CJ 530 SNHU Analysis of attack MUMBAI ATTACK 2008 I have included the rubrix and prior work on the attack below. Past Response and Alternatives: In this se
CJ 530 SNHU Analysis of attack MUMBAI ATTACK 2008 I have included the rubrix and prior work on the attack below. Past Response and Alternatives: In this section, you will focus on how the government of the country in which the attack occurred responded to the
event. You will also consider the impacts of the government’s response and suggest an alternative response.
o Discuss decisions that were made and policies that were created in response to the attack to discourage terrorism, and explain the intended
purpose of those decisions. You may consider both foreign and domestic policies.
o Explain the unintended consequences of those decisions and policies. Consider the following:
Did the response negatively impact relationships with other countries?
Did the response unintentionally encourage terrorism?
o Describe how other countries were impacted by the response, using supporting examples.
o Discuss the lessons learned from the government’s response. In hindsight, what did the government do wrong? What did it do right?
o Suggest a specific way in which the government could have responded differently to the terrorist attack.
o Explain how this alternative response could have changed the current state of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack. In other
words, if that alternative response had been used, how might the terrorist organization have been more or less of a threat to the world today? CJ 530 Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric
Prompt: In previous milestones, you researched the history and background of your chosen attack and analyzed its impact. In this milestone, you will focus on
the impact of the response to the attack. In addition, you will propose alternative responses. You will base these alternative responses on the information you
gathered during your analysis of the attack.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
Past Response and Alternatives: In this section, you will focus on how the government of the country in which the attack occurred responded to the
event. You will also consider the impacts of the government’s response and suggest an alternative response.
o Discuss decisions that were made and policies that were created in response to the attack to discourage terrorism, and explain the intended
purpose of those decisions. You may consider both foreign and domestic policies.
o Explain the unintended consequences of those decisions and policies. Consider the following:
Did the response negatively impact relationships with other countries?
Did the response unintentionally encourage terrorism?
o Describe how other countries were impacted by the response, using supporting examples.
o Discuss the lessons learned from the government’s response. In hindsight, what did the government do wrong? What did it do right?
o Suggest a specific way in which the government could have responded differently to the terrorist attack.
o Explain how this alternative response could have changed the current state of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack. In other
words, if that alternative response had been used, how might the terrorist organization have been more or less of a threat to the world today?
Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be a 3- to 5-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch
margins, and at least two sources cited in APA format.
Critical Elements
Proficient (100%)
Past Response and Discusses decisions that were
Alternatives: Decisions made and policies that were
and Policies
created in response to the attack
to discourage terrorism, and
explains the intended purpose of
those decisions
Needs Improvement (80%)
Not Evident (0%)
Value
Discusses decisions that were
made and policies that were
created in response to the attack
to discourage terrorism, but does
not explain the intended purpose
of those decisions at the time, or
response is cursory or contains
inaccuracies
Does not discuss decisions that
were made and policies that were
created in response to the attack
to discourage terrorism
15
Past Response and
Alternatives:
Unintended
Consequences
Explains the unintended
consequences of the decisions
and policies
Explains the unintended
consequences of the decisions
and policies, but explanation is
cursory or contains inaccuracies
Does not explain the unintended
consequences of the decisions
and policies
17
Past Response and
Alternatives: Other
Countries
Describes how other countries
were impacted by the response,
using supporting examples
Describes how other countries
were impacted by the response
but does not use supporting
examples, or examples are
inappropriate, or description
contains inaccuracies
Does not describe how other
countries were impacted by the
response
15
Past Response and Discusses the lessons learned
Discusses the lessons learned
Does not discuss the lessons
Alternatives: Lessons from the government’s response from the government’s response, learned from the government’s
Learned
but discussion is cursory or
response
illogical or contains inaccuracies
15
Past Response and Suggests a specific way in which
Alternatives:
the government could have
Responded Differently responded differently to the
terrorist attack
Suggests a way in which the
government could have
responded differently to the
terrorist attack, but suggestion is
vague or inappropriate for the
situation
Does not suggest a way in which
the government could have
responded differently to the
terrorist attack
16
Past Response and Explains how the alternative
Alternatives:
response could have changed the
Alternative Response current state of the terrorist
organization responsible for the
attack
Explains how the alternative
response could have changed the
current state of the terrorist
organization, but explanation is
cursory or illogical
Does not explain how the
alternative response could have
changed the current state of the
terrorist organization
17
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
5
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Total
100%
Running head: TERRORISM MUMBAI ATTACK
Terrorism Mumbai Attack
Name
Institutional Affiliation
1
TERRORISM MUMBAI ATTACK
2
Terrorism Mumbai Attack
Why the Event Is Considered a Terrorist Attack Instead Of an Act of Violence
In November 26, 2008, militants attacked various high-profile targets in Mumbai, India,
using explosives and automatic weapons. The attack continued for over 60 hours, killing 165
people and nine attackers, and hundreds injured in the process (Kronstadt, 2008). Some of the
prominent sites attacked include the Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi-Trident among locations like a
Jewish cultural center, cinema house, two hospitals, and café, and railway terminal. The event
qualifies as a terrorist group because of the nature of the attack, which officials believe was
orchestrated by a terror group from Pakistan, the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) (Kronstadt, 2008).
