Pakistani spy chief goes to Mumbai

posted at 11:30 am on November 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

With the Mumbai terrorist attacks looking more and more like a Pakistan-based operation, Islamabad is now moving quickly to limit the political damage.  The government announced this morning that it will send the head of the ISI to India to cooperate in the investigation, even as many people speculate that the Pakistani intelligence service may have helped stage the attacks:

Pakistan will send its spy chief to India to help probe the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the government said Friday, scrambling to avoid a crisis with its South Asian neighbor after India linked the atrocity to Pakistan’s largest city.

Clear Pakistani fingerprints on the attacks would chill relations between the nuclear-armed rivals and could wreck U.S. hopes of persuading Islamabad to focus on battling the Taliban and al-Qaida near the Afghan border.

According to a Pakistani government statement, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his Pakistani counterpart in a telephone conversation on Friday that “preliminary reports” about the attacks “point to Karachi,” Pakistan’s main port and financial hub. …

Pakistani premier Yousuf Raza Gilani agreed to Singh’s request for the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency to travel to India to share information, the statement said.

ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shujaa Pasha will head to India “at the earliest,” the statement said.

The transition back to a civilian government in Islamabad raised hopes that tensions between Pakistan and India could cool, allowing for a peaceful resolution to the disputes over Kashmir and other open issues between the two nations.  Those hopes are fading quickly in the realization that the Mumbai attacks took a great deal of coordination and logistical support.  With the capture of the mother ship and at least one of the terrorists, Indian intel has a pretty good idea that at least some factions within the ISI may have provided assistance to the terrorists.

A war between Pakistan and India would be disastrous.  Both nations have nuclear weapons, and both appear willing to use them on each other.  The US wants stability between the two so that the focus can remain on the terrorists in Pakistan.  Even a conventional war would almost certainly spread to Afghanistan and eventually entangle NATO and the US.

The dispatch of Pasha to India could help cool tempers.  Pasha got appointed as a reformist by new president Ali Zardari, replacing a Musharraf favorite.  Pasha could use the attacks to justify a much-needed purge of the ISI, which could help relations between Pakistan and India as well as Afghanistan, but also could destabilize Pakistan.  In the short run, it might help al-Qaeda by creating another political crisis in Islamabad and encouraging the army to intervene yet again.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I don’t know about this one Ed. I think it would be a good idea is the U.S. stays the hell out of this one all together.

Ban people from the U.S. going over to India now.

I don’t see where this is going to lighten up anytime soon. The Pakistany and Indian people hate each other.

upinak on November 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM

I bet it’s pretty hard to spy on India while wearing full Pakistani military fatigues.

Glenn Jericho on November 28, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Expect him to sabotage any investigation done by the Indian intelligence agencies. Never trust these guys.

mram on November 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Why doesn’t President Bush dispatch President-Elect HopenChange. He campaigned on being able to talk without preconditions with all the bad guys of the world and his charm and HopenChanginess would bring peace to the world. This seems like the perfect opportunity for P-E Obama to step right in and demonstrate his amazing powers.

In all seriousness, it is not good news at all if the ISI was involved.

Michael in MI on November 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM

mram on November 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM

That was my first thought as well. If he knows exactly how this terrorist attack was planned and carried out, then he knows exactly how to get involved to make sure no one finds any clues.

Michael in MI on November 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM

The [Paki] government announced this morning that it will send the head of the ISI to India to cooperate in the investigation to gather an after action intel report.

Tony737 on November 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Clear Pakistani fingerprints on the attacks would chill relations between the nuclear-armed rivals …

You mea like the Paki I.D.s they found on the dead Achmeds? BTW, what kinda terrorist carries I.D.??? Perhaps it’s their version of ‘misdirection’?

Tony737 on November 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM

In the short run, it might help al-Qaeda by creating another political crisis in Islamabad and encouraging the army to intervene yet again.

And it also might help increase gun sales … wait, does India have a 2nd Amendmant???

O/T: Wal-Mart employee trampled to death by ‘holiday’ shoppers … I don’t recall this happening back when we used to call it “Christmas”.

Tony737 on November 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM

It flew below the radar but the political wing of the ISI was disbanded earlier this week. Perhaps the new Pakistani regime knew something was brewing?

More speculation on what this means here.

sswenviron on November 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM

“preliminary reports” about the attacks “point to Karachi,” Pakistan’s main port and financial hub.

In India, preliminary reports ALWAYS point to Pakistan, even before they’ve been written. Though it could very well be pakistani intelligence behind all this, a preliminary report doesnt mean much.

ernesto on November 28, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Pakistan literaly stands at a crossroads…

We are fightin a war in Afganistan, whose supply lines run through Pakistan… and there really is no other option except total supply by air (almost impossible).

Its in Iran’s, and Al Qs, interest to disrupt those supply lines. They can then funnel low levels of supply through Pakistan, or straight through the Iran/Afgan border to keep a Jihadist insurgency in progress, bleeding the West of blood and treasure. Without supplies the war in Afgan becomes problematic for the West, and it may very well change the current NATO adventurism because they will not be able to Surge in Afgan… and without more troops, NATO and the US won’t win (won’t loose, just won’t win).

My bet is that the Mumbai attack will have been commited by mainly foreign fighters, staged from Pakistan… its intent is to sour any relationship Pakistan can create with India, or the West, so the current Pakistan chaos can continue… or even escalate… so they can continue to threaten the supply lines to Afganistan.

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 11:57 AM

I have been following all of the news reports the last couple of days and I must have missed the the one where our God King Obama enunciated the solution to this. Someone point me in the right direction. I have heard rumours that Jimmy Carter was airborne at this moment headed for the Indian subcontinent. Allah (the real one) be praised ! Maybe he can do for Pakistan what he did for Zimbabwe and Iran.

