By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on November 30, 2008 at 8:36 PM in Current Affairs
(bumped up by Lena)
The emerging details about the attack on Mumbai continue to build the circumstantial case that the attackers received significant and extensive support from people who most likely were a part of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Consider what we are not told about the hijacked ship that took the ten terrorists to the shore of Mumbai:
The story of the Mumbai terror attacks likely began when a private fishing trawler with five crew members set sail from the Arabian sea off the coast of Porbandar in India’s western Gujarat state on 13 November.
Sometime during the next 12 days, the trawler was taken over at sea by at least 10 young men, aged between 20 and 23 years, carrying backpacks and bags, according to sources in the Mumbai police, coastguard, and commandos.
Daily Mail has a different version and more details
Kasab and the nine other terrorists, who communicated using BlackBerry mobiles, began their journey to Mumbai on November 21.
Initially unarmed, they left an isolated beach near Karachi in a small boat, before being picked up the following day by a larger vessel.
At this point they were each given eight hand grenades, an AK-47 rifle, an automatic pistol and ammunition. And in anticipation of a lengthy siege, they also carried dried fruit.
Kasab told police that the group then hijacked a fishing trawler bearing the name Kuber near the maritime boundary between Pakistan and India.
Now, if you are already on a boat capable of carrying ten men, a couple of zodiacs, ammunition, explosives, and grenades, they why do you need another boat?
Because you want to hide the fact that the boat you were originally on hailed from Pakistan. While the amount of equipment involved was relatively limited, it was more than ten men could carry at once. They had help. Transferring uninflated Zodiacs, backpacks, weapons, and ammo on the high seas from one boat to another is not an easy task either. The people involved had prior experience.
Next, we are given this curious detail:
Three speedboats met the Kuber a mile and a half from the Mumbai seafront on Wednesday. After waiting for the light to fade, they moved off, later transferring to two inflatable dinghies to go ashore.
If three speedboats come out to the ship, why not use those to get to shore rather than inflate two zodiacs? Plus, this means there was communication between the men on board the Kuber and the people on land at Mumbai.
We do not know if the attackers had been in Mumbai previously to select targets and conduct surveillance or if they had local guides who had performed those tasks for the terrorists. What is clear is that one does not simply look at a map and a videotape of Mumbai to know how to get from point A to point B. Think about your own experience of going to a large city, New York or Los Angeles, for the first time. It is confusing and disorienting. And if it is dark then the task of figuring out where you are and where you need to go is made even more difficult.
The Daily Mail’s account of what happened after the boats reached shore underscores the prior planning implicit in this operation:
The two groups then split up. Four men went to to the Taj hotel, two to the Jewish centre of Nariman House, Kasab and another man set off by taxi towards the railway station, and two headed for the Leopold restaurant.
While his colleagues were executing hostages at the Taj, Kasab and Ismail first opened fire with their assault rifles at around 10.20pm, killing dozens of people standing at Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station.
Then they hijacked a police 4×4, killing the two officers inside. Kasab told investigators they continued their killing spree by attacking a petrol station and blowing up a taxi before being stopped.
Left unexplained is who hit the Oberoi Hotel? Did the two who hit the Leopold cross the peninsula to the Oberoi? And the other two who hit the train station headed south to the Oberoi as well? We still do not know. Even with four people, the task of taking and holding hostages is very difficult. Once you are inside the hotel (or other enclosed space) your ability to maneuver becomes quite limited. This also limits your ability to kill large numbers of people. Folks are scattered and can take evasive action or hide behind locked doors. If the attackers use their ammo shooting their way through locked doors they would quickly run out of bullets. It does not appear they had pre-positioned ammo caches.
I continue to believe that the circumstantial evidence points to an ISI role in planning and conducting this operation.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Excellent analysis, Larry.
Yes god analysis, but I think I trust one analyst even more– “India’s chickens… are coming home… to roost.”
With all their power projection around the world, India was probably asking for it just like us. Thank God only another two months of terrorism before the Earth is healed finally.
Thank you, Rev. Wright.
You must be joking about the power projection and asking for it, right?
Sorry! I get the sarcasm now.
“Thank God only another two months of terrorism before the Earth is healed finally”
ha ha Good one!
I think the new detail in the Dailymail article is the two Coast Guard officers intercepting them on Kuber at one point and getting killed once they got on it. Where was the navy?
Larry you provide a more acurate analysis of the situation than 3 days of MSM coverage….Most definitly more than 10 men involved….
