B. Raman Points to State Intel Failure.
Spoke Sunday 30 with Bahukutumbi Raman (Ram), retired Indian Intelligence officer at Chennai, re the scale of the attack on Mumbai, and he clearly indicated that the operation was
LeT, supported by the Pakistan secret Police, or ISI, and all this has links to what we call Al Qaeda and what Ram calls IIF, or Osama Bin Laden's International Islamic Front For Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews. The investigation is now going deeper into the falure before the atack than it required to go into the ames of those responsible. The culprits are well known and named, all with LeT addresses and links to ISI and to Al Qaeda. The next crisis is not military but rather political. Many must pay for the Mumbai failure, and most of them are in the Indian government (above, Indian military comfort a shaken comade). P.M. M. Singh has new elections in April, and Ram along with counter-terrorism analyst Shlok Vaidya of Bopal, FDD, and business correspondent Chandrakant Pancholi, whose family is in Gujarat, told me that the Congress Party cannot maintain power in the face of the BJP momentum unless and until it responds violently to the provocation. The list of names delivered by India to Pakistan in this news cycle is a non-negotiable demand that leaves neither side with wiggle room. Mumbai was a casus belli. What will India do and when will it do it? Singh will fall. Weak governments issue ultimatums and then attack. Below find Ram's overwhelmingly logical analysis of the Mumbai intel failure. A lot like 9/11, everything was known but the analysts did not talk to each other effectively, and even when they did, the ops did not act consistently. Note that the shooters landed their zodiac at the very spot where intel had led the Mumbai police to erect a barrier that was later abandoned. These are early days of the post-op de-brief. There is blame enough for a subcontinent. The India Times headlines on Wednesday 3 all point in one direction. Please also note that the India media is now calling this 26/11, and the Pakistani media has done us all the favor of blaming the attack on Hindu Zionists. Case closed.
ACCOUNTABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
B.RAMAN
The Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) have mounted a damage-control exercise by sharing with senior journalists details of technical intelligence (TECHINT) collected by them, which clearly indicated that the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Pakistani terrorist organisation, which is a member of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) For Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People, was planning to carry out sea-borne terrorist strikes against hotels on Mumbai's coast, one of the hotels being the Taj Mahal hotel, which was actually attacked and occupied by some terrorists on the night of November 26,2008. This intelligence was disseminated by them to those responsible for physical security. It seems to be the contention of the IB and the R&AW that what happened in Mumbai was a serious instance of physical security failure and failure to act on available intelligence and not an instance of intelligence failure.
2. Other independent reports indicate that the reports were acted upon by the Mumbai Police and the security authorities of the Taj Mahal Hotel. It was not as if they ignored them. The Mumbai Police alerted the hotels mentioned in the R&AW report and advised them on the need to strengthen security. The Mumbai Police also set up a security barrier at a point near the sea where , in their assessment, clandestine landings might take place.
3. The two specific reports of the R&AW based on intercepts were disseminated in September. There was no follow-up report for nearly five weeks, either from the IB or the R&AW. As a result, the Mumbai Police and hotels downgraded the security alert. The Taj Mahal Hotel removed a security barrier, which they had erected, and the Mumbai Police removed the security barrier which they had set up to prevent clandestine landings. The terrorists from Pakistan seem to have landed at this very point, where the Mumbai Police had erected the security barrier on the receipt of the alert from the R&AW.
4. The R&AW and the IB have their offices in Mumbai headed by senior officers to interact closely with the local police and the Armed Forces units. All of them are members of special co-ordination committees. How come the IB and the R&AW officers did not come to know that the security alert had been downgraded following the non-receipt of any follow-up reports from the R&AW? Did the R&AW immediately advise the Mumbai Police, the Navy and the hotel authorities that the alert should be continued till they receive information that the LET has abandoned its plans?
5. While the intercepts of September speak well of the interception capability of the R&AW, it does not necessarily speak well of its capability for analysis, assessment and follow-up action. Many questions are relevant in this regard: In what form did it report the intelligence? Did it tone it down while reporting the intercepts in a paraphrased form? Did it tell the persons to whom it sent the two reports of September that the intelligence was based on intercepts of telephone conversations of an LET operative based in Pakistan? If it did not do so on grounds of operational security, how come it is now sharing them with journalists?This only strengthens the suspicion that the IB and the R&AW show a greater readiness to share sensitive intelligence with journalists to protect themselves than with each other to protect the nation and its people. To which Ministries and departments were the reports sent and at what level?
6. Unless one looks into all these questions, one cannot say where the failures occurred, which made the terrorist strikes possible.In 1987, the R&AW received a human intelligence report about a Khalistani plot to kill Rajiv Gandhi, then Prime Minister, during his visit to Rajghat on Mahatma Gandhi's birthday. The R&AW officer----of the rank of Director, one rank below a Joint Secretary--- conveyed the information in a written note to a Joint Secretary in the Home Ministry and the Delhi Police. He did not alert other senior officers.
7. The report proved to be accurate. Rajiv Gandhi narrowly escaped the assassination attempt. T.N. Seshan, who was then co-ordinating the security arrangements for Rajiv Gandhi, was asked to enquire into this.He held both the Delhi Police and the R&AW responsible for omissions, which could have led to a national tragedy.He blamed the Delhi Police for inaction on the R&AW report and the R&AW for not realising the gravity of the information when it was received and for disseminating it at a lower level without alerting the senior officers responsible for Rajiv's security.
8.A report in the "Hindustan Times" of December 2,2008, quotes an unnamed officer of the R&AW as saying that its job in the Mumbai case was over with sending the report to the concerned quarters in the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) and that it had no other responsibility since it does not operate in Indian territory.
8. This is a highly irresponsible mindset, which needs to be checked. B.N.Mallick and R.N.Kao, the founding fathers of the Indian intelligence, used to stress on their officers that the responsibility of an intelligence officer does not stop with his sending a memo or a note about intelligence of a serious nature collected. It is equally their responsibility to ensure that the intelligence receives the attention it deserves in the ministries and departments concerned and that the necessary follow-up action is taken.In respect of terrorism, the role and responsibility of an intelligence officer starts from the moment he collects a piece of intelligence and continues till it is acted upon and the act of terrorism thwarted. (3-12-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi, and presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail:seventyone2@gmail.com )
(1)
No, it's not the maniacal fanatics who caused this to happen and that violated the peace and comfort of a night's stay in a freedom loving, modernistic, optimistic neighborhood. Yes, it's the failure of the ones who are supposed to know that doped up maniacs are going to row ashore on rubber rafts and enter into public places to do their homicides and mayhem.
Yep, they should have known this was coming.
John,
What can/should Obama and the U.S. do to improve the situation in Pakistan? Is there a moderate group over there with which we can build a relationship? Or is it more a question of doing whatever we can to unilaterally scour the country of terrorist training facilities? You raised the question in your interview with Eric Shawn of whether Pakistan is a workable democracy. Let us not forget that hotels burned in Pakistan before they burned in India - I don't see the Pakistani government benefitting from having these hoodlums using their country as a training ground. It seems to me that if the U.S. takes the easy way out of backing a strong man in Pakistan such as Musharaf was, for the sole purpose of putting down the terrorists by violent means, it would beg the question of why we can tolerate a de facto dictatorship in one Arab republic, but insist on democracy at any cost in another.
We believe what we choose to believe. After 9/11, there were those who blamed the attacks on Jews. Others said Bush was responsible. They said that the buildings could not have toppled by virtue of planes flying into them alone. Some version of this is believed by a sizable number of people living in the Middle East and Jew (and Bush) haters in all parts of the world.
What happened in Mumbai similarly has been blamed on the BJP who are currently out of power but are expected to win the next Indian election. The BJP has been described as a muscular, right- wing Hindu party that will likely benefit from the Mumbai attacks in the next election. Because they will benefit, the suspicion of their involvement in these attacks must be kept alive for the Congress party to even have an outside chance of remaining in power. A similar gambit was effectively used right here by Democrats (and the left) when Bush was accused of going to war in Iraq for oil.
All intelligence is subject to the political mood in a country. There are several rhetorical and metaphysical tricks by which any statement of fact can be altered to reflect the opposite of what is actually quite evident. One is to say that the extreme left and the extreme right is essentially the same; another is to blame the victim for his or her hurt; a third is to turn against those assigned to protect us and accuse them of our enemies’ sins.
All the gambits are currently in play. Where the wheel will stop is anybody's guess. It will ultimately depend on who has the stronger position politically. As it now stands, both here and in India, the wheel is spinning during which time no united front can emerge. And, as we all know, “a divided house cannot stand”.
It's interesting to note that the (unnamed) enemy tends not to suffer fracture. India, by having named the leaders of the Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) as being primarily responsible for the Mumbai carnage, has taken a giant step toward tackling this issue of terrorism on its own shores. As Pakistan has so far refused to hand over this group to Indian authorities, it will be interesting to see how far India is willing to go to punish what is emerging as their version of an “axis of evil”.
