We are Mumbai; They are al Qaeda

By Tobias Ziegler

The world’s attention is focused on the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Although the situation is not settled, the final death toll is not known, and the gunmen continue to hold hostages, a natural question has arisen – who are the attackers and why did they do it? Foreign policy commentators are noting something about the expert wisdom regarding these events:

An interesting article by Alan Cowell and Mark McDonald in today’s New York Times reveals an inconvenient truth about analysts who study terrorism: they often have wildly divergent views about the same events.

Fortunately, we have Andrew Bolt on the ground in Melbourne. He knows exactly what is going on – and he tells us about it in today’s column. It is “An attack on us all.” Thanks to our intrepid and insightful columnist, we know the following:

• The attacks targeted places where Westerners and Jews in India are likely to be – thus, it was an attack on the West.
• The attacks were probably carried out by “al-Qaida or associated Islamist groups” – because they hate the West.
• Responsibility for the attacks has been claimed by a previously unheard-of group named the “Deccan Mujahideen”, which some experts have suggested may be the same group as the “Indian Mujahideen”. But these local groups don’t have the resources or organisation to pull off an attack of this magnitude.
• The aim of the attack “seems to be to split the country from the West.”
• This is not George W. Bush’s fault. These attacks are the exception that prove the rule – terrorist attacks have dropped since 9/11. These devastating and brutal attacks in India are a sign of Al Qaeda’s desperation as they are reduced to focusing on the “easier target” of India.
• The only way these attacks will end is for all Muslims to love freedom and be horrified by the notion of jihad.

Now, let’s be clear. It is plausible that at least some of Bolt’s assertions about the attacks will turn out to be right. As the attackers are neutralised and identified, a clearer picture of who is directly responsible, why they carried out the attacks, and what (if any) support they had from international organisations will emerge.

But the degree of uncertainty and the number of competing theories out there at the moment highlight something – terrorism and international relations are exceedingly complex issues. There are many radical groups in the world, with many different motivations. These attacks may relate to the dispute over the Kashmir region; they may relate to internal rifts within India; and they may have some connection to groups who want to see Westerners die.

But for an Australian writer to boil all of this down to a global conflict between two irreoncilable groups – “the West” and Islam – is foolish. It does not give one’s readers a genuine understanding of why these particular atrocities were committed by these particular people at this particular time. What’s more, it disregards the fact that “the West” are not the only people affected by this – while Australians and others have been killed in these attacks, so have people from India – and they have been dying in bombings that have occurred regularly in recent times. This is happening on their streets; even those who are not victims of the violence are affected by it. To sit in one’s office in Melbourne and tell everyone that this is all about us is both arrogant and ignorant.

In short, my impression of Bolt’s column is this – it’s a complex world out there, and Andrew Bolt’s mind is far too simple to do it justice.