Thank you, Larry, for your excellent update on this tragedy. I’ve spent much time in India, Mumbai included, visited the Leopold, and have friends who live in Mumbai and am waiting to hear from them.
Your very informational articles are very much appreciated, helping to alleviate the frustration in wanting to know how this could have happened, etc.
I realized just now that I think Terrorism has been fairly constant all over the globe throughout my life time…I was born in 1960…How very sad. And so has my daughter born in 1990….Thanks for the update Larry.
Larry’s correct moving through a large unknown city — even with maps isn’t easy. Could be that these thugs had traveled to Mumbai as tourists.
So this raid was a long time in planning — support on land and practice in hijacking — all speaks of some sort of training camp or school. They’d have to have some knowledge of boats and the water. It really boggles the mind to break down the the skills and knowledge required to pull of this sort of operation.
Where did the money come from?
The timing of this raid is interesting — why now?
Who was the mastermind behind this operation?
Where was this attack team trained? These sound like well trained and seasoned operative — not “simple” suicide bombers who don’t need much training — except how to trigger the bomb.
Were these religious fanatics — or political fanatics — or both?
These guys were recruited — what happened to the rest of their terror classmates — still training for another mission?
This may help to analyse their training, and how they knew their way around the city.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Ex-soldier_trained_terrorists_says_Kasab/articleshow/3776975.cms
Thank you — fascinating reading in a horrible way.
Best analysis on the web, Larry. Thanks.
I’ve been to Mumbai and let me tell you, the traffic at all those locations is pretty heavy even at that time of the evening. What I can’t figure out is how the two killers at the railway station got into a car and continued their killing spree without being engaged till much later. I believe they went to the hospital next but considering the traffic congestion, it’s incredible that they reached all their chosen destinations without being stopped. The only explanation is that the cops and the few people who survived to see them leave the station were just too shell shocked remained frozen for a while after seeing the carnage around them.
For another excellent and complementary analysis, see this post, economy of force. It contains a link to the replay of cold-blooded murder by the photographer, Sebastian D’Souza, who took the pic of the baby-faced, captured terrorist. His report is titled with his quote: “I wish I’d had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back”.
I read both those posts. I don’t agree with that photographer. I think he was quick to judge these cops. They are not trained for this kind of situation — also some of the other comments in that thread on Economy of force is revealing, such as even a trained person’s productivity in using deadly force like shooting or shooting back is only about 10-15%. Interesting!
Anyway, this is the comment I left there:
The beat police in India are very poorly trained. Their equipment is not up to snuff. I was just talking about this very issue with my brother in India — he was relating a conversation he once had with a policeman. The gist of it is that the cop is made to wear some heavy boots (weighing some I don’t know, 20 pounds and the culprit is barefoot and this cop lugging the 25 lb boot has to chase after that guy? Even though they had guns I do not know how well they were trained to use it. They may also be caught off guard (understatement) and I don’t quite know what was going through their minds — could they be thinking they need orders from higher ups? But all I can say is that they are not trained for this kind of situation. Maybe they should be but it all comes down to resources and India after all its corruption and such, does not have much to invest in infrastructure, I guess.
Not just the police in India by the way. Remember LA a few years back? Cops are not Special Forces.
Strawberrybitch; During Katrina they were Blackwell Mercs, point being it will be next time.
All the frightening implications of your analysis have left me more depressed about the prospect of my chilren’s and my grandchildren’s chance of ever living in a more peaceful world.
I’ve been avoiding reading anythig about this horrible attack because I knew I would get the best information here.
Thank, I think (it’s not really the information anyone wants to get).
It seems the ISI has indeed gone rogue. And something tells me that they’re not done.
It is clear we have a MAJOR problem with Pakistan. There are clearly elements within ISI who openly support the Taliban and also launced this attack.Most likely ths attack is to discour&ge the new US admin. from involvement in surpressing terrorist activity or escalating counter-insurgency - interdiction in Waziristan province. It is also intended to stop short any US backed peace initiative in Kashmir. This Terrorist operation in Mumbai. had extensive command and control - logistics planning, telecommunications support staff . contingency planning and ground support on site . Also floor plans provided by moles within Chabad house as well as the Hotels
I read one account that some employees at the Taj Hotel helped the terrorists. Any truth to this?
no, I dont think so.
Thanks, Larry, great analysis.
Bill Roggio: Captured Mumbai attacker implicates Pakistani military, intel
Kasab has implicated the Pakistani Navy and the Dawood Ibrahim criminal network based in Karachi for providing assistance and training for the Mumbai assault team, police sources told India Today. The plot to attack Mumbai was hatched more than a year ago, Kasab told police.
According to the police sources, Kasab said 20 Pakistanis began training in terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir more than one year ago. The group trained in the Kashmiri camps “almost five-and-half months, during which the terrorist were taught the use of sophisticated arms and ammunition.”
After the training at the Kashmiri camps, the group was “given a months leave and were ordered to gather in Karachi after the break for training in boating, rowing and swimming by the Pakistan Navy.”
Pakistan is Somalia with Nukes.
Pakistan is Somalia with Nukes.
??
Pakistani leadership has lost control of ISI and a signifigant portion of the military establishment. This is a situation wher we might have to have to defang the Pakistani Nuclear program. An extremely difficult operation involving an advance black ops multi pronged enveloping attack. followed by precision strikes with rapid deployment ground troops to secure sites and verify neutralization objectives. A pre-emtive annailation of All Pakistani Aircraft and a truncation of their command and control structures with lightning speed. If this contingency plan is not on the table we will in all likely hood be facing an asymmetrical attack from additional rogue elements M only tis time with nuke and a treat of nuclear tipped missile strikes to follow if ther is any retaliaton. SomehowM we have to put the genie back into the bottle in Pakistan. This Mubai attack II suspect is only the opening salvo A probing Osoftening up” strike to test resolve.
Too late to put the genie back blogforce.
It was extremely obvious that backing Pakistan’s nuke capabilities was insane. But Bush’s excuse was to get them to help us in the war on terror.
Problem is the USA should not have bargained from a position of weakness like that, leaving India, our largest secular democratic ally, out in the cold essentially, to favor Pakistan, whose gov’t initiated a military coup to gain power.
In fact, I heard some talking head on the radio today still defending this crazy Bush (and now Obama’s) pro Pakistani policy. They say after all, we need to play nice with Pakistan in order to find Bin Laden, supposedly hiding on the border somewhere.
I think we need to do a gut check and show some support for India, specifically in the Kasmiri question.
As President, Hillary would be a steady hand; but as his SoS, not so much. Obama’s foreign policy is very convoluted in this region of the world.
I agree with you. Us has to start thinking about Pakistan being one of its problems. The US thinks they NEED Pakistan for whatever geopolitical considerations. But that is not working and they have to start thinking about putting Pakistan in its place. These rogue elements in Pakistan are not necessarily working on US’s best interests.
This article might answer some questions, I posted it in another thread written by Uppity, but…well
They say it was an inside job? When not? Bogus, you
can read the comments at the website below…
http://www.india.com/news/india/shocker_one_terrorist_was_a_chef_taj_1599
In a shocking revelation on late Friday night, it has been reported that one of the terrorists holed up in hotel Taj Mahal was doing his internship there as Trainee Chef for past 10 months.
The revelation came after the family of one of the Trainee Chef who was killed inside the hotel came out to reveal that the deceased called them before dying and said that he has been shot by his friends.
This disclosure has made it clear that there were more terrorists in the hotel than suspected. This revelation has also made it clear that the planning of this attack was going on for at least a year and the terrorists had everything in place to carry off this attack.
It is also suspected that this terrorist might have amassed arms and ammunition in the hotel prior to the attack, which prolonged the battle. He is also suspected to have helped in planning the attacks as he had access to all parts of the hotel and knew the location inside out.
A minister had anonymously revealed on Thursday that the terrorists had set up ‘control rooms’ inside the hotel from where they launched the attack.
After this revelation, another possibility has arisen that there may be more than one terrorists working in various hotels that have been attacked and might be present at some other places also. This has increased the pressure on security forces as well because now it is difficult to ascertain the number of terrorists killed in the operations and those who are roaming free.
Now, security forces will have toil really hard to nab other terrorists if any of them is still at large.
Taj has debunked that trainee chef story.
http://www.india.com/news/india/heres_why_mumbai_was_attacked_1614
There is another article that provides more info.
Here’s why Mumbai was attacked
November 30, 2008, 3:14 am
The captured Terrorist speaks
Captured terrorist AA Qasab has told his interrogators that he had no regrets about carrying out his mission of mayhem in Mumbai this week, in which the death toll so far is 183 and the injury toll 295.
On Saturday evening, he told Mumbai Police that the terrorist group that reportedly came out of Karachi via the sea route undertook the terrorist mission to avenge the death of Palestinians, and therefore, one of the main targets identified by them was Nariman House, which housed a Jewish synagogue visited by Israelis.