JonRoss on November 28, 2008 at 12:03 PM

We are fightin a war in Afganistan, whose supply lines run through Pakistan… and there really is no other option except total supply by air (almost impossible).

I believe we are negotiating with the Russians and Uzbecks for the right to supply via train/truck from the north, avoiding the Khyber Pass. Which would tend to limit our desire to put Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

iconoclast on November 28, 2008 at 12:04 PM

This attack was not against India, per se. The vicious bastards specifically targeted Americans, Britains, and Jews.

At least one of the terrorists has been taken alive. I hope the Indians are not too squeamish to indulge in a little fingernail-pulling to get the story out.

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM

With the capture of the mother ship and at least one of the terrorists…

‘terrorist’?!

He’s a ‘fellow human being’!

Has this gentle soul been provided with a properly appointed hotel room yet with flowers and culturally-appropriate food? Does he have his attorneys there? How about a facebook page? Free cell phone to call home? ACLU membership? Ticket to The One’s inauguration?

Josiah on November 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Pakistani premier Yousuf Raza Gilani agreed to Singh’s request for the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency to travel to India to share information, the statement said.

Yeah, that sounds a lot more like it. “Investigate”, my ass; he’s being asked to come to India so they can interrogate him. The Indians don’t need help investigating this from some Pakistani clown; they are investigating him.

Jaibones on November 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Good. Maybe the India will allow The President-Elect to use their airbases and/or space when he attacks Pakistan.

Caper29 on November 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Pakistan cannot be trusted. India, and Pakistan have hated each other for years. I agree with the above post. Get all American’s out of both Countries. I would rather help India to be honest. Hope Carter gets denied passage, if he really is on his way. That man is a true idiot. Him and his Global Warming crap. Don’t want to see either Country pushing the nuke buttons. Would be nice though, if Israel teamed up with India. Guess that is asking to much though. Wasn’t it the Dali Lama the one that suggested separating India from Pakistan? Can’t remember who and why though. So, forgive me if I am wrong. Even though India is far away. We must be concerned about what happens to them. Why we ever trusted and befriended Pakistan is beyond me. I never liked that Country. But I believe a young military man explained why it is important. So I take his word for it.

sheebe on November 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Just remember, India is the largest (by population) legitimate democracy in the world and a natural ally of the U.S. Pakistan is a highly unstable country and partially failed state with some pretty cool folks and some Islamic radicals. We have a direct national interest in the peace and prosperity of both countries, but in a direct confrontation, absent evidence of duplicity on the part of India, we’d have no choice but to back India.

Outlander on November 28, 2008 at 12:16 PM

iconoclast on November 28, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Yah, big question for Russia is what the payoff will be.

Unless we agree not to mess around in their Near Abroad at all… which includes no missles in the old Warsaw Pact countries… it aint going to happen.

There is currently a HUGE anti American sentiment being fosterd in the Russian youth. There are rallies and organizations which celebrate the Russian heritage… and Russian nationalism is on the rise…

I don’t see them allowing large amounts of NATO supply trains going through their country… UNLESS we can show them that the Islamists are a direct threat to the Russian homeland… AND give them the Buffer they want.

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 12:16 PM

This attack was not against India, per se. The vicious bastards specifically targeted Americans, Britains, and Jews.

At least one of the terrorists has been taken alive. I hope the Indians are not too squeamish to indulge in a little fingernail-pulling to get the story out.

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Shame on you. Fingernail pulling should only be reserved for defenders of Israel, American security agents, and captured U.S. civilians and military (before their heads are chopped off of course). The God King Obama would greet your assertion with great dismay.

JonRoss on November 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM

The transition back to a civilian government in Islamabad raised hopes that tensions between Pakistan and India could cool, allowing for a peaceful resolution to the disputes over Kashmir and other open issues between the two nations.

Why would this be good … so Pakistan can keep its nukes and keep producing more and helping other enemies get their hands on nukes?

I have never understood the reasoning that people used to try and keep Pakistan and India from going to war. And this notion of a “peaceful resolution” about anything with muslims is just laughable … if it weren’t so sad.

Someone is going to have get serious about dealing with the arab/persian/muslim world … eventually.

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM

At least one of the terrorists has been taken alive. I hope the Indians are not too squeamish to indulge in a little fingernail-pulling to get the story out.

Rest assured that in a situation involving terrorism on their own soil, India’s government and military is not ‘squeamish’ when it comes to extracting information and pulling anything out of terrorists. They’re not beholden to constituents living in the imaginary land of Oz. They do what they have to do without reservation and without politicians kowtowing to bed wetting pillow biting thumb sucker liberals in order to keep their seats on the gravy train.

FlatFoot on November 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM

It’s long past time to pound on Pakistan and her double dealings.

Now that Iraq is ramping down, no more excuses from Pakistan.

I’m sure MI-5 is listening in on all the congratulations passed around the “Asian” community in Britain after the terrorist attacks in India.

danking70 on November 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Shame on you. Fingernail pulling should only be reserved for defenders of Israel, American security agents, and captured U.S. civilians and military (before their heads are chopped off of course). The God King Obama would greet your assertion with great dismay.

JonRoss on November 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Our Glorious Leader, Barack the Benevolent (praise be upon him), would never allow torture. He will simply create People’s Labor Reeducation Camps and send those people to those Camps to reconnect with their roots as laborers and servants of the great People. Thankfully, Rahm Emanuel will be in a position to enact the Obama Youth Corps and Civil Defense Force to train America’s youth to report their parents, neighbors, and friends for any actions or thoughts that run contrary to the People’s Republic.

Outlander on November 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

He will face a firestorm

NEW DELHI: Three of the militants who attacked Mumbai have confessed they are members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group, a newspaper reported on Friday.

Newspapers squarely blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba, one of the largest Islamist militant groups in South Asia, for the attacks that killed more than 100 people and wounded more than 300 which began late on Wednesday.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM

sheebe on November 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Sigh… wish it was that easy, but we CAN’T leave Pakistan.