Further, the coordinated nature of the attack, for instance, the use of assault weapons,
sophisticated technology like Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and satellite photos spoke to a
level of organization and advanced planning of terrorist groups.
The Ideology and Underlying Motivation of the Terrorist Organization Responsible For
the Attack
Indian officials linked the Mumbai attack to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terror group, a
Pakistani terror group. Using forensic evidence, for instance, phone records, officials were
successful in identifying the 9 terrorists killed in the attack as Pakistani nations (Kronstadt,
2008). The LeT was outlawed by the Islamabad government and is designated as the Foreign
Terrorist Organization in U.S. The LeT is based in Pakistani and seeks an only Islamic rule in the
region of Kashmir, and is a proponent of anti-Western and anti-India struggles. The LeT is
considered an armed wing of the anti-U.S. Sunni religious group which was created in 1989
TERRORISM MUMBAI ATTACK
3
(Kronstadt, 2008). The group is affiliated with Taliban and Al Qaeda and has taken on a more
expansive role and a jihadist perspective.
Draw Connections between the Organizations’ Ideology and the Global Nature of the
Attack.
In the past, the LeT has been implicated in various attacks which had the features of
coordinated movements by gunmen who took hostages. The sophistication and training that the
attackers demonstrated in the Mumbai attack. Over the past, the Pakistani government using its
military and intelligence services has been accused of using Islamist groups to promote regional
policy objectives. There are reports which have connected the Inter-Services Intelligence agency
in Pakistan and the radical Islamist groups in areas like Kashmir. Officials have linked Pakistan
with sponsoring jihad against India. Indian analysts have shown how the attack was orchestrated
by LeT with support from Pakistani intelligence (Rabasa, Blackwill, Chalk, Cragin, & Fair,
2009). The motives of the attack are not clear but most reports show how sentiments by radical
Islamists played a role in the attack. Attackers have been concluded to have been seeking
vengeance for attack on Indian Muslims. Al Qaeda’s global jihadi ideology is also shown as
having played a role in the objective of the attackers.
The Local And Global Impact Of The Attack With Regard To Who Became Involved In
The Response.
The attack elicited calls from the Indian and American counterterrorism units for
cooperation which could be beneficial for both countries. The attack fueled concerns for the
TERRORISM MUMBAI ATTACK
4
policies and capabilities of India with regards to counterterrorism. The attackers extensively used
technology, which presented a challenge for Indian investigators. Reports have shown that
warning was given to Indian authorities by their U.S. intelligence agencies (Kronstadt, 2008).
The American regional policy aimed at promoting stability and precluding conflict between India
and Pakistan and the threat of religious extremists. During the attack, the Bush administration
responded by reaffirming the commitment of the United States to its relationship with India.
Unfortunately, response by Indian authorities demonstrated various key weaknesses in the
counterterrorism and threat mitigation strategies (Kronstadt, 2008). For instance, the country’s
inability to effectively monitor its coastline, lack of specificity and certainty with the attack to
employ preventive measures, and insufficient target hardening.
The Impact Of The Attack On The Terrorist Organization Itself.
The Mumbai attack demonstrated the ability of the LeT to internationalize its targets. The
group has assumed a larger role in the jihadi landscape. Compared to other militant groups, LeT
is believed to have a broader reach into populations in rural areas, and hence making them more
dangerous for countries that have expatriate communities in Pakistani. Moreover, LeT forced
India and other parties to create robust counterterrorism and law enforcement connection. In the
future, LeT improved its position in the jihadi movement, offering training to individuals
radicalized in other countries. The attack unfortunately solidified the position of LeT in the
global landscape (Rabasa, Blackwill, Chalk, Cragin, & Fair, 2009). The attack demonstrated the
capacity of the jihadist organization based in Pakistan to plan and orchestrate a terrorist operation
in neighboring countries. In the context of the group’s attack in India, the attack showed a
TERRORISM MUMBAI ATTACK
5
continuing and escalating campaign by LeT. Beyond India, the Mumbai attack demonstrated the
presence of a strategic terrorist culture which identified objectives and how to achieve them
(Rabasa, Blackwill, Chalk, Cragin, & Fair, 2009). The Mumbai attack proved the rhetoric of the
LeT to make Kashmir a part of the jihad. In doing so, the group emerged as opposed to being a
subsidiary of Al Qaeda, but as an independent part of the jihad movement. In fact, considering
the reduced role of al Qaeda, the attack made LeT a global contender in the jihad movement.
TERRORISM MUMBAI ATTACK
6
References
Kronstadt, K. A. (2008, December). Terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, and implications for US
interests. Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service.
Rabasa, A., Blackwill, R. D., Chalk, P., Cragin, K., & Fair, C. C. (2009). The lessons of
Mumbai (Vol. 249). Rand Corporation.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment