “plant the flag of Islam in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi.” However absurd it might sound, his words could launch thousands of zealots to commit horrible crimes worldwide. Consequently, the US cannot avoid the burden of confronting Islamabad to rid itself of this group and other menacing outfits that utilize its territory for loathsome ends. Arresting one or two of the alleged “masterminds,” as Pakistan has now done in the face of US pressure, simply will not do: rather, the entire organization must be targeted and put out of business permanently.

A good way to begin this process would be for the outgoing Bush administration to publicly declare what it already knows to be the case: that LeT planned and executed the deadly attacks in Bombay. In any event, it’s in Pakistan’s own interest– to confront LeT’s destructive ideology and subterranean links with the ISI. Such an affray ought not to be precipitated because the US or India demand it, but because it is essential to the success of the civilian government’s own objective of transforming Pakistan.

No matter what Pakistan does, the US has to be clear-sighted about the global nature of the LeT threat and together with India and other allies take resolute measures to defeat this newest challenge.

Ashley J. Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Two more reactors under way in China

Work on two new nuclear power reactors was inaugurated on 26 December - just 11 days after a ceremony for the start of work on six other units.

The latest units to officially enter the construction phase are at Fangjiashan, near the existing Qinshan nuclear power plant in Zhejiang province.

That region of China, which borders the Shanghai municipality on the country's east coast, has a population of over 47 million but is short of energy resources. Dignitaries attending the 26 December 'first concrete' ceremony praised the contribution already made by the five reactors at Qinshan as promoting economic and social development.

The latest project will see two CPR-1000 reactors provide another 2160 MWe. The dates scheduled for the start of their commercial operation are December 2013 and October 2014.

Nuclear power production started at Qinshan in 1994 with the operation of a relatively small 279 MWe domestically-designed reactor. Four more units - two of 610 MWe and two of 665 MWe - started up between 2002 and 2004, and another two of 650 MWe are under construction at the moment.By 2014, when the adjacent Fangjiashang units start, the 'Qinshan Base' will boast nine reactors and around 6300 MWe of nuclear capacity.

China National Nuclear Corporation, which has the task of implementing the mass deployment of CPR-1000s, said this project would have 'far-reaching significance' and an 'irreplacable role of demonstration' for future nuclear plans. CNNC said the total cost of the project would be 26 billion yuan ($3.8 billion), which equates to $1760 per kWe, slightly more than the $1565 recently quoted for the six-reactor Yangjiang plant.

There are currently 439 nuclear power reactors operating worldwide, with 11 of these in China. Ten new Chinese units are now under construction, and by 2020 Chinese planners expect to have around 60 GWe in nuclear capacity - a total of about about 55 reactors. By 2030, some 130 GWe could be sourced from around 100 reactors.

A silver lining to the U.S.-India nuclear deal

The civilian nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India, which President George W. Bush signed into law last week, has been controversial from the moment it was first outlined in New Delhi about three years ago. It would allow Washington to trade nuclear technology with New Delhi despite the fact that India is a de facto nuclear weapons state outside of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Critics of the deal insist, fairly convincingly, that doing so would cause irreparable harm to the nonproliferation regime, leaving the non-nuclear weapon states that abide by the NPT to question what tangible benefits exist for dutifully assuming their treaty obligations and submitting to NPT restrictions. Conversely, supporters of the deal legitimately point out that the benefits of a good relationship between India and the United States outweigh any potential harm. As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle--it's unlikely that the nonproliferation regime would remain unscathed, but it's quite possible that the damage could be contained.

Without a doubt, the U.S.-India nuclear deal presents a serious challenge to the NPT. But it also presents an opportunity to strengthening the regime and its most important, relevant elements."

A major sticking point for critics is that the deal actually makes it easier for India to continue producing fissile material for its nuclear weapons program by allowing New Delhi access to the world market in nuclear fuel for its power reactors, thereby freeing its scarce uranium resources for the production of weapons-usable plutonium in dedicated reactors that are exempt from any international safeguards. Moreover, India's breeder reactor program--another potential source of weapon-grade plutonium--is also free from safeguards. It's hardly encouraging that India would have the capability to increase its stock of weapon materials, but in reality, this doesn't much matter--probably the main reason why India got away with keeping that capability. There seems to be a worldwide consensus that once New Delhi crossed the nuclear threshold, the amount of weapons in its arsenal is unimportant. In fact, in some important aspects this is exactly the case--beyond its symbolic value India's nuclear arsenal hardly provides any security for the country. Indeed, if the U.S.-India nuclear deal helps strengthen this understanding, it provides some silver lining to the nuclear arrangement's drawbacks.

The deal could also provide a much needed incentive for a critical review of some of the current nonproliferation regime's assumptions. One such assumption is implicit in Article VI of the NPT--nuclear weapon states and their close allies have control over nuclear technologies. This is still largely true for advanced commercially viable technologies, but the monopoly on weapon-relevant technology is firmly in the past. An idea that emerged during discussion of the U.S.-India nuclear deal was to ban the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India, supposedly to limit its ability to ramp up production of weapon materials. Limiting production of weapon-grade materials is a reasonable goal, but if the only approach is to deny a country access to advanced centrifuges or reprocessing plants, that battle is already lost.