Its the only supply line to our troops fighting in Afganistan. Without that supply line (or another, Afganistan will be lost.

“You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.”

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 12:26 PM

From CNN

U.S. counterterrorism official said the level of sophistication in the attack leads officials to believe that it might be tied to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (Army of the Pure), an Islamic extremist group that has carried out previous attacks in India.

The group denied involvement in the attacks Thursday. Watch a witness describe the scene »

“The LeT has no links with Deccan Mujahedeen,” said a caller identifying himself as Abdulla Ghaznavi, a spokesman for LeT, as the group is known. He said the group condemns the Mumbai attacks and demands an international inquiry into them.

LeT is thought to be responsible for a string of bombs that ripped through packed Mumbai commuter trains and platforms in July 2006, killing more than 200 people.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:28 PM

The MSM reported that Barry has been in phone conversations with Sec of State Conde Rice during this whole tragic situation.

Gosh, that makes me feel so much better…not.

kingsjester on November 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Rest assured that in a situation involving terrorism on their own soil, India’s government and military is not ’squeamish’ when it comes to extracting information and pulling anything out of terrorists. They’re not beholden to constituents living in the imaginary land of Oz. They do what they have to do without reservation and without politicians kowtowing to bed wetting pillow biting thumb sucker liberals in order to keep their seats on the gravy train.

FlatFoot on November 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM

I nominate this for the quote of the day.

The Indians have not always liked the U.S. or cooperated with us to our satisfaction but to my knowledge they have never stabbed us in the back the way Pakistan does on a daily basis. If they are short on pliers needed to do what needs to be done I will gladly send them my entire tool box if will help them do what needs to be done.

JonRoss on November 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM

A war between Pakistan and India would be disastrous.

Disastrous for whom? Not for the West.

Both nations have nuclear weapons, and both appear willing to use them on each other.

Good. Let them at each other. It’s the only way to get the nukes from Pakistan (since no one has the guts to do the right thing in our own defense), so be it. And the geography of India-Pakistan makes it the only nuclear exchanges that would remain contained in that area.

It’s time to start looking at the world as it is and realize what must be done. Pursuit of peace for peace’s sake is a loser’s game and a fool’s desire.

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 12:26 PM

I know Romeo. We have no choice. Bless you for answering my post. Great point also.

sheebe on November 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM

All in the name of man’s own concept of what God wants, disgusting. I can see what is meant by the statement, “even the devil can take on the Light.” This may be wishful thinking, but I would like to see a Religious Bill of Rights, where all the nations, including those that embrace Islam, would allow other faiths the right to BE, without the discrimination that we now see. We should withhold all aid to foreign nations that don’t buy into and actively practice this. That may be a start.

DL13 on November 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM

New Kerala

Mubai Attack is a direct challenge to Obama. The terrorists are letting him know that he will not get any special treatment.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM

They say many criminals return to the scene of their crimes.

KillerKane on November 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM

A war between Pakistan and India would be disastrous.

Disastrous for whom? Not for the West.

If a nuke went off in the region with US troops in Afghanistan dont you think it would have a very bad effect on them just from the fallout alone ? Not to mention the EMP pulse.

Add to that massive refugees fleeing Pakistan for afghanistan and the Taliban infiltrating behind them it would most certainly be a disaster.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:33 PM

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM

I fully expect terror attacks on American soil within the first year of Obama’s presidency. They want to set us back on our heels and to force Obama to withdraw from Iraq more rapidly than what he’s going to do. I’m afraid that Bush’s foreign policy may be vindicated by blood spilled on America’s soil under Obama’s administration.

Outlander on November 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM

India Times

2 Americans, 3 Germans, 1 Canadian amoung dead in India

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:36 PM

If a nuke went off in the region with US troops in Afghanistan dont you think it would have a very bad effect on them just from the fallout alone ?

Past the moutains?

Not to mention the EMP pulse.

The blasts would not be in the air.

Add to that massive refugees fleeing Pakistan for afghanistan and the Taliban infiltrating behind them it would most certainly be a disaster.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:33 PM

As compared to the situation we have today, where Westerners can be targeted anywhere they go and anywhere at home, while arab/persian/muslims don’t have to worry about much of anything?

If we keep giving people a chance to kill us, eventually they will – if just by luck. This war CANNOT be fought defensively, and we have never really gone on offense, except for going into Iraq.

Tell me, where do you see the larger war going over the next 10 years? What do you think we are going to do to stop any of it? What do you think the chances are that we see a chemical attack on one of our cities, eventually?

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Outlander on November 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM

As much as I hate to admit the truth. You are right. Then the sheep will think they will be saved. Stupid ignorant Liberal’s. It will happen here. No mistake about it.

sheebe on November 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

I fully expect terror attacks on American soil within the first year of Obama’s presidency. They want to set us back on our heels and to force Obama to withdraw from Iraq more rapidly than what he’s going to do. I’m afraid that Bush’s foreign policy may be vindicated by blood spilled on America’s soil under Obama’s administration.

Outlander on November 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM

As much as I now despise George Bush (once my hero)no one has dared to attack the homeland. If it happens I can only assume that it was either because Obama will have not carried out his responsibilities as Commander in Chief or he invited the attack. Regardless I hope the response to an attack on the homeland in an Obama administration would be that the American people demand he step down, and quickly.

JonRoss on November 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Oh yeah, the Pak.-India conflict, I remember something about that, the highly lucrative Kashmir goat hair trade that they’ve fought for and threaten each other with nukes about.

I wonder if we can pay India to reposition one or two of their nukes to take out the tribal areas.

Speakup on November 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Past the moutains?

Chernobyl blew up in the Ukraine and most of europe got some kind of fallout from radioactive particles getting into the atmosphere and being spread by rain and clouds. There was several years where european goods were monitored for radioactive posioning after that event.

