Question: The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai involved a well coordinated, sustained and indiscriminate murder of civilians over a period of several days. Do these attacks represent a change in the way terrorist attacks are being carried out?

Gunaratna: The terrorist attack in Mumbai is a significant departure from the previous attacks the world has witnessed. Ten terrorists were able to disrupt a major city in the world. Mumbai was brought to its knees. The attack in Mumbai demonstrated the vulnerability of urban cities to terrorists who are willing to kill and to die. The international community must learn from Mumbai. It must develop measures to detect, disrupt and to deal with these type of attacks and unless there is significant investment to prevent these kind of attacks the world will witness many more attacks of this nature and scale.

Question: What is the political objective of such attacks?

Gunaratna: The terrorists that mounted the attack in Mumbai were driven by the ideology of Al Qaeda. The ideology of Al Qaeda is in attacking, to use bin Laden’s phrase “crusader and Jewish targets.” But when it comes to India, Al Qaeda also included the Hindus as their enemies. Although the members of the attack team were not members of Al Qaeda, they were deeply inspired and instigated by the philosophy and the methodology of Al Qaeda. They attacked Hindus, they attacked Christians and they attacked Jews. The terrorists specifically looked out for Americans and British nationals and the attack team deliberately targeted a Jewish community center and killed Israelis and Jews. They also killed Indians indiscriminately. It was an attack designed to drive fear and terror. 

Question: Has terrorism evolved from a setting where a weak actor is trying to achieve a certain political objective through hostage taking or assassinations to the more indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians?

Gunaratna: Even on 9/11 the terrorists did not make demands. The terrorists merely killed large numbers of people. This attack was also a mass fatality and a mass casualty attack. Certainly the terrorists made it known why they were doing it; it was to avenge the deaths of Muslims in India.

Question: So this attack can be better explained as a revenge attack rather than an attack the goal of which is to get something specific from the government?

Gunaratna: Absolutely, the terrorists fully intended to kill as many people as possible and destroy as much as possible, and they intended to die.

Question: Because governments possess limited resources, what should they focus on in order to prevent such attacks from occurring in the future: increase the physical security of likely targets in order to deter attacks, improve intelligence gathering capabilities, or use soft power to improve the political climate and defuse the grievances cited by terrorist organizations?

Governments must do all three. The Americans need a better ability to understand and to use soft power. America has invested billions of dollars in target protection, target hardening as well as intelligence collection. I think that strategically the United States should invest more in soft power. Certainly in countries where there is an imminent terrorist threat the best way to protect them is to invest in intelligence and target hardening. But target hardening and investing in intelligence is not going to end terrorism. To end terrorism one must invest in soft power. I hope that with the new U.S. president coming in, there will be more investment in soft power. Unless the United States, the country that has the staying power, the resources and the discipline to fight terrorism partners with the Muslim world, engages the Muslim community, and works with the Muslim community, I do not think that the threat of terrorism can be reduced.

Question: Has the war on terror changed the network structure and operating habits of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?

Gunaratna: Al Qaeda consisted of about three to four thousand fighters on 9/11. Today, Al Qaeda has about two to three hundred members, with approximately one hundred core members. On the other hand, Al Qaeda has become a mass movement. There are thirty to forty different groups that are associated with Al Qaeda, and there are numerous cells and individuals that seek to emulate Al Qaeda. It is paramount for the United States and its allies to continue to fight Al Qaeda, not just operationally but ideologically and strategically, and to minimize the influence of Al Qaeda. If governments fail to do that, there will be many more Mumbai type attacks in the coming months or the coming years.

Question: How is the command structure of terrorist organizations and networks today different from that of terrorist organizations twenty to forty years ago? 

Gunaratna: The groups in the 1960s and 1970s were mostly internationalist, left wing and right wing groups. Today, the terrorist groups are political and religious but with a very global outlook. So they have transformed ideologically, and structurally they have become global and networked.