The landmark Taj Mahal Palace Hotel was also targeted by the Faridkot resident and his fellow terrorists with the objective of attracting the maximum global attention, as the venue had frequent foreign visitors and guests. The terrorists also had plans to enter the Times of India building, but changed it after Qasab was fired upon by the police.
Qasab, the lone terrorist in police custody till the second week of December, said: “We wanted to blow up the Taj,” and added that the terror mission was planned at least four months ago.
He said that a detailed recce was undertaken four months ago by another group, which included taking satellite pictures of the hotels and various locations and preparation of detailed maps.
The terrorists, he told his interrogators, booked rooms in the Taj where they kept their ammunition. They booked room 630 for four days using fake identity cards from Mauritius. Posing as Malaysian students, they had many visitors.
The police are now trying to locate these visitors. He has also said that he and his associate Ismail Khan were the ones who shot Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad Chief Hemant Karkare, and top cops Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamthe. Salaskar was the first to be killed followed by Kamthe and Karkare.
Qasab also revealed names and addresses of at least five locals in the city who helped in facilitating the terror operation. These people are said to have provided shelter, escorted them around and passed information on police stations and check posts, besides prominent landmarks.
Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Rakesh Maria said: “We suspect there could be local assistants, but it is subject to verification. It will be very premature to comment on this at this stage as our investigations are going on. All the (identity) cards are in different names and of different banks. Now, we are at least trying to figure out how they procured credit cards from various banks.”
Meanwhile, the Internet Protocol address of the Deccan Mujahideen, the group that sent an e-mail claiming responsibility, has been traced to outside India and police are now saying that the involvement of Dawood Ibrahim, the mastermind of the 1993 serial attacks in the city cannot be ruled out.
Maria also told reporters here last evening that the police believe there could be another two or more terrorists still in the city.
Bush to send Rice to India immediately. Bush must be getting scared that India will escalate matters with Pakistan. This is the same ole bu****it all over again.
Larry, your series on this event is a public service. Nothing like it available on the t.v., the papers, or anywhere else. Thank you for reminding us to keep our eyes on the issues of security and for putting this event in context for us.
I’m concerned that the majority of people, especially in the US, don’t take this stuff seriously enough. It’s another case of a country far away that nobody knows or cares anything about.
Pakistan is the most dangerous place on earth, IMO. They harbor terrorists, illicitly exported nuclear technology, and have a big enough nuke arsenal to start WWIII. The government is weak, the military is an unknown quantity as regards their loyalties, and the potential for takeover by extremists is on a hair trigger, it seems to me.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this.
Excellent article, Larry, and I’m also impressed with many of the comments, most from people I don’t see posting here much.
I am also concerned about Pakistan and the wimpy US policy towards it. They give millions in aid to it and much of it ends up with its military and finds its way to ISI and who knows where else. On the other hand, India is struggling to get up on its feet and tries to make something of itself and who does US encourage and send aid to?
Thetr are definitely elements within Pakistan who furtively support Al-quaeda and this attack bears all of the hallmarks of an Al-Quaeda operation including “press release” about Palistinians. The most disturbing thing about this is the fact that Al sQuaeda has been severely weakened prior to this action and in order for them to launch an operation with this much detail and preparation and support tells me that Pakistans ISI has made a choice to actively support Al-Quaeda. Part of this decision ob their part stems from their belief that US power is on the wane and our president elect is abandoning all of the work our mlitary and intelugence communities have accomplished over the last 8 years. I sincerely hope that they are wrong. but this is not good. in fact, it is exttemely bad! what’s our plan? inaction?? or a proaactive response!!!
WOW!! I just returned home from a 2 week cruise and was in Turkey, Croatia,Athens..and Italy numerous ports, France and Spain..never heard a word about this!!! Not a word!! Not a word from the crew not the Cabin tv or the daily world news in our cabins each day..
But this explains why we had such heavy security in Turkey, and Croatia, and a few other ports..very heavy security!!
Need to catch up with it all!
Thanks Larry!!
Was the real target in Mumbai the Israel-india trade deals? Some very big deals were about to take place in December in Mumbai. The Israelis were the first victims and they were horribly tortured and mutilated before being killed. Our US media likely won’t report any of this.
India and Pakistan are moving toward a war footing.