BHUTTO'S HUSBAND
The PM of Pakistan was on Larry King last night. He spoke carefully, like a lawyer. His points were: 1) The terrorists are stateless and, therefore, not from Pakistan; 2) There is no proof that the one captured terrorist is Pakistani; 3) India has not given him proof of the guilt of those they have requested to be sent to India; 4) If proof of guilt is given, they will be tried in Pakistan. He did waffle on whether Bin Laden would be tried in Pakistan or the US if caught. He said he also wanted to work closely w/India -- but his analysis of events seems to make that impossible.
King did not confront his guest w/ any facts to refute what he said. So it was more like PR than news.
What I can't figure out is why is this guy PM if he won't or can't do anything? What is his game?
Because he (and his country) is also a victim of terrorism, it should be in his interest to wipe it out. Yet he seems, like Musharaf, to want power only for power's sake.
If Musharaf, as a military man, couldn't wipe out extremists in his own forces, how can someone outside the military do it?
It's entirely appropriate/necessary to go through this kind of introspection. The civilized world has no control over the actions of these terrorists, but, we do have control over our response to them.
I may be one of the few left supporting Bush (I certainly am the only one in my family), but, going into Afghanistan and Iraq, going on the offense, at least initially, not by nuking mecca (there were some calling for that at the time of 9/11), but in the name of democracy was really going after them on their own turf and was, (I have a wonerful anglo-saxon word in mind here, but its kinda vulgar) bold and risky. Oddly enough, I'm realizing in retrospect that I have felt safe under Bush in this country and I wonder if that sentiment is shared by others.
I'm pulling for India and hope that they find the appropriate response to this. They have been the victims of many violent muslim invasions and sackings throughout history and their culture has thus far survived and even flourished. I have had many Indian colleagues and friends and the United States could not have a better ally than they. There seems to be a kinship between Israelis and Indians that is interesting.
If the strong-man ever completely wiped out the terrorists, there'd be no need for him anymore. So he gets just enough photo-ops with his boot on the neck of a known terrorist every so often, to make it look like he's doing something, but he permits enough terrorist acts to occur to remind people why they need him.
When Musharaf left office the last thing he said was, essentially, "I know you'll miss me, I know you'll miss me ..." (a la Boy George). Seems like he had some inkling of what would happen. Or, maybe he left Islamabad for a promotion (i.e., maybe he's secretly in charge of the terrorist groups now). The ease with which he relinquished power makes me suspicious.
I wonder how much of what "Big AQ" does is intended to drive the political process in the target country?
shannons - I too have felt safe under Bush. That will turn out to be his legacy. I don't see how an Obama administration can fare much better with an approach of diplomacy and appeasement. These people view us as vermin; as we ourselves would view cockroaches in our kitchens. The only way to deal with them is to exterminate them with poisons. Would you or anyone feel bound by signed agreements with a cockroach? Besides, the poisons are having their desired effect; we are running defensive plays; we are splintered; we are hobbled by our own inability to face up to an existential threat. We close our eyes and ears and pretend we will be loved again once a new president takes office - one who doesn't much look like all the men who have brought us to this point; those who are pictured on our currency.
lou - By all accounts Musharaf was a decent man. I saw a report that showed him returning to his home, a modest place that looked somewhat neglected. They were fixing the barbed wire on top of the walls that surrounded it. I believe he truly loved his country; that he didn't use his position to feather his own nest (as others have done in the past). He was basically forced out by empty slogans promoting democracy and by the drumbeat originating from within our own State Department whose aim was to show another Bush ally as corrupt and that, by this association, Bush could be painted as corrupt as well.
What started as a legitimate war (on terror) with maps and clear strategies (and even some good will thrown in for good measure) quickly descended into a hunt of one's own; and to destroy one man. ...and it wasn't bin Laden.
John, you bring up a good point. Look at Spain. The cacasotti voted in the socialists. Even here, people seemed to be tired of the same old and voted for "change", after 8 years combines with terror alerts and the Iraq war. On one hand, we have enemies that think in terms of decades or centuries, on the other we seem neither to have the will nor the stomach to put an end to this non-sense relatively quickly. The end result is more of the same.
Musharaf didn't lift a finger to prevent the assassination of Benazir Bhutto .... Also, I refuse to believe that you could come to power in a country like that without being utterly ruthless.
Count me among those who have felt safe under Bush. But I never asked to feel safe. There's a great column in the WSJ by Henninger talking about how the U.S. got where it is by taking risks. Ever since 9/11, I've said to anyone who'll listen to me that if we have to go through all these security checkpoints at the airport, then the terrorists have already won. Speaking just for myself, I'd rather be blown into atoms on an airplane by a terrorist's bomb, than be forced to submit to what I consider to be an ongoing trampling of my Fourth Amendment rights. There ought to be a separate airline for people who prefer true liberty to some elusive guarantee for security. I'd be on that airline in a moment. Live Free or Die.