The blasts would not be in the air.

But american planes most likely would be in the air.

Tell me, where do you see the larger war going over the next 10 years? What do you think we are going to do to stop any of it? What do you think the chances are that we see a chemical attack on one of our cities, eventually?

Yes I see a low intensity conflict hitting the world for the next several decades. And yes it is more than likly a very deadly attack will hit the US again. Its no longer a matter of IF but WHEN it will occur.

Its sad but there is no escaping this. The last election shows sadly that the American people think this isnt a war at all. We have to go through another 9/11 for it to really sink in Im afraid.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Hmmm… thinking on the origional post…

Could the Pakistani Spy Master going to India be a GOOD thing?

The Pakistani government has lost control of large parts of its own country… that can’t sit well with those in power. It may have finaly dawned on them that they are going to have to fight this thing out… either with the Islamists, or the West.

IF the Indian government would activly support the fight against Radical Islam IN PAKISTAN, it may free up enough resources to be able to fight off their own internal Barbarians…

India supporting an Anti Jihadist government is soooo much better than a nuclear war… isn’t it?

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Two nuclear-armed countries, who really hate each other, incrementally inch toward confrontation and a potential shooting war. A totally inexperienced POTUS-Elect, a disappearing internationally-experienced VP-Elect, and a Clinton as SoS, all take office in 54 days.

That makes me feel so-o-o-o really confident.

In 54 days all those who voted for the above team to take the field for them are on their own. I will look out for me, and mine, first. Those left-wing liberals who are unprepared, understocked, unarmed and nanny-dependent could find themselves in a desperate situation real quick and sudden like. Somehow I don’t think POTUS-E BHO is going to be in a teaching or community-organizing mode at that time. If this occurs, I wish them luck. time to contemplate the fact that votes have results.

Yoop on November 28, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Chernobyl blew up in the Ukraine and most of europe got some kind of fallout from radioactive particles getting into the atmosphere and being spread by rain and clouds. There was several years where european goods were monitored for radioactive posioning after that event.
Clouds have a pretty tough time getting past the mountain ranges out there. That’s what I meant when I spoke of the geography keeping it contained.

Look, there will be nuclear exchanges in the future. Once those exchanges (or just the initial nuke attacks) take place, then all bets will be off and we will stop pussyfooting around iwth Iran+Co and just tell them what to do, and, if they don’t do it, waste them … finally.

The question is, if nuclear exchanges are going to happen, before things get straightened out, which nuclear exchanges would be the least harmful to us and most of the civilized world. The answer to that is India-Pakistan. Not only are those exchanges contained, but they serve to either deplete, destroy, or allow the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and industry to be seized.

Otherwise, the eventual exchange will be far, far worse. But, perhaps you have a better scenario for the future?

Yes I see a low intensity conflict hitting the world for the next several decades. And yes it is more than likly a very deadly attack will hit the US again. Its no longer a matter of IF but WHEN it will occur.

But the conflict has been of increasing intensity for decades. I don’t see why you think it will remain low. We already had an instance of chemical attack in a city (the Japanese group and their sarin subway attack – that luckily was screwed up).

Its sad but there is no escaping this. The last election shows sadly that the American people think this isnt a war at all. We have to go through another 9/11 for it to really sink in Im afraid.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Americans are suffering under a mass delusion of some sort. I don’t know what to make of it.

And, if Americans can get past 9/11 as a “blip”, then even another 9/11 won’t do much. Delusion is a strong defense for those who use it, and extremely dangerous for the rest of us. The information on the threats have been out in public for a long, long time. Anyone who hasn’t put it all together, yet, is beyond hope.

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:57 PM

I really messed up the quoting above. Sorry.

Chernobyl blew up in the Ukraine and most of europe got some kind of fallout from radioactive particles getting into the atmosphere and being spread by rain and clouds. There was several years where european goods were monitored for radioactive posioning after that event.

Clouds have a pretty tough time getting past the mountain ranges out there. That’s what I meant when I spoke of the geography keeping it contained.

Look, there will be nuclear exchanges in the future. Once those exchanges (or just the initial nuke attacks) take place, then all bets will be off and we will stop pussyfooting around iwth Iran+Co and just tell them what to do, and, if they don’t do it, waste them … finally.

The question is, if nuclear exchanges are going to happen, before things get straightened out, which nuclear exchanges would be the least harmful to us and most of the civilized world. The answer to that is India-Pakistan. Not only are those exchanges contained, but they serve to either deplete, destroy, or allow the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and industry to be seized.

Otherwise, the eventual exchange will be far, far worse. But, perhaps you have a better scenario for the future?

Yes I see a low intensity conflict hitting the world for the next several decades. And yes it is more than likly a very deadly attack will hit the US again. Its no longer a matter of IF but WHEN it will occur.

But the conflict has been of increasing intensity for decades. I don’t see why you think it will remain low. We already had an instance of chemical attack in a city (the Japanese group and their sarin subway attack – that luckily was screwed up).

Its sad but there is no escaping this. The last election shows sadly that the American people think this isnt a war at all. We have to go through another 9/11 for it to really sink in Im afraid.

William Amos on November 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Americans are suffering under a mass delusion of some sort. I don’t know what to make of it.

And, if Americans can get past 9/11 as a “blip”, then even another 9/11 won’t do much. Delusion is a strong defense for those who use it, and extremely dangerous for the rest of us. The information on the threats have been out in public for a long, long time. Anyone who hasn’t put it all together, yet, is beyond hope.

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Respectfully, I wish and pine for the destruction of Pakistan. Especially if they won’t give up or let us get bin Laden, Mullah Omar, the Taliban, any new al Qaeda camps, et al.

India, just… LET. IT. OUT.

