[Reader-list] Time to put Pak on notice: US security expert

[Aditya Raj Kaul]

Time to put Pak on notice: US security expert

*Shloka Nath* <http://ibnlive.in.com/news/author/Shloka+Nath/> / *
Forbes-Network18* <http://ibnlive.in.com/news/agency/Forbes-Network18/>

Link -
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/time-to-put-pak-on-notice-us-security-expert/79492-2.html

Uncomfortable questions are being asked about how India's intelligence
failed to detect the plan for Mumbai attacks. US security expert Alex
Alexiev blames it on India's poor grasp of terror dynamics and lack of
coordination between various agencies.

Alexiev is the vice president for research at Center for Security Policy,
Washington DC and has directed several research projects for the US Defense
Department. His present research focuses on issues related to Islamic
extremism and terrorism. In a telephone interview to Network18 from his home
in California, he tells Shloka Nath that the time has come to put Pakistan
on notice.

What do you think is the reason behind the Mumbai attacks?

What happened in Mumbai didn't come as a surprise. Actually, the reason the
attacks took place was because India had not bothered to understand the
basics of what was happening. There is a deeper malignancy at work here and
we are at war with a radical totalitarian interpretation of Islam. With
every passing year since the 9/11 incident, the world situation has only got
worse – not better. India is a good example of the deteriorating effects of
terrorism. India is not willing to accept that there are harmful sects
within its own borders which are supported by Pakistan.

The last time I was in India, I was shocked to hear Government officials at
a conference on security in India. They stood up and said there has never
been an Indian Muslim who was a terrorist. Most might be peaceful but a lot
are not. There is certainly radicalization in India and it's a problem that
needs to be addressed.

What lessons can India learn from the way America stepped up its security
after 9/11?

We have done better than India in stopping attacks. But, in India, there is
very little active coordination and sharing of information between different
organizations. India today is what the USA was before 9/11 when the FBI and
CIA did not even talk to each other. The lack of coordination has to be
looked into.

The other thing is poor equipment. The police sent to confront the
terrorists had ordinary handguns while the terrorists were better armed. You
need to spend whatever money necessary to give your police the right tools
so they can deal with all kinds of situations effectively. A well-known
police chief of New York City -- William Bratton – says all terrorism is
local because ultimately, when it happens, it's local. It's on your shores.
The police are the first line of deterrence rather than the last. But the
police in India are almost like a marginal factor in counter terrorism. It's
the police who know the locals and the neighborhoods and there has to be
some level of effective local intelligence.

One of the positive steps we have taken in the US has been to set up
terrorism intelligence centers where various agencies of government and
local police work side by side. For example, in Los Angeles, you have the
FBI, CIA, LA police and various other agencies like the fire department and
the airport police all working together. They are intelligence fusion
centers, if you will, and are functioning in several other large cities.
These professionals sit in the same office, the same department and they
become colleagues as opposed to different competing departments. In India,
they need to cooperate closely and make sure that no lead goes cold.

Think of the economic damage done by shutting down Mumbai for a day or two
-- the billions of dollars lost. The cost of effective policing is actually
a very good economic investment. You need to train your police force the
best way you can.

India's Prime Minister is thinking of a crime-fighting agency along the
lines of America's Homeland Security model. What are the benefits and
disadvantages in implementing such a framework?

The USA's Department of Homeland Security consolidates 22 agencies and
18,000 employees. It unifies the fragmented federal functions into a single
agency dedicated to protecting America from terrorism. But the issue about a
Homeland Security (HS) system is that it cuts both ways. Due to a complete
lack of cooperation between intelligence agencies it is good to have one
place where they can exchange views. Under the HS, there is a Joint
Terrorism Task Force, a place at the Federal level where representatives of
CIA, FBI and all others sit together and work like the city-level fusion
centers I just mentioned. That is very good.

However, on the other hand, bringing all the existing agencies under a
single roof could, in a way, mean adding another layer of bureaucracy. I'm
in two minds -- because when the HS was formed it was supposed to be an
organization where everything was coordinated. It was meant to rally
together the separate agencies in the US -- and there were many: The Armed
Forces -- the Army, Marine, Navy, the Defense Intelligence Agency, a
military organisation, and the NSA military spying agency, the CIA and the
FBI. We had so many receptacles for information but no cooperation among
ourselves.

Right now, fingers are pointing towards Pakistan. Is this simply a
knee-jerk, emotional reaction one can expect from India at this time?

I have spent an extensive amount of time in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And
the one thing I have learnt is that all terrorism is, to some extent,
state-sponsored. Let's be frank. Nearly all terrorist attempts in India can
said to have been sponsored by Pakistan. Take Lashkar-e-Toiba, the child of
the ISI that continues to be supported by them. You just can't separate
terrorist attacks in India from Jihadi outfits in Pakistan. Many who were
banned under the Musharraf regime have simply renamed themselves and
continued to operate and be supported by the ISI.

The current Pakistani government knows that the ISI is a state within the
state. Look at the number of ISI chiefs who turn out to be zealous Islamists
after they retire. The raison d'etre of the Pakistan military depends on
India's image as an enemy. Because, without it, how do you justify spending
40% of the country's income on the military?

And I'm not sure if America has recognized that Pakistan today is not a
state with a military but a military with a state. Personally, I thought
America's policy with Musharraf was misguided – Washington thinks Pakistan
is a strategic ally. We don't understand that actually we may be losing
Afghanistan because of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's support for extremists.
We know the ISI is behind the bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul. If they
can attack the sovereign territory of a neighbor, why would it come as a
surprise if they chose to attack India's business centre? For some reason
there is this pervasive belief that if you don't speak of evil it will go
away. The fact is, it won't. And the time has come to put Pakistan on
notice.

The other fascinating thing is the Dawood connection - another example of
the state sponsoring terrorism. We know Dawood is protected and given refuge
and allowed to operate his criminal empire by the ISI and now it looks like
he could be one of the guys involved in this. So you have a possible
organized crime and terror nexus – who made that possible?

India's government needs to wake up to what's happening and what's coming
down the pipe. There are terrorist incidents in India every one or two
months, which are really disruptive. How long can you tolerate that?

*Shloka Nath is a senior features writer at the new business magazine to be
launched by Network18 in alliance with Forbes, USA.*