Ashley Tellis on Lessons from Mumbai Attacks

Just a quotation from his testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:

... India has unfortunately become the "sponge" that protects us all. India’s very proximity to Pakistan, which has developed into the epicenter of global terrorism during the last thirty years, has resulted in New Delhi absorbing most of the blows unleashed by those terrorist groups that treat it as a common enemy along with Israel, the United States, and the West more generally. To the chagrin of its citizens, India has also turned out to be a terribly soft state neither able to prevent many of the terrorist acts that have confronted it over the years nor capable of retaliating effectively against either its terrorist adversaries or their state sponsors in Pakistan. The existence of unresolved problems, such as the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, has also provided both Pakistani institutions and their terrorist clients with the excuses necessary to bleed India to "death by a thousand cuts." But these unsettled disputes remain only excuses: not that they should not be addressed by New Delhi seriously and with alacrity, there is no assurance that a satisfactory resolution of these problems will conclusively eliminate the threat of terrorism facing India and the West more generally.

This is because the most vicious entities now engaged in attacks on India, like LeT, have objectives that go way beyond Kashmir itself. Rather, they seek to destroy what is perhaps the most successful example of a thriving democracy in the non-Western world, one that has prospered despite the presence of crushing poverty, incredible diversity, and a relatively short history of self-rule. India’s existence as a secular and liberal democratic state that protects political rights and personal freedoms—despite all its failures and imperfections—thus remains a threat to groups such as LeT, with their narrow, blighted, and destructive worldviews, as well as to praetorian, anti-democratic, institutions such as the Pakistan Army and the ISI. India, accordingly, becomes an attractive target, while its mistakes, inadequacies, and missteps only exacerbate the opportunities for violence directed at its citizenry.

Yet it would be a gross error to treat the terrorism facing India — including the terrible recent atrocities — as simply a problem for New Delhi alone. In a very real sense, the outrage in Bombay was fundamentally a species of global terrorism not merely because the assailants happened to believe in an obscurantist brand of Islam but, more importantly, because killing Indians turned out to be simply interchangeable with killing citizens of some fifteen different nationalities for no apparent reason whatsoever. If the United States fails to recognize that the struggle against terrorism ought to be indivisible because Indian security is as important to New Delhi as American security is to Washington, future Indian governments could choose to respond to the problems posed by Pakistani groups such as LeT in ways that may undermine regional security and make the U.S. effort to transform Pakistan more difficult than it already it. Avoiding these sub-optimal outcomes requires the Obama administration to treat Indian concerns about terrorism more seriously than the United States has done thus far. [Full text, PDF]

Testimonies by others are also available.

Aside: This should explain why some folks (Amit Varma, Vir Sanghvi) are so terribly wrong. But then, that had been established already.

Questions For Sarah Palin

Looks like everyone has a few questions to ask the Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, now that she has granted her first interview as the GOP's VP-nominee.

Jack Shafer at Slate asks the following 10 questions:

1. What Bush administration policy do you disagree with most, and what would you have done differently?


2. How are you like Hillary Clinton?


3. You're running as a reformer, a crusader against the special interests and politics as usual. Setting aside for a moment Sen. Ted Stevens' legal problems, should Alaska return to the Senate this Republican who has delivered more pork to his state than virtually any other elected official? Yes or no?


4. Unique among all U.S. governors, you lead a state that shares a border with Russia, a sometimes hostile nation with a nuclear arsenal and new geopolitical ambitions. Given that, how do you evaluate Vladimir Putin?


5. Do you still disagree with John McCain's position that global warming is caused by man? If you've changed your mind in the last couple of weeks, please tell me why you changed your mind and when that happened.


6. On the campaign trail or as vice president, will you try to persuade Mr. McCain to adopt your position on drilling in ANWAR? Or have you adopted his?


7. Were you for the bridge to nowhere before you were against it?


8. For most in the nation, you're an unknown quantity. What questions should the press be asking you?


9. What have you learned about foreign policy from John McCain since joining the ticket?


10. Your son is being sent to Iraq. What is he fighting for?

He also has follow-ups to many of these questions. This is the list that I liked the most. As they say, read the whole thing [10 Questions for Sarah Palin]

The Foreign Policy magazine has put up a list of 20 questions they would like to ask her. Quite naturally, most questions on this list deal with foreign policy. I would have liked it more if they hadn't included trivia-type questions in it (naming world leaders, listing books, is Iraq a democracy, which world leader would you meet first and why etc.).

Huffington post also has a list of 20 questions for her, but it seems to be unusually heavy on sensationalism.

The Anchorage Daily News, a newspaper based in Alaska, pitches in with 9 questions of its own.