Lou - you say you'd rather be blown up than live with your 4th Amendment rights trampled - that's a fine comment in an existential situation like a blog -somehow I don't see you putting yourself in genuine jeopardy. You're more than fortunate that despite not having 'asked to be safe' that you have been. I agree with Peter and Shannons...and I, too, still support Bush.
Listen- You don't have a right to fly!
It is a privilege, just as driving is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT- check it out- right to fly and right to drive are not in the constitution. Flying is a miracle of modern technology and we are all lucky to be able to share in it. Freedom is important- but when you travel with other people, using a private service which you don't own- well, you have to play by the rules like the rest of us. Maybe you need a private jet.
Mombam & Shaun:
"For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride?
If it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed on you.
If it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared."
Kahlil Gibran
Lou said: Ever since 9/11, I've said to anyone who'll listen to me that if we have to go through all these security checkpoints at the airport, then the terrorists have already won.
Metaphor is astonishingly popular in many pundit circles today, but if you seriously think that, I suggest you've taken metaphor too far.
Lou said: Speaking just for myself, I'd rather be blown into atoms on an airplane by a terrorist's bomb, than be forced to submit to what I consider to be an ongoing trampling of my Fourth Amendment rights. There ought to be a separate airline for people who prefer true liberty to some elusive guarantee for security. I'd be on that airline in a moment.
So let me get this straight. You think that extinction is preferable to inconvenience. I'd rather take a train. I don't care if they search my bags, so I sure ain't gonna get worked up if they search your bags. If you gotta get from point A to point B, and if you have to take a plane, and if you know that al Qaeda likes blowing up planes, searching bags is the least of your worries. Somehow, a bottle of shampoo seems hardly worth the "Live Free or Die" stand. Maybe you should take the train too.
OK, I tried to take the high road by quoting Gibran and you won't let it rest. So let's try a different tack, and I hope John will have the good grace to permit me to defend my position here.
First, I seem to have hit a nerve with these comments. I've been contributing to this blog for a couple of months now, have pretty much held forth on everything under the Sun, and it's so odd to me that these comments are the first thing anyone's given me grief about. To me, "Live Free or Die" is a way of life; it should be everyone's way of life, and I'm continuously surprised when I hear that it's not. I consider it uncontroversial. I consider it a statement of the obvious.
I am no psychologist but if I had to hazard a guess, the reason for the reaction is that people know I'm right and are ashamed of their more or less cowardly behaviour in this regard, and are lashing out at me as a proxy for their own inner turmoils.
All I can tell you is I worked in a high-rise the day of 9/11, worked the entire day until quitting time, was the last person in the building (challenged them to have the police come get me if they wanted me out, but that I would not leave voluntarily); have said ever since that day that if we react in a cowardly manner to these attacks, it will only encourage the terrorists. I think there was one other person left in downtown San Diego that day - the owner of the sandwich shop where I used to get my lunch, and he and I sat around and laughed about what a bunch of cowards Americans are.
Let me tell you honestly: I have no fear of terrorists. I have no fear of death. I believe there's no cheating the Grim Reaper - you'll die when you're meant to die, and not one second before or after. Life is brief anyway, and I'd rather die with my boots on than be a craven coward and stand in a long line of other craven cowards who want to hang on for as long as they can to lives that, in my opinion, have been irretrievably compromised by their cowardice, and are no longer worth hanging onto in the first place.
There, I said it. Feel free to fire away at me: if I'm not afraid of terrorists, I'm sure as heck not afraid of YOU.
Wow... Everybody in downtown San Diego got to go home on 9/11?
Lou!!! So, without any scrutiny, one has checked their bags on Taj Airlines, and taken their place (room) for their flight or decided to saunter over and imbibe a little to relax as the plane becomes airborne. Then, in mid flight (because everyone can enter without question), some wide eyed, hypnotized ne'er do well types, wearing designer shoes with machine guns under their coats and explosive devices dangling from their belts, jump into the aisles and start shooting everybody and blowing things up and starting fires. What does Lou do as a passenger on this plane (hotel)? Does he say to himself "Well, it's my time to go?"
Fortunately, it's not just about you and your desire/ need to buttress yourself and try to impart that you and the sandwich maker are braver than everybody else in America or the world. It is about children, grandmamas and grandpapas, everyday men and women, and the employees who are entitled (yes, entitled) to be secure, to travel from place to place and be safe while doing so.
A little inconvenience as a security buffer from lunatics is not too much to ask. Not everyone is as brave as you, Lou. Not everyone wants chaos to reign either.
(And I disagree with your premise that Americans are cowards. That's just insulting... because it is wrong.)