The Evolution of Terrorist Tactics

The gunmen calmly walked through a transit depot heavily armed, carrying assault rifles, hand grenades, satchels of provisions along with a steely commitment to deliver nothing but complete and total carnage. As they approached a restaurant teeming with international travelers and locals, they raised their weapons to their expressionless faces and pulled the triggers. A mass of life evaporated like "whisps of smoke". When the gunfire and screaming stopped, with shell casings slowly and effortlessly rolling across the floor, the only common factor the victims (innocent men, women and children) had was that they were DEAD.

Thus the world watched in horror as 10 terrorists from the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba laid siege to the city of Mumbai, India, a metropolis of over 14 million people, from 26 November through 29 November, 2008. When it was all over, 179 were killed, 308 wounded and property losses were staggering, while a nation was left scared forever.

Murder with a difference

The Mumbai attacks were unique in that it was a stark break away from the typical hit and run tactics employed against a numerically superior force. Throughout history terrorists usually opt for a quick strike, preferably by remote means such as a bombing, affording them the opportunity to get away and fight another day, and therefore continue the struggle. In Iraq and Afghanistan this assault method has been perfected and carried out by either an IED or VBIED with devastating effectiveness. However, Mumbai was different. There was no hit and run, quick get-away or remote detonation of an IED. The Mumbai attacks were bold, assertive, logistically complex and destructive. The attackers openly established themselves within the city and fought a long, protracted, battle that tied up thousands of security forces and captivated the world. The terrorists never had an exit strategy, rather their plan called for the continuation of killing until they were ultimately killed.

After action analysis of the attack would reveal that the assault started days earlier on the high seas when the terrorists overtook a fishing vessel while en-transit from one country to another, killed the crew and made a waterborne insertion into the city. Preparation for the attack (from conception to execution) took about a year, required extensive intelligence gathering and logistical support. The operators, or shooters, were recruited, indoctrinated, trained and equipped much like U.S. Navy SEALS or British SBS troopers instead of low-educated or poorly trained conscripts. This event, start to finish, had the hallmark of a military operation executable by only a very few modern, industrialized, countries in the world. Or was it? Could it be that a highly orchestrated military operation can be carried out by terrorists for more future attacks? Who is responsible for the knowledge transfer? Will this trend continue instead of the usual bombing attacks here and there?

Spread of Knowledge

With the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and the general thaw of the Cold War, meant that thousands of military trainers, researchers and hardware providers from around the globe were out of work. In one respect, when the U.S. and Soviet Union were squared off the rest of the world remained in a geopolitical balance. When the Cold War ended, all that changed and a new kind of flux was created which helped further spread terrorism ideology. Combine the increase of extremist views with the proliferation of military technology and knowledge, and the end result are terrorists trained and equipped to the capabilities of special-forces teams.

Col. Dan Dickerson (USA ret.) is a former special forces and intelligence qualified professional soldier who has personally walked through terrorist training camps and made direct observations that cause the rest of us to cringe. The evidence he saw left behind suggests the following: