Perceiving the Mumbai attacks

updated

As we're all aware, Mumbai was victimized by some savage human behavior over the last week. The standoff was simultaneously gripping and painful to watch.

I was not glued to the couch or the internet all weekend, so I didn't not follow every single development as it unfolded. Rather, I checked in periodically. Five minutes here, twenty minutes there.

Is it inappropriate of me to suggest the US media coverage of Mumbai attacks was horrendous?

I haven't seen much discussion of this elsewhere.

I thought US coverage was dangerously sensational. I got the sense that they were reporting every last rumor they heard on the ground without getting any confirmation. I also sense a perverse enthusiasm for tying the attacks to the Pakistani government.

I know there are certain reasons this attack garnered so much attention compared to other terrorist attacks in the recent past but I'd just like to point out:

In 2004, Spain was rocked by an attack on a passenger train which killed 191 people and wounded an additional 1,775.

In 2006, attackers set off several bombs on a train in Mumbai, killing over 200 and wounding 700.

Since the start of our War in Iraq, attacks yielding similarly grisly death totals have occurred with tragic frequency.

In 2004, gunman killed over 1000 in Beslan, Russia, over the course of a three day standoff.

In Pakistan, an attack on Benazir Bhutto's motorcade, not long before her assassination, killed 140 and wounded several hundred.

Maybe I'm misremembering, and please correct me, but I do not recall media coverage for any of the above attacks being in the same ballpark as what we observed this past week. These recent Mumbai attacks yielded wall-to-wall live coverage on the cable news, including the preempting of late-night reruns of that prison lock down show they normally put on MSNBC.

There are a lot of reasons this recent attack resonated in the US. For one, its level of sophistication was out of the ordinary. Second, the attacks targeted cultural landmarks, the rich, and Westerners. Third, the attacks were drawn out over a few days.

There is some difference in the coverage of a bombing attack which is a singular brute event and an attack by gunmen, which requires a different breed of attacker and a more skillful police response.

We also know how volatile the region is, particularly when it became clear that Pakistan would have to provide some cooperation.

Nonetheless, I was still struck by how the attack made time stop for the US television media in the midst of a Presidential transition and a financial crisis. Someone I was talking to about this wondered if the Mumbia attacks garnered so much attention because it was a slow holiday news weekend. I considered this but it wouldn't explain why cable news networks would preempt previously scheduled programing. Nor does it make any sense given how the media has seemed to enjoy chewing over the 'team of rivals' thing. I could be wrong about that. Even my beloved Talking Points Memo unveiled the rarely used big headline format to announce the Mumbai attacks as the top story. I was surprised when I encountered this.

The other major thing I noticed was the brazen fashion in which many outlet reported on the attackers' "ties to Pakistan" when it was revealed that the attackers were from Pakistan. This observation may turn out to be moot, as there does seem to be some reasonable suspicions at this point. But I was really struck with the jump to conclusion. And yes, I am familiar with the US cable media.

Sorry that this has been a little disorganized. I don't have a thesis or a conclusion or anything. I'm just wondering if people perceived the coverage of the event similarly. I have come to expect sensational coverage of events out of the US media but I was surprised by the extent to which the Mumbai attacks dominated. Anybody else?

What am I missing?

Update:

This afternoon, NPR's Phillip Reeves delivered a great report from Mumbia that outlined the outrage of everyday Indians at their own government, not just for their response to these attacks, but for widespread failures. Protests are scheduled and word is spreading fast using the tools of new media.

It will be interesting to see how India's government responds to public pressures.

It is wise to be skeptical of India's actions during this crisis, including efforts to use the Pakistan boogieman to divert attention from homegrown shortcomings.

The Dumbest Thing I've Read Today

Mike Huckabee has an interesting take indeed on what should be done in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. This is from the NYT:

“We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

On Friday, in Pella, Iowa, he expanded on those remarks.

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,” he told reporters in Pella. “And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.”

In fact, far more illegal immigrants come from the Philippines, Korea, China and Vietnam, according to recent estimates from the Department of Homeland Security.

---

“The fact is that the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it’s about someone coming with a shoulder-fired missile,” he said.

Wow. Where do I start? Almost leaves you speechless it's so crazy.

He's using Bhutto's assassination as justification to build a wall on our border with Mexico - absolutely nuts. Ridiculously irrational.

This is THE typical reaction that some sort of grassroots conservative charismatic leader might have. It plays upon all of the fears, insecurities, and international ignorance of the vote base he seeks. I would very much like to see Barack Obama destroy Mr. Huckabee in a landslide next November.

We're all waiting with baited breath for Mitthew Romney's pathetic attempt to outflank these Huckabee comments from an even more irrational right-wing mindset.

Bush, Musharraf, and Bhutto

From Time Magazine:

Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. "Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration," he says. "People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration." U.S. officials said they were leery of intervening in another nation's internal affairs, and didn't want to give Bhutto Washington's imprimatur.

Haqqani is not shy about pointing fingers. He blames Musharraf himself, above all, for Bhutto's death. "It's quite clear that Musharraf does not want an election — you can quote me — he is the one who has constantly wanted anybody who can threaten him or his power, out." Haqqani told Congress in October that U.S. aid for Pakistan has for too long been tilted toward the Pakistani military. "Since 1954 almost $21 billion had been given to Pakistan in aid," he told the House Armed Services Committee. "Of this, $17.7 billion were given under military rule, and only $3.4 billion was given to Pakistan and the civilian government."

This whole Pakistan thing might bump the younger Spears' pregnancy for awhile.

This stinks.

Update: There's more.

This is from Trudy Rubin, one of the wiser foreign affairs columnists I've read. She was supposed to interview Benazir Bhutto the night she was assassinated:

The mood here reminds me of the overwhelming grief, the clinging to family and television news, that followed John F. Kennedy's assassination. But there's a big difference: Pakistanis are angry at this murder, an anger that has already led to violence and could rock the country. And just about every Pakistani with whom I spoke blamed her death not on al-Qaeda, but on their own government - and the United States.

I'd be furious too. I don't know if urging them to stay calm (see: Bush, Musharraf) will satiate an outraged people's thirst for justice. I support the people of Pakistan. I hope they're in favor of having secure nuclear weapons even if there must be volatile mass mobilizations. Restraint would be a virtuous, given the potential global consequences of any more instability. I can't say I would be capable of demonstrating that type of wisdom in their shoes.

Everyone should pay attention now.

UPDATE II:

Because unfortunately, there is even more.

The top story at the Washington Post: "U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan"

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
--
"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

Simultaneously, the top story at CNN: "Bhutto said she'd blame Musharraf if killed"

Two months before her death, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sent an e-mail to her U.S. adviser and longtime friend, saying that if she were killed, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would bear some of the blame.
--

"Nothing will, God willing happen," she wrote to Mark Siegel, her U.S. spokesman, lobbyist and friend.

"Just wanted u to know if it does in addition to the names in my letter to Musharaf of Oct 16nth, I wld hold Musharaf responsible. I have been made to feel insecure by his minions and there is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides cld happen without him."

I don't like this at all. Not one bit.
It's impossible not to feel utterly helpless on this one now. We're all just waiting for the immediate aftershocks of all this.

Go read excellent background and analysis from someone way smarter than me, his name is Juan Cole. Click it!Click it!

Consequences Become Glaringly Apparent: The Assissination of Benazir Bhutto

Shocking, they call it. They're all saying they're shocked and outraged and saddened.

But this is no shock. She knew she was a target, everyone knew she was a target.

In October, massive blasts killed over 130 people in a failed assassination attempt. People have wanted Benazir Bhutto dead since the moment she returned to Pakistan from exile.

From the NYT:

...Ms. Bhutto blamed extremist Islamic groups who she said wanted to take over the country for that attack, which narrowly missed her but killed 134 people. But she also complained that the government had taken insufficient steps to safeguard her parade.

The government has maintained that she ignored its warnings against such public gatherings and that holding them placed herself and her followers in unnecessary danger.

The assassination comes just days after Mr. Musharraf lifted a state of emergency in the country, which he had used to suspend the Constitution and arrest thousands of political opponents, and which he said he had imposed in part because of terrorist threats by extremists in Pakistan.

With frustration in Washington growing over Mr. Musharraf’s shortcomings, and his delays in returning the country to civilian rule, Ms. Bhutto had become an appealing solution for the country. She was openly critical of Mr. Musharraf’s ineffectiveness at dealing with Islamic militants and welcomed American involvement.

Bush administration officials began working behind the scenes over the summer to help Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Musharraf create a power-sharing deal to orchestrate a transition to democracy that would leave Mr. Musharraf in the presidency, while not making a mockery of President Bush’s attempts to push democracy in the Muslim world.

Interesting. I think most people would agree that President Bush's attempts to push democracy in the Muslim world have already been a mockery.

It is peculiar, given the suspicions that will arise as a result of the assassination, that Condoleezza Rice and President Bush pegged so much of their policy toward Pakistan on the ability to forge a reconciliation government in which power was shared between Bhutto and Musharraf. After the first assassination attempt on Bhutto, Musharraf's decision to declare emergency rule, Bhutto's public concerns over Musharraf's desire to provide her security, did the Bush administration not think it was necessary to intervene more aggressively on Bhutto's behalf? Did the Bush administration not consider Musharraf's lukewarm attempts to protect Bhutto, let alone include her in government, to represent an intentional resistance to US policy on Pakistan? (The same Pakistani policy that Bush badly needed so that his foreign policy would not be made into a mockery.)

Maybe this particular embarrassment wouldn't have come to pass had our President focused his War on Terror on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. His refusal to pursue bin Laden and to completely stabilize the democracy in Afghanistan is a primary reason for the political instability in Pakistan, now that the Taliban has regrouped and is starting to regain control of the tribal areas on the Pakistani-Afghani border.

Instead, we sent all of our military and diplomatic resources somewhere else.


We invaded Iraq.

...while not making a mockery of President Bush’s attempts to push democracy in the Muslim world.

Yup.

Now, the tenuous stability in Pakistan has been completely undermined.

Juan Cole:

The Pakistani authorities are blaming Muslim militants for the assassination. That is possible, but everyone in Pakistan remembers that it was the military intelligence, or Inter-Services Intelligence, that promoted Muslim militancy in the two decades before September 11 as a wedge against India in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) faithful will almost certainly blame Pervez Musharraf, and sentiment here is more important than reality, whatever the reality may be.

There are now reports of riots in various cities throughout Pakistan.

President Bush is on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The first name that crossed my mind when I heard about Ms. Bhutto's assassination was Franz Ferdinand. Remember when the biggest story was a blow job? I miss that.

Pakistan

An essential video is making the rounds... h/t to Attytood, who will provide this introduction:

This is a video of Imran Kahn, an opposition political leader and former cricket star in Pakistan -- filmed at an undisclosed location as he seeks to dodge arrest by the forces of his country's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. I would encourage everyone interested in the crisis in this critical South Asian nation to take the three-and-a-half minutes or so to watch it -- it does the best job of laying out the issues in Musharraf's bogus state of emergency. (It's on a very useful Pakistani opposition blog with the strange name of Teeth Maestro -- that was linked in turn by the New York Times.)

He says the one thing he wants Westerners to know is this: ""He's not fighting a war on terror. All he's trying to do is prolong his dictatorial rule."

(Don't even say it...)