Similarly, much ink has been spilled over the effort to have India commit to a moratorium on nuclear testing as part of the deal. The intent behind the idea was certainly laudable. But if the threat of cutting off the supply of fuel for nuclear reactors is our best hope to prevent India from nuclear testing, the effort to prevent new nuclear tests is in big trouble.

Without a doubt, the U.S.-India nuclear deal presents a serious challenge to the NPT. But it also presents an opportunity to strengthening the regime and its most important, relevant elements. In particular, for all of its problems and challenges, the NPT has successfully established a norm that assumes that countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons. The official signing of the U.S.-India nuclear deal is a good time to remind New Delhi that if it wants to be a responsible partner in the nuclear trade, it must assume the obligations that come with this norm--even if India never signed the NPT. Of course, this would require the nuclear weapon states to get serious about their NPT obligations and responsibilities as well. And that's not such a bad thing either.

Microsoft described as 'biggest hacker in China'

Chinese internet users have reacted with fury after Microsoft launched an anti-piracy tool to combat the widespread sale of fake software.

People have flooded blogs and bulletin boards to complain it violates their right to privacy - with one lawyer even reporting the firm to security officials for "hacking".

Microsoft dominates the Chinese market and even the president, Hu Jintao, has said he uses its products. But with software piracy as a whole said to stand at over 90%, the firm's profits fail to reflect its popularity.

The new version of its Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy programme turns the on-screen background black every hour if the installed software fails a validation test. Previous versions simply notified users their product was counterfeit.

But the software giant's attempt to protect its intellectual property sparked angry denunciations.

"The computer is mine!" one angry blogger wrote on the popular Chinese web portal Sina.com. "Microsoft has no right to control my hardware without my agreement."

Dong Zhengwei, 35, a Beijing lawyer, has complained to the public security ministry, describing the software giant as the "biggest hacker in China, with its intrusion into users' computer systems without their agreement or any judicial authority".

He told the official China Daily newspaper that he believed the measure breached China's criminal law, adding: "I respect the right of Microsoft to protect its intellectual property, but it is taking on the wrong target with wrong measures. They should target producers and sellers of fake software, not users."

The China Software Industry Association said it also planned to take action against Microsoft, with director Chen Chong telling China Daily that the measure was "very bad".

Critics said Microsoft was putting their information at risk by accessing their computers.

Microsoft says that it collects minimal information. It argues that counterfeit software poses a far greater risk to information security and says that it is helping users who may not be aware that they are using a fake product - and who risk problems such as data corruption or even identity theft.

Yesterday the company claimed that software piracy was costing the United States tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

Pakistan on the Brink

Mismanaged “war on terror” has stirred extremism, threatening to rip Pakistan apart

Ahmed Rashid

YaleGlobal, 19 September 2008

	Endless war: NATO troops under attack in Afghanistan, often from forces backed by Pakistan, a supposed US ally in the war on terror

LAHORE: For the past seven years the Bush administration studiously ignored the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership gathering in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and now scrambles to make up for lost time. US elections are looming, and facing the humiliating prospect of Osama bin Laden outlasting a two-term presidency and even expanding his reach, Bush has pushed the Pentagon into a do-or die-hunt for bin Laden. Whether the search for an “October surprise” for the election succeeds or not, the radical threat is now beyond easy military solution.

It’s a sign of desperation that on September 16 the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was in Islamabad meeting the Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, his boss Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was in Kabul, while Pakistan’s newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari was in London begging Prime Minister Gordon Brown to get the Americans off his back and deliver aid to a beleaguered country rather than angry ripostes.

Pakistan is at the center of a gathering fire storm engulfing south and central Asia in the most volatile confrontation since 9/11. Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US and NATO all bear heavy responsibility for the crisis. Bush had neither the inclination nor urge to do right by Afghanistan, despite pleas by President Hamid Karzai to eliminate cross-border terrorist strikes from Pakistan and effectively rebuild the country. Senior US officers serving in Afghanistan say they begged the White House and the State Department for action in 2006, but Bush was cozy with Pakistan’s former President Pervez Musharraf and Iraq occupied US attention. Meanwhile, veteran John McCain flails in effectively playing the national security card against Barack Obama because Republican policies failed to secure the homeland against future Al Qaeda attacks.

The Pakistan military and Interservices Intelligence (ISI) saw Bush’s lack of attention as a free pass to re-engage the Taliban as a Pakistani proxy force. As outlined in detail in my book “Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia,” the army hedged its bets against possible US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan or danger of India becoming too influential in Kabul, by moving pro-Pakistan Afghan leaders into Kabul and carving out a dominating position in Afghan politics.

Until this year, Pakistan appeared to be winning the game. Then the Afghan Taliban launched an unprecedented offensive against US, NATO and Afghan security forces, attempting to paralyze the country by cutting all major roads to urban centers, thereby depriving the people of supplies and Western forces of fuel and ammunition – 80 percent of which is trucked through Pakistan – and killing aid workers so what little development work is taking place comes to a grinding halt.

Catching the Pakistan military off guard was dramatic growth of the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistani Pashtun tribesmen in the border region were quickly radicalized by their Al Qaeda guests. Last year, Pakistani Taliban militias developed their own political agenda – to Talibanize northern Pakistan and create a new “sharia state” that would lead to the balkanization of Pakistan.

The Pakistani Taliban now control all seven tribal agencies that make up the autonomous region bordering Afghanistan called the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). They have spread across the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) through brutal terror tactics and threaten large towns. Poised on the borders of Punjab, the largest province, they’re joined by Punjabi and Kashmiri extremist groups.

US forces in Afghanistan launch almost daily attacks against suspected Al Qaeda hideouts in FATA and also target Afghan Taliban leaders such as Jalaluddin Haqqani. Pakistan’s military first denied the strikes, then virulently protested them. However on 3 September US Navy Seals put boots on the ground in FATA to demonstrate US seriousness and perhaps to also blackmail Pakistan to own up to US missile strikes and gain greater cooperation from the army. As a result, the army now says it allows US missile strikes despite public anger over Pakistan losing its sovereignty.

The army’s policies over the past fateful seven years led to Pakistan losing much of its territorial sovereignty. Heavily armed militant groups run wild, crime is rampant, paramilitary and police morale has plummeted with a stream of desertions. The country is in the throes of an economic meltdown. Foreign exchange reserves have halved in the past three months to less than US$8 billion, inflation runs at 25 percent, power shortages cripple industry and agriculture, and massive unemployment fuels a resentful populace.

Musharraf resigned, replaced by the ever-controversial Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto and leader of the country’s only national party in the country, the Pakistan Peoples Party, winning election with overwhelming support from the three smaller provinces of NWFP, Balochistan and Sind. But Punjab, with 65 percent of the country’s 160 million people, remains out of his hands, run by rival Nawaz Sharif, who refuses to take the terrorist threat seriously and befriends right-wing Islamic parties. Cleavage between the smaller provinces and Punjab has never been greater.

Zardari’s first tasks are to deal with the faltering economy and get a grip on the war against terrorism while satisfying international concerns. So far he has not much to show. Since the new PPP-led coalition government took office in February, it’s been locked in interminable battles with Sharif. If Zardari continues on those lines, Pakistan is sunk. Promising economic aid and demanding ISI reforms, a lame-duck Bush administration cannot rescue Zardari.

Zardari needs to develop a partnership with the army to fight the terrorists, but so far the army lacks strategy or coherence – one day bombing villages in FATA, the next day announcing ceasefires and offering compensation to militants. It has failed to protect the people of FATA – some 800,000 of a population of just 3.5 million have fled the region since 2006 – terrified of both the army and the Taliban.

The army has still not made the necessary strategic U-turn, giving up on the Afghan Taliban leadership who live in Balochistan. The ISI still attempts to separate the favored Afghan Taliban from the disfavored Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda. But the truth is that all operate under a common strategy and guidelines set by Al Qaeda. The aim for Al Qaeda is to use the coming months to take serious territory in the NWFP where it can re-establish safe bases and training camps it once had in Afghanistan.

The American answer is to send more troops to Afghanistan – 4500 are due to arrive soon and another 10,000 by next year – and pressure Pakistan. However the solution no longer lies in a single country. The Taliban are now a regional problem and the next US administration must generate a regional strategy that encompasses Iran, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and the five Central Asian republics.

Western forces cannot win in Afghanistan without dealing with Pakistan, but the military will only change its colors when it feels more secure vis à vis India which has warm relations with President Karzai and Tajiks in northern Afghanistan. Likewise Iran, now arming groups in Afghanistan, needs to be addressed directly by the Americans. Going back to the UN Security Council to get a new mandate for a major regional diplomatic initiative, coupled with a massive regional aid program and widespread public information campaign that portrays the Western coalition as a regional problem-solver rather than a warmonger, are the needs of the hour.

However the issue is whether the next US president, Europe and NATO will have the courage and the will to take the bull by the horns and attempt something new rather than continue with a policy that has clearly failed.

Ahmed Rashid is the author of " Descent Into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia" and a correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. Click here to read an excerpt from his book.

INDIA pakistan war images

Taliban execute ‘kidnapper’

PARACHINAR, Jan 1: The Taliban publicly executed an alleged ring leader of a gang of kidnappers in the Kurram tribal region on Thursday.

The militants had charged Mohammad Yaqoot Khan with kidnapping two Sikh men in Tora Warai area of Central Kurram.

A large crowd watched the hanging of the man in the main Sadda bazaar. Later the militants sprayed his body with bullets.

It is the first incident of public execution in Lower Kurram.

Meanwhile, Political Agent Arshad Majeed told journalists here that fool-proof security arrangements had been made for Muharram.

He said all points linking Kurram with Afghanistan would be sealed from Jan 4. Besides, paramilitary forces were being deployed in sensitive areas and at places of worship.

People have also set up peace committees and deputed volunteers at Imambargahs.