Are Our Big Cities Prepared for a Mumbai-Style Terror Hit?

One of the questions being asked in Britain and in the U.S. is whether there are enough anti-terrorism forces to go after terrorists in multiple locations in the same city, as it happened in Mumbai, India. Rather than army commandos, it would likely be SWAT teams that would be initially deployed in places like New York, L.A., Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta. Britain's got their own version of SWAT.

Focusing in on America, if a terrorist force hit multiple locations in one city and managed to dig in as they did in Mumbai, would there be enough SWAT units and other similar units to quickly deploy and begin immediate operations to secure whatever locations had been seized and rescue the hostages? And would reinforcements be quickly available from the federal government?

India was not prepared for an attack of this magnitude; it took 60 hours for them to clear the buildings that were captured by the terrorists. During that time, the terrorists were shooting hostages.

Are we ready for something like this?

Governments of India and Pakistan Need to Keep Talking: The Region Doesn't Need a War Between Two Nuclear Powers

Indians are asking exactly the same questions of their government that many Americans were asking after the 9/11 disaster in this country. "Why did the government fail to protect us?"

The Indian news media is reporting that the government knew a major attack was coming, but took no steps to warn their people that a disaster of this magnitude might happen in the near future. They kept their silence in the same way that the Bush Administration ignored the previous administration here about how dangerous al-Qaeda was and that an airborne terrorist attack might be mounted.

And India seems to be pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan, even as Pakistan attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric and keep everything low-key. They dispatched their intelligence chief to New Delhi to speak with his Indian counterpart, an act that many Pakistanis were unhappy with, but did so regardless of how it looked in Islamabad.

And Pakistan's president has promised to take action if it is proven that elements in his country were involved. Asif Ali Zardari is the husband of former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto, who was also killed by terrorists last year.

India and Pakistan need to be talking, not arguing and then fighting. They're both nuclear powers, and blowing one another off the map won't help matters. Pakistan really needs to come down on it's extremists, and India must do the same.

Trouble in India Will Mean Disaster Between Pakistan and India: Last Major Attack Almost Brought Two Countries Close to War in 2002

The huge terrorist attacks taking place in India will cause serious problems between Pakistan and India. The Indians have been looking for an excuse to put Pakistan in it's place for a while, and the headline-grabbing terrorism taking place in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) may well provide it.

Kashmir remains a problem between the two countries, and at least one terrorist has cited the troubled region as being the reason for his taking hostages. Terrorists launched an attack on India's government in New Delhi in 2001, and that attack caused over a million Indian and Pakistani troops to take up positions on either side of their shared border and square off for months.

If Kashmir is the cause of this, and it's directed at the government of India, they might turn their attention from Mumbai to Kashmir, and trouble will follow.

I'm getting the impression that there's more than one terror group involved here; one group took a Jewish facility, several others attacked hotels, and others attacked elsewhere. Some have targeted Americans and British citizens; others targeted Jews, still others targeted Indians. Some have released their Western hostages. It's really confusing. If it is one large group, they're hiding their goals quite effectively by going after so many different targets.

It's going to take a while to sort all of this out.