The Unknown Unknowns
Anne Applebaum writes at Slate about why the attacks on Mumbai should make us most afraid: because days later, the global experts are still stumbling around trying to figure out who these people are.
It's not that we haven't made any advances. As Applebaum points out, it is only a matter of time before we trace the intelligence we have and figure out how to categorize the Mumbai terrorists. We now have a vastly more complex understanding of who commits acts of terror, and the many reasons for which they do so. We are, I hope, becoming more adept at identifying the place of particular acts or groups within the matrix of motivations, techniques, and networks of alliance that is (post-)modern terrorism.
But the fact that attacks such as these could come out of the blue, with no immediately obvious source or target, signifies that terrorism is still a renewable resource. In part because of the "franchise model" of Al-Qaida that Applebaum describes, the greatest danger will always be posed by the enemy we haven't met yet.
Rumsfeld said it best -- "but there are the unknown unknowns -- the things we do not know that we do not know."
In the coming days, more will surely be learned about the gunmen, some of whom have been captured by the Indian police. Their weapons will be traced, their motives will become clearer, their methods better understood. Their leaders will acquire names and personalities. Still, it is worth underlining, emphasizing, and remembering this initial moment of total ignorance: If nothing else, it's a reminder of some things we learned on Sept. 11, 2001.Or perhaps we should say, didn't quite learn.
It's not that we haven't made any advances. As Applebaum points out, it is only a matter of time before we trace the intelligence we have and figure out how to categorize the Mumbai terrorists. We now have a vastly more complex understanding of who commits acts of terror, and the many reasons for which they do so. We are, I hope, becoming more adept at identifying the place of particular acts or groups within the matrix of motivations, techniques, and networks of alliance that is (post-)modern terrorism.
But the fact that attacks such as these could come out of the blue, with no immediately obvious source or target, signifies that terrorism is still a renewable resource. In part because of the "franchise model" of Al-Qaida that Applebaum describes, the greatest danger will always be posed by the enemy we haven't met yet.
Rumsfeld said it best -- "but there are the unknown unknowns -- the things we do not know that we do not know."
Advertisement
Well, I'm not sure that you're assertion, "days later, the global experts are still stumbling around trying to figure out who these people are." is strictly accurate.
They had a good idea they would be from Pakistan, and they were.
They were angry, insane, and amoral people that unfortunately, found each other.
Why bother acknowledging anything more than that, and why should it be important?
November 29, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were angry, insane, and amoral people that unfortunately, found each other.
Why bother acknowledging anything more than that, and why should it be important?
Angry and immoral, certainly, although I wouldn't say insane and amoral. To me the greatest threat of terrorism is the way in which it sucks in sane people to do hideous things -- this is the same with all violent ideologies. Terrorist groups can't pose much of a threat if they are made up only of violent ideologues, as there thankfully aren't enough of those to go around. So they look to broaden their appeal.
As for amoral, again I think it's a misunderstanding of terrorist ideology and tactics to say that they have no moral code at all. Rather, they do have very strict and developed moral codes -- just ones that lionize values that are antithetical to our moral codes.
As for the claim of responsibility by the Deccan Mujaheddeen, the point Applebaum was making (and I with her article) is that terrorism experts have never heard of this group before, don't know whether or not it's a front for another preexisting organization, and don't know where it came from if it is actually sui generis. (At least last I read, it's been a day or so.) So, the facts of the case that the NYT reports (who they claim to be, who they killed, where they did it) are sadly ALL we have right now, whereas in order to root out these kind of movements and prevent future attacks we need much more complex understanding.
November 30, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that we give these groups power by splashing them all over our front pages. They shouldn't be given even an acknowledgement of anything but "antisocial monsters" because that is what they are. The fact is, our intelligence agencies have studied these groups repeatedly and have a fair idea of how they think. See:
Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?
Note in the executive summary it states:
That was in 1999.
The problem is communication. Terrorism is more of a law enforcement issue, and should be treated as one. The fact that people in India are calling this their "9/11" stems as much from the reports that their intelligence agencies were ignored--as were ours--as anything else.
These folks may have a legitimate beef, but they are going about addressing it in ways that are out and out evil.
It's high time we called them out as the lawless thugs they are, and quit making excuses for them.
They are cowards.
November 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do they always have to be insane and amoral ? Once again, people with issues have got our attention; it would be nice if there was another way, but they aren't always the crazies -- maybe they were this time, but we don't know yet.
November 29, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indiscriminate killing is insane and immoral.
Period.
November 30, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure insane applies here. Planning to kill takes sanity. Perhaps the act of it requires a suspension of your sanity. I don't know, since I've never been called upon to do it. But think of soldiers, in any army. People who are perfectly sane but who serve because they want to or because they are drafted to. In that case, I would argue that the killing could sometimes be indiscriminate--they aim where they're told to aim, but are all of them really thinking through the why of it?
As for immoral, I agree with Kristen that terrorists seem to have a moral code all their own. Killing innocent people seems immoral to me. But so does killing pretty much full stop. Except in extreme cases of self defense.
November 30, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, soldiers in an army are acting in self-defense. They are fighting other armies in battles that have defined limits as to what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate targets. When those lines become blurred, we get what we have now. Hundreds of thousands of damaged PTSD-laden soldiers suffering from attacks of guilt, shock, and dread.
To voluntarily buy into using innocent civillians as targets, given the thousands of years of societal conditioning to the contrary is truly insane.
Further, the ability to make insane plans is fully a part of the definition, but I don't really want to argue semantics with ya, Orlando.
November 30, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that what this shows us all is that everyone who is not into being a terrorist is vulnerable. And that sucks.
Humans attacking one another, it just sounds so stupid when you think about it. Countries mean nothing to a globe called Earth.
It's my hope that someday, before we kill our planet, we'll all see how useless fighting each other really proves to be.
November 30, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink