Forum

In 2001 the USA had the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
It has become vogue to call it the 9/11 Tragedy, as if it was a
hurricane or an earthquake, but it was not. It was an act done by men,
evil men. A few years later, both Spain and England faced similar
events. And now India. I am not so schooled in geo-politics to try to
draw strategic significance here. All I can do is to draw operational
similarities in the hope of understanding my enemy better and thus be
able to defeat him. Similarly, to be able to teach my students to
defeat him.

Here is what we know thus far –

1). The attackers were organized into buddy pairs,
allowing one to shoot while the other moved, and so forth. The buddy
pair, or “Two Man Team” is a development of small unit tactics very
prevalent in SWAT operations. For urban close quarters battle, where
areas tend to be compartmentalized, it makes sense for each room to be
“taken” by two men. It is not hard to develop the skills of a two man
team. For example, we teach a team tactics course and after two days
of instruction, attendees are quite well skilled in working through any
problem as a well oiled team. It is obvious that these terrorists had
a good amount of exposure to this material.

2). While we don't know everything yet, it appears the two man teams operated autonomously in Mumbai. That means that while they had an overall objective, how they achieved
that was up to the individual team itself. Now we see the autonomous
two-man team, well drilled, practiced, each with its own set of
objectives, and apparently in contact with one another. If you think
about it, this was a bigger, better planned Columbine with multiple and
much better prepared shooters.

3). Until the “elite operators” showed up later, it doesn't appear that the “armed police” did much to stop them at all.
I have never been to India, but if the training and pay of their local
police is anything like what I have seen in the many Third World
nations I have visited, I don't expect the terrorists would have met
much resistance from anyone in authority. After all – if they give you
an old Enfield with no ammo and $150 per month to live on, do you
really want to jump into the lion's mouth?

4). India is a very restrictive place as far as civilian ownership of weapons, and the likelihood of anyone present being armed was slim. Regardless, I think this is once
again
indicative of how an armed civilian may have been able to stop at least
one of the two man elements. Those who wish to argue the point will be
referred to the British reporter who commented that if he'd had a gun
he would have killed both of the terrorists he saw (because no one else
was even trying to do so!)

6). Here in CONUS, or anywhere else in the world, if you rely on the authorities for your protection and safety you are a fool.
They cannot protect you. True, that sometimes you cannot protect
yourself either, but the point is that to surrender your right (or
tools) to self-defense because someone else is telling you they will
protect you is stupid. We keep seeing the results of that mentality.
Only you can protect you.

7). There is evidence that the terrorists were “strong and well toned”, and that they were using steroids and other drugs to fight better. Now
we aren't going to suggest that doping up is a good thing for those who
would fight against those guys, but it does show that your adversary
will not be the push-over some think he will be. Look at the photo
above. You see a fit young man with what looks like a Romanian AK. He
has two magazines taped together just like the Russian Spetznas do, and
his trigger finger is off the trigger. These guys were serious,
dedicated, and did their homework.

I am certain we will be hearing more and more about the
Mumbai event in the coming months. We have been discussing this at
length in the Fighting Terrorism Section of warrior talk. As more info
becomes available, we will pass it on to you.