HotAirJosef on November 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM

I don’t know, maybe it is time for another nuclear blast somewhere in the world to remind us how utterly terrible and horrible it is. Humans have such short memories it’s amazing.
Maybe another Nagasaki will actually spur the leaders of the world to seek out true peace.
Maybe a monkey will fly out of my butt.

redshirt on November 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Let’s not fall for one of the classic blunders: Never get involved with a land war in Asia.

indythinker on November 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Sorry, but much of the dismissive rhetoric I read here is deeply unsettling. A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be an unspeakable horror, with many innocent lives lost. Envision thousands upon thousands of mothers and fathers and the children they love, on both sides of the divide, who want no part of the extremism, and wish to live their lives just as we do, incinerated. Beyond words.

We are entangled in a conflict with a faction of humanity infected by a philosophy that does not value life. That faction sees a strategic advantage in an anarchic descent of Pakistan. Anarchy in Pakistan is not to our advantage in this conflict.

This attack can be viewed as optimal in the respect that it (a) declares an agenda early with the new US executive (b) inflicts economic damage on India by increasing business risk (c) implicates Pakistan, possibly as a ruse, possibly warranted (d) leverages a small investment in resources significantly (e) keeps the conflict at top of mind for recruiting purposes (f) distracts the West from its urgent task of buttressing the global economy.

Bellicose responses before facts will not materially benefit us in this conflict. We need to be equally calculating in our reaction, and keep our heads.

A fine goal is to open the door to engaging the stewards of this life-denying cult in their roosts along the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier. We need to keep our eyes on that goal, and move in such a way that we make it more possible to achieve, not less. It is my belief that stealth is likely to be more successful toward that end, rather than overt, escalating armed conflict between India and Pakistan.

/end of rant

shaken on November 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM

redshirt on November 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM

A nuclear explosion in an Indian city would just turn this recession into a depression… but certainly if Pakistan was wiped out, there would be few American tears.

HotAirJosef on November 28, 2008 at 1:41 PM

A fine goal is to open the door to engaging the stewards of this life-denying cult in their roosts along the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier. We need to keep our eyes on that goal, and move in such a way that we make it more possible to achieve, not less. It is my belief that stealth is likely to be more successful toward that end, rather than overt, escalating armed conflict between India and Pakistan.

shaken on November 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM

I’d like bin Laden on a pike, too. It’s just Pakistan has had time plenty to let us get him.

HotAirJosef on November 28, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Sigh… wish it was that easy, but we CAN’T leave Pakistan.

Its the only supply line to our troops fighting in Afganistan. Without that supply line (or another, Afganistan will be lost.

“You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.”

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Our initial involvement with Pakistan was to stabilize it and bring about a military force that would keep it from being plundered by it’s neighbors. We also hoped to gain a base of operations to replace what was lost in Tukrkey.

N4646W on November 28, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Sorry, but much of the dismissive rhetoric I read here is deeply unsettling.

Not as unsettling as the constant stream of unanswered attacks against the West and other non-muslims should be to you.

A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be an unspeakable horror, with many innocent lives lost. Envision thousands upon thousands of mothers and fathers and the children they love, on both sides of the divide, who want no part of the extremism, and wish to live their lives just as we do, incinerated. Beyond words.

shaken on November 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM

You could have said the same thing about many of the families or women and children in Dresden, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or Tokyo, or any of the other cities that were firebombed and incinerated or nuked.

War is ugly stuff. To try and make it pretty, or even to render it less than “unsettling” is a disservice to all and a denial of reality.

Need I remind you that our own strategic defense rests on the idea of incinerating untold numbers of such people?

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I hope the US has an exit plan for the troops in Afghanistan. They may need it if things go south.

sharrukin on November 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Ban people from the U.S. going over to India now.

My daughter’s in laws are from India, although my son-in-law was born in the US, he has cousins, aunts, and uncles living in Mumbai. Ban people from going to India? No.

My daughter, son-in-law, his parents, and gransdon, visited Mumbai in ’06 for a family reunion and a grandmother’s birthday. One of the hotels that was attacked was where the reception was held. They left India just a few days before the trains were bombed. That is as close to home as I want these Islamic slugs to get.

I don’t think a ban on travel to india is the answer. A ban on travel to Pakistan, yes.

Forget Pakistan, India could be a real ally.

Pelayo on November 28, 2008 at 2:10 PM

War and football have two things in common: The best defense is a good offense.

Pelayo on November 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM

/end of rant

shaken on November 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM

We either cut off the Hydra’s many heads (of state), or we have the all -ut war you want to avoid. Do you think it immoral to assassinate world leaders to avoid committing innocents to fight? It’s not only OK with me, but moral.

JiangxiDad on November 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM

War and football have two things in common: The best defense is a good offense.

Pelayo on November 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM

What’s the other thing?

thomasaur on November 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM

What’s the other thing?

thomasaur on November 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM

hair extensions have no place in either.

JiangxiDad on November 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

One way for India to avert direct war against the Paki would be to commit 5000 combat ready troops to the Afghan war. Place the Indians along the SWAT border and let them duke it out.

Nuclear Threat:

The Mujaheddin rely – as do all nuclear nations – on the MAD principal. MAD assumes mutual destruction but a Neutron bomb breaks the formula. The US should re-introduce and use the neutron bomb as a threat – the idea is that we can Neut Pakistan/Iran and forty five days later roll armor into their country and take all their toys without opposition.

13times on November 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Ha, bad writing from me.

War and football have something in common: The best defense is a good offense.
Repaired.

Pelayo on November 28, 2008 at 2:22 PM

War might be a disaster short term, but long term the elimination of the Pakistani infection of the whole world and the terrorism they export would be better. We could assist India in a decapitation strike that destroyed Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, its delivery systems, and its leadership. That would help end the Pakistani war on the civilized world from India to Great Britain.

federale86 on November 28, 2008 at 2:36 PM

I think it’s long past the time to understand that pakistan as currently constituted is an enemy of the west, and the USA in particular, we need to stop pretending that we have any sort of “partner” in pakistan and treat them like the hostile nation they are, and move closer to our true ally in the region, India…which means we unilaterally destroy the taliban friendly tribes in waziristan, and allow the Indian army, with our full fledged support, take Kazmir and beyond. and need to employ missile defenses in Afghanistan AND India.

johngalt on November 28, 2008 at 2:49 PM

federale86 on November 28, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Problem is that the region is not ready to govern itself.

