by Frank James
Reports that Indian officials had intelligence from their own electronic surveillance as well as from the U.S. that warned of terror attacks on major hotels and other targets in Mumbai raises the question of what should be done with that kind of information when it's available?
Here's an excerpt from the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) The Bush administration warned India before last week's brutal attacks in Mumbai that terrorists appeared to be plotting a mostly waterborne assault on its financial capital, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
The official would not elaborate on the timing nor details of the U.S. warning to Indian counterparts. The official confirmed, though, that Washington passed on information it had about a possible attacks, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of intelligence information.
The revelation of U.S. involvement comes as the Indian government faces widespread accusations of security and intelligence failures after the attacks last week. Suspected Muslim militants carried out a three-day assault that killed 172 people and wounded 239 in the heart of Mumbai.
In hindsight, the Indian government might have arguably wanted to publicize broadly that they had credible information of plans for such an attack. That may have had the effect of disrupting the terrorists' plans since surprise was critical to their success.
The problem with doing that, of course, is that if broadcasting such a warning succeeds in postponing or calling off the attack altogether, the public could decide it was merely a false alarm, making it harder to rally the public for future warnings.
And businesses don't necessarily welcome the potential effects on shoppers and tourists when the government issues warnings of potential attacks on shopping malls or hotels.
Still, ever since 9/11, there has been, in the U.S. at least, a tendency by federal officials to more often than not issue warnings about possible threats, a reaction to the revelations following 9/11 that there was intelligence that if it had been pieced together beforehand might have changed the course of that fateful day.
So in the U.S. warnings have been issued in the form of copious bulletins to local law enforcement or the private sector from the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Homeland Security Department, then reported on by the media, to the point where the public had probably grown somewhat numb. For instance, last year, the FBI warned of potential holiday terrorist attacks against shopping malls in Los Angeles and Chicago.
Of course, there were times in the years closer to 9/11 when it appeared to Bush Administration critics that the White House might be using terror warnings to manipulate public opinion, especially in the run-up to the elections. That's another risk of such warnings, that the public, rightly or not, views them cynically.
But it seems like a government is much more damned by inaction than action before terrorist attacks like last week.
• 
Comments
This is why it's important for a government to manage its credibility. The Bush administration destroyed its own, endangering itself and the American people because of situations as described above.
Posted by: Joe | December 2, 2008 4:38 PM
Public warnings only scare the public, while public officials acting on valid intelligence, behind the scenes, is another matter entirely.
Before 9/11, the FAA was put on alert around the time of Bush's Aug. 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S.". Before 9/11, the airlines could have spent millions to reinforce cockpit doors, possibly thwarting any hijack attempt. Before 9/11, the Bush administration could have held more principals' counter-terrorism cabinet-level meetings besides the ONE held just ONE WEEK before 9/11, at which apparently the al Qaeda threat wasn't even discussed.
Mumbai looks like a repeat, in the sense that the Bush administration sent, if true, actionable intelligence to the Indian government, but no precautionary measures were put in place. A public warning wouldn't have done any good. On the other hand, Indian officials could have setup a surreptitious surveillance network along the coast to look for any suspicious activity at docks or along beaches. Harbormasters, dockmasters, coastal police, etc. could have been notified of a possible threat (maybe this was done), security enhanced, and Indian special ops teams, could have been sent and positioned strategically in and near Mumbai, while keeping a low profile. In other words, the 10 terrorists might have been stopped at the dock where they landed and not even have made it into Mumbai...if it is true that the Bush administration sent a warning of an impending attack from the sea on Mumbai.
What I find interesting is the different responses of the Bush administration after 9/11 and the Indian government following the Mumbai attacks, in that George W. Bush didn't fire anyone in his administration for the flagrant security lapses prior to 9/11, while several Indian officials have already resigned their posts..which actually leads me to believe that the Indian government did receive actionable intelligence from the outgoing Bush administration, but failed to act on this information, probably because the "intelligence" credibility of the Bush administration is so low around the world, but as it is said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: Paul Sorrells | December 3, 2008 2:40 AM