Soob

Certainly on the tactical level they contain semblance of sophistication that travails the simplicity of suicide bombers and IED's. But beyond the tactical how strategically sophisticated was this operation? Three immediate scenarios come to mind for the sake of discussion:

Vengeance (the Columbine:) As mentioned by commentator David Meyer in John Robb's latest post regarding Mumbai. For the sake of this discussion the Columbine tragedy entailed the most base reasoning for exacting violence. Revenge. The resulting social fallout was an obvious happenstance but the core goal for the perpetrators was a spectacular and well media covered act of vengeance. In the Mumbai context this would seem to suggest a domestic agenda reflective of India's sectarian tensions.

Local Systemic Collapse: As per John Robb's analysis, that the goal was to bring a functioning metropolis to a virtual stand still through the use of blatant, mass violence. Additionally in targeting mass transportation (Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal,) "enemy" religious establishment (Jewish center) and tourism (hotels) the attack would have a lasting psychological impact even after all those involved were dead or captured.

International Tension or better yet Conflagration: An effort to roll back the 2003 Kashmir cease fire and 2004 nuclear testing treaty and unravel any semblance of peace between the two countries, ultimately resulting in another round of armed conflict. Nuclear sabre rattling (a resumption of testing, say) would be icing on the cake.

My personal impression? The jury's still out though I'm leaning toward all three together. What's lacking thus far is a concrete definition of who was responsible and how extensive a network they operated from within. Additionally even if the affiliation of those that carried out this carnage is affirmed we then have to consider the possible larger perspective of cross organizational participation. Without those variables it's difficult to pinpoint how broad a strategy was employed.