Musharaf, as essentialy a dictator, could not rule it… Democracy has failed in Pakistan more than once…

If someone from outside tries to take power, it will lead to an insurrection UNLESS they rule it with sufficient brutality to subdue it… which our “Leaders” in America would not support.

Hate to say it… but do we need to bring back the colonial era just simply for the sake of worldwide peace?

Africa has gone to crap… Middle East is a mess… Pakistan and Afganistan are incapable of self rule…

don’t know…. but reading history shows that when you give Barbaians the reigns of power, they tend to take down the more “Civilized” regions around them.

Romeo13 on November 28, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Sorry, but much of the dismissive rhetoric I read here is deeply unsettling.

Not as unsettling as the constant stream of unanswered attacks against the West and other non-muslims should be to you.

A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be an unspeakable horror, with many innocent lives lost. Envision thousands upon thousands of mothers and fathers and the children they love, on both sides of the divide, who want no part of the extremism, and wish to live their lives just as we do, incinerated. Beyond words.

shaken on November 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM

You could have said the same thing about many of the families or women and children in Dresden, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or Tokyo, or any of the other cities that were firebombed and incinerated or nuked.

War is ugly stuff. To try and make it pretty, or even to render it less than “unsettling” is a disservice to all and a denial of reality.

Need I remind you that our own strategic defense rests on the idea of incinerating untold numbers of such people?

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 1:45 PM

look up general Shermans thoughts on war, I whole heartedly agree….this sort of All Violence Is Bad mentality is what is allowing a half assed band of pirates to paralyze the great powers of today into helplessness. War does not beget War, WEAKNESS, real or perceived… begets War. Which you’ll see in application when the empty suit takes office.

johngalt on November 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Pakistan is sending the ISI? Why not just send the Taliban. Same thing.

Kevin M on November 28, 2008 at 3:00 PM

We are on the verge of a nuclear exchange, especially if these terrorists are capable of getting their hands on Pakistan’s weapons. Indeed, it would a disaster of unspeakable horror.

rlwo2008 on November 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Clear Pakistani fingerprints on the attacks would chill relations between the nuclear-armed rivals and could wreck U.S. hopes of persuading Islamabad to focus on battling the Taliban and al-Qaida near the Afghan border.

Yes, that would be terrible. The Pakistanis have had nukes forever, and of course, they waited until another Carter type POTUS was taking office to taunt their arch-enemy India into full-scale nuclear war.

chunderroad on November 28, 2008 at 3:59 PM

13times on November 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Thank you for a sane take on this.

chunderroad on November 28, 2008 at 4:03 PM

this sort of All Violence Is Bad mentality is what is allowing a half assed band of pirates to paralyze the great powers of today into helplessness. War does not beget War, WEAKNESS, real or perceived… begets War.

johngalt on November 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM

So a person who thinks a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be a bad thing is guilty of subscribing to an “All Violence Is Bad mentality”?!?? That’s an absurd stretch.

Big of you and a few others here to be willing to sacrifice untold millions of innocent Indians and leave an entire subcontinent in smoldering, radioactive ruins in order to fight global jihad.

To say nothing of the blowback worldwide.

Hey, would be it easier for Al Qaeda to steal a nuke in the chaos that would inevitably follow an Indian nuclear strike on Pakistan? Ya think?

Unbelievable.

Dreadnought on November 28, 2008 at 4:36 PM

The US needs to stay out, and if India decides to slaughter the Pakistanis, well after the crap they have been pulling in India they deserve it.

Tim Burton on November 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM

What nobody seems to be saying is that some of the terrorists, call them the Millenials, would be glad to bring about a war, even a nuclear war, in the belief that it it were big enough nothing would survive but their purified strain of Islam.

njcommuter on November 28, 2008 at 5:14 PM

this sort of All Violence Is Bad mentality is what is allowing a half assed band of pirates to paralyze the great powers of today into helplessness. War does not beget War, WEAKNESS, real or perceived… begets War. .

johngalt on November 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM

I hope the Indian subcontinent does not experience a nuclear exchange, but that hardly makes me guilty of subscribing to an “All Violence Is Bad mentality”.

It’s uh… “great”… that you and a few others here are willing to sacrifice millions of innocent Indians in order to get back at the jihadis.

But did you ever consider the blowback from such an occurance? Figuratively and literally? Hey-wouldn’t it be easier for Al Qaeda to obtain a nuke in the chaos that would follow an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange? Ya think?

Dreadnought on November 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Well, what favors are Pakistan doing for us? The have Bin Laden over there. What are they doing to give him over to us? Sorry I don’t sympathize with them. If India wants to go off, stand back and let them and while they are at it, go caving for Ass Laden.

johnnyU on November 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM

johnnyU on November 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM

If OBL isn’t dead then he’s been replaced by the next generation of ambitious jihadi zealots. Why does everyone buy into the absurd notion of a special map of terrorism now that Bush is leaving office? Most of our intelligence is outsourced, and the daily presidential briefings will still whistle through our CIC’s ears, anyway.

chunderroad on November 28, 2008 at 5:47 PM

. . . If we keep giving people a chance to kill us, eventually they will – if just by luck. This war CANNOT be fought defensively, and we have never really gone on offense, except for going into Iraq. . .

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Not true. The Bush administration has taken the fight to Islamist terrorists all over the globe, from the Sudan to the Philippines, and to everywhere in between. Iraq may have been the central front, but the American military and intelligence agencies have been fighting unheralded in many corners of the world ever since September 11th, 2001.