Sources:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/11/30/a-further-glimpse-at-the-evil/
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Economy/Indo-Israeli_trade_ties_the_real_target/articleshow/3771494.cms
http://www1.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5746
http://www.jpost.com/
http://www1.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5742
What was found on the hijacked trawler:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/10-men-accounted-for-but-terror-boat-had-jackets-blankets-toothbrush…/392658/
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/when-they-come-again/392632/
Pay special attention to point # 5 about Indian Muslims. Majority of them are special and unlike the religious fanatics you see elsewhere. Most of them are well integrated and appreciate the secular lifestyle. They have successful role models in almost all fields. Many of them especially the artists, marry Hindu men/women — many of the Muslim north Indian classical musicians worship Hindu goddesses like Saraswathi (Goddess of education). In recent years due to increased terror threats/episodes and politicians’ erratic responses, there have been increased resentment on the part of Hindus. But I like to believe that without the foolish interference of the politicians on the one hand and dangerous motivations of the terrorists, majority of Indians of all religious persuasions would rather have economic progress and security than follow someone else’s fanaticism.
Some encouraging attitude from rank and file Pakistanis. I hope they work hard to rebuild democratic institutions in their country and fight to root out support for terrorist organizations;
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Sunday_Specials/Empathy_and_fear_of_fallout_in_Pak/articleshow/3774214.cms
That really helps to understand the leg work involved in carrying out this attack. How come the garden variety media couldn’t pull it off as well as it was done here? Good thing NQ is around to distill through all the information. Thanks.
…eight winter jackets in addition to the …
presence of over 15 blankets and the same number of “winter jackets” and toothbrushes on board Kuber. These jackets, sources said, are not the ones used by “regular fishermen.”
..left Karachi in a small boat, before being picked up the following day by a larger vessel.
larger vessel;??? This is the picket boat that has a certian schedule. It is a good bet that this boat has several flags it flies under and the speed boats where used to keep the larger vessel of the radar and it had other personel ferry.
It indicates that there is a network of rust buckets being run as a pipe line for
The Pocket lint points to others disembarking along the way or the items are mis-direction.
Mr.Johnson, This is not the last op, something else is up. To much unaccounted “coming and going” of the larger vessel.
I would love to get a position on that boat.
Thanks for you valuable insight.
[...] Many Unanswered Questions in Mumbai at No Quarter brought up many of the points in the confession in a post before the confession was released. Larry Johnson’s analysis was quite up to par, especially on …the circumstantial case that the attackers received significant and extensive support from people who most likely were a part of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. [...]
A Culture of Weakness, similar in many ways to the gun control cultures that have denuded Canada, UK and Australia. Will not happen here, thankfully. The absurdity in UK has gone so far that you can’t even touch a home invader, no matter what his intentions. What good are cops in a city of 18 million without weapons? Nonsensical. And those Indian commandoes, they would not last 15 minutes against our battle hardened regular Marines or Army guys. Going up against Seals or Delta would be out of the question. Looks like SOCOM will have another country’s spec ops force to stand up, if India musters the courage to ask.
It is good that these articles are highlighting what could/should have been done but we have to recognize that this kind of confrontation is not something the local police force is trained for. How long was it before the Columbine or VATech shootings were contained? Most of the terror incidents were so far driveby suicide bomb types so you are confronted with dealing with the aftermath. We now know there were two or four at each site but as it was happening we didn’t quite know how many there were and most people thought there were more than the two or four. The other thing is the terrorists knew each location better than the security forces. In these hotels, looking for these guys is looking for a needle in a haystack unless the security forces are also ready with a plan with knowledge of every site. Anyway, hindsight is 20/20.
Addendum: India: How’s That Gun Control Working Out?
versus
Victim shoots man during robbery try
There are about two or three times a Century that “Capital” resets and resettles.
We are currently in one of those times.
Europe, China, The Middle East, India, Africa, South America or the United States.
The Question is:
Where would you invest “Capital” for “Secure” Future Growth??
Once Capital “resets” it tends to settle for at least a half a Century.
If any of the above Locations are left out of investment of “Venture Capital” their power and influence will also decline.
What happened in Mumbai is not an isolated incident and India’s reputation as a “Safe Bet” has taken a serious hit over the last two years.
China is seen as the “safer” bet because of their tight security over “human rights” stance.
The Middle East and Africa are already suffering the consequences of decades of armed conflict.
The United States has just announced the re deployment of 20,000 troops for domestic security.
Europe is just now awakening to the threat.
Capital will always seek the safest port in a storm.
After each of these attacks, we all become a little less “Free”.