The big question is: Will President Obambi pull the plug on The Long War? If he does, expect attacks on American soil within the next three years.

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 6:00 PM

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Sorry, but Bush has not gone on the offensive, since 9/11, in even 1/10th the amount required. That’s why Iran kept pursuing its nukes over that whole time, the Palestinians ramped up their attacks, …

Bush has done more to go on the offensive than anyone else has done in a long time, but he hasn’t done nearly enough and he has made more than a few giant missteps (though any democrat would have done far worse).

Bush’s insistence on decrying “terrorism”, instead of identifying that these people are, simply, enemies of the US and US interests, is idiotic and dangerous. It doesn’t matter if our enemies attack our military or our civilians – the fact that they are attacking us is all that is salient. The methods that they use in their attacks on us only serve to show us what methods are going to be required to stop them. But, all Bush could do about Russia and the Chechens was berate Russia for doing what they had every right to do. If you took Bush’s words about “terrorism” and how killing civilians is such a terrible thing and translated them to WWII, you know where we would all be.

Then, we have Bush’s insistence on keeping the UN empowered, which is one of the most dangerous paths we might take. I don’t know what’s in the Bush family water, but their love of the UN is destructive to all of us. This is an anti-offensive move (it isn’t even defensive, but just stupid).

Then, we have Bush’s insistence on shaping individualistic self-rule in tribal cultures. ….

I have a great deal of respect for Bush, but he fell far short in this war and never seemed to understand what war really is. That’s why we have our own military people sitting in front of courts martial while Gitmo scumbags are running legal battles all through our federal courts … and winning, whie our esteemed SCOTUS ruminates about the 4th Geneva Conventions and other idiotic peices of post-WWII fantasy land. Just as WWI was “The War To End All Wars”, the UN, 4th Geneva, and other idiocies came pouring out of the end of WWII. But WWI was nothing close to the last war (not even close to the biggest!) and the scraps of toilet paper on which the plans emerged for naive treaties and impossible institutions from WWII will someday have to be acknowledged as such. 9/11 was a time to do that … but we didn’t. Instead, we set out on some silly desire to have every single country in the world in our coalition (except for Israel, of course, which prompted the worst attacks inside Israel in its history). We even invited Iran and the Taliban into our grand “coalition”. Sheesh.

Bush has done well to keep our own soil free of these attacks since 9/11, but that cannot go on forever and we have long stopped moving forward in our fight. That’s what happens when windows of opportunity are passed. We end up waiting for another big attack, so that we can take the window we previously missed, change our ROE and mindset, and take the fight to the enemy in the ruthless manner that will be required.

I won’t even go into the whole “islam is a religion of peace” mantra that made me sick everytime I heard it. If we can’t be honest about the enemy, then we are lost, no matter how good our defenses are.

Bush was on the offensive, enough, in his first term to scare the nukes out of Libya, but his second term has been a full-out capitulation – in everything except his attempt to make Iraq a nation of self-rule with individual liberties (which will never last past a US drawdown) and which no muslim country has ever shown itself capable of doing … and that includes Turkey, for which the military is the supreme force (as Ataturk understood islam and muslims).

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 6:39 PM

upinak opines

*Ban people from the U.S. going over to India now.*

good thinking dude

i mean it’s not like we have billions of dollars invested there. forget that india’s a democracy in good standing(the only one in the region, i might add) and a great friend to the u.s.,innit

last but not least—let’s leave it to the indians to suss out where the munitions originated from…

devadevadasa on November 28, 2008 at 8:19 PM

I just hope the Indians aren’t using meanie interrogation methods.

The freedom fighters better lawyer up quickly.

artist on November 28, 2008 at 8:22 PM

So, NDTV is reporting that ISI Chief Pasha *ISN’T* going to India now. They’ll be sending a representative instead.

Mr Tips on November 28, 2008 at 8:50 PM

. . . Bush was on the offensive, enough, in his first term to scare the nukes out of Libya, but his second term has been a full-out capitulation – in everything except his attempt to make Iraq a nation of self-rule with individual liberties (which will never last past a US drawdown) and which no muslim country has ever shown itself capable of doing … and that includes Turkey, for which the military is the supreme force (as Ataturk understood islam and muslims).

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 6:39 PM

PoP, you make a number of salient points, most of which I agree with. But they are only part of the story. It’s a longer discussion than I have time for tonight, but the main point I would make in reply is this:

President Bush has been constantly hamstrung by a recalcitrant if not openly rebellious bureaucracy, by the viciously partisan media, and by a Congress that, while initially supportive, by his second term was only nominally so.

Behind the scenes, there has been a largely covert war underway which, despite the initial affirmations that Islam is “a religion of peace,” and the ham-handed title of “the War on Terror,” has really been aimed at the Islamic terror networks.

For a long time, I have wished that on September 12, 2001, President Bush had asked Congress for a formal Declaration of War, with all that implies. The failure to do so left the door open for the Left to rally in opposition to even the most modest measures (e.g. electronic surveillance, Gitmo, military tribunals, etc., etc.) that should have been accepted and welcomed as part and parcel of a wartime effort.

The result was that the Global War on (Islamic) Terror was undermined from the get-go. But despite all that, the President’s accomplishments are still impressive: he took the fight to our enemies, and he is winning.

How will the next President do?

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 9:58 PM

13times on November 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

For the life of me, I never understood why America allowed herself to be fooled into abolishing the neutron bomb. It is the ultimate deterrent.

OldEnglish on November 28, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Mr. Lynn, I agree with your post. I do not forget that Bush was going against MAJOR headwinds. Like I said in my earlier post, I respect George Bush very much. I have been impressed at how many difficult decisions he has been faced with and how he has handled them, generally. But, like his soft spot (blind spot?) on amnesty, I saw the same in how he pursued the larger war. He did better than most other Republicans would have done and better than just about any Democrat would have done. For that I have been grateful.

My review of his prosecution of this war is harsh but that is largely due to my feeling that he lost most of his nerve in his second term, though I do understand how much it must have taken out of him just to keep Iraq from falling prey to the domestic left and the press. I also do think that his attempt to give Iraq self-rule with individual liberty is futile, though the payoff, if it works, is large enough to make it worth having tried it. I hope that Bush proves to be right in this one. I would have just taken the oil fields and the gulf access, and let Iraqis sort itself out with some help from us, if they requested.

For a long time, I have wished that on September 12, 2001, President Bush had asked Congress for a formal Declaration of War, with all that implies. The failure to do so left the door open for the Left to rally in opposition to even the most modest measures (e.g. electronic surveillance, Gitmo, military tribunals, etc., etc.) that should have been accepted and welcomed as part and parcel of a wartime effort.

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Yes, but declaring war seems to be something that has also been banned (though not officially, obviously) in the post-WWII period. Everyone, it seems, likes to maintain the illusion of an easy exit. You make an excellent point about the Left using that non-declaration, but I don’t think that was the main thing. The left kept themselves pretty quiet from 9/11 until the day Saddam was yanked out of that spider hole. Then, the left felt safe, again, and the seditionist talk started spewing out of their mouths. At least, that’s how I remember it.

I figured that Bush was a victim of his own success in making Americans feel safe enough to treat terrorism as something unthreatening and, for many, unimportant. The last polls showed fears of terrorism down around the bottom of most people’s lists. But that’s why I say that he had to go much harder, to begin with, because now we’ve gotten locked into our current stance until something allows us to move, again.

My biggest problem with Bush, though, was that he never tried to defend himself or explain the real situation. I mean, even in the whole WMD area, the Iraq War ended up netting more WMD than anyone had imagined, since he scared the nukes out of Qadaffi and, through that, got the whole open picture into the extent of the AQ Khan ring, which was far more important than just finding some WMD in Iraq. But Bush never bothered talking about this (or had any of his people defend him, and us, on this). Things like this also allowed the left to run wild with their hate-America shpiel.

I have always considered Bush to be a good and decent person, a mensch, who felt that he was doing the right thing for the country. But he has some policies, and has taken some positions, that just drive me up a wall.

progressoverpeace on November 29, 2008 at 1:38 AM

How will the next President do?

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 9:58 PM

I’m scared to even think about it.

progressoverpeace on November 29, 2008 at 1:58 AM

Would be nice though, if Israel teamed up with India. Guess that is asking to much though.

sheebe on November 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Israel is the largest Arms exporter to India. Indian and Israeli SFs have been training with each other since the 70s, sub rosa of course.

Jester on November 29, 2008 at 6:10 AM

The transition back to a civilian government in Islamabad raised hopes that tensions between Pakistan and India could cool, allowing for a peaceful resolution to the disputes over Kashmir and other open issues between the two nations.

Mr Morrissey, I respect you as a political analyst, but on this one issue you are dead wrong. The only people who thought a transition to ‘democracy’ in Pakistan would help improve the situation were the US and EU. Nobody in India believed that crap. Here’s why.

There is ONE power center in Pakistan – the Pakistan Army. The ISI is staffed by officers and men from the Army, Police forces etc. on deputation. It is controlled by the Army.

Pakistan’s economy is controlled by the army through front companies owned by retired generals and trusts. Most of the land is controlled by them too.

The current, democratically elected government of Pakistan exists at the pleasure of the nation’s army. The political wing of the ISI that you referred to in your article existed to fix elections so that the army’s preferred candidates won.

A transition to democracy happened because the army felt it aligned well with their interests. That does not mean that the army’s grip on the nation or its government has weakened at all.

Consider that the ISI chief will not be visiting India after all. Pakistan has done a volte face.

Jester on November 29, 2008 at 6:15 AM

There are no doubt, a number of extremist supporters and many fence sitters in the Pakistani Army and the ISI but change usually comes from the top rather than the bottom in organizations and I feel the top (Kayani and Ahmed Pasha) is moderate. Also from a human emotion standpoint, it is the extremists who are killing Pakistani Army personnel right now, not the moderates. If you are an army officer sitting on the fence, seeing your colleages get killed can fill you with anger as well as fear.

I am somewhat optimistic that the extremists are overplaying their hand in Pakistan. There is not much room for an awakening to take hold there right now, but I have to suspect that the number of supporters for the Taliban and their fellow travelers in the Army Officer Corps is shrinking rather than growing. That is positive for the long term.

If the newly elected Democratic government becomes popular with the general public, attacks on it by extremists will further move the Army and ISI into aligning against the violent radicals.

AQ, the Taliban and Indian radicals have something to gain from a war between Pakistan and India. The Pakistani army does not. Military-minded people cannot hope that Pakistan would win a war with India and right now they are struggling with an insurgency in the western part of the country. For this reason, I doubt if anyone at the top of the army or ISI knew about this operation let alone approved it.

KW64 on November 29, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Tony737

to gather an after action intel report.

Badabingo!

What’s amazing is the willingness of the Indian Left to buy into these transparently phony Pakistani overtures for ‘peace’. You’d think nearly a millenium of Islamic warfare against Indian Hindus (mostly) — including mountains of human heads — an estimated 70 million killed — would make them a bit more educated.

Beagle on November 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

While I don’t doubt this operation originated in Pakistan and that there might have been some at least indirect support from the ISI, there is one thing that leads me to believe this was not primarily an ISI driven operation and it most likely was al Qaeda affiliated. That is the attack on the Jewish center. That is completely outside the profile of ISI-sponsored attacks in the past but is typical of something al Qaeda would do.

This attack specifically targeted American citizens and killed some of them. ISI wouldn’t do that. Al Qaeda would and without hesitation.

crosspatch on November 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM