Britian @ MindSay 
As Mumbai and the rest of India come to terms with the carnage in Colaba and count the long-term costs of the devastation, there are two small points of reassurance.
First, the prolonged 60-hour shot-by-shot, live TV coverage of the siege of two hotels and a Jewish community centre, has bluntly brought home to Indians — particularly the country's opinion-makers — the ugly face of terrorism. The threat to national security and the well-being of the country could not have been driven home more unequivocally. India is no stranger to terrorism and Mumbai in particular has suffered incessantly since March 1993. But the sheer audacity of this particular operation and the spectacular publicity surrounding it ensured that every Indian, with access to TV, lived through the horror. If there ever was a wake-up call to rouse a Kumbhakarna, this was it.
Second, this was one outrage which finally snapped the endurance and infinite generosity of India. In the past, every assault on Mumbai — where, at times, the death toll was higher — had produced a flicker of anger, followed by an astonishing display of fatalism. What was often flaunted by the angst-ridden section of the media as the ‘spirit of Mumbai' wasn't a display of the gritty, stiff upper lip resolve Londoners showed during the Blitz in 1940-41. It was actually a demonstration of lofty aloofness which very easily translated into indifference or, worse, denial.
The mood is different this week; it is palpably angry. It is one thing for the three Thackerays to spew indignation. That's habitual. But when pillars of Mumbai society such as Ajay Piramal and Shobhaa De say enough is enough and when Ratan Tata expresses his understated dissatisfaction with the administration's unpreparedness, it suggests that something has finally given way. Those Swami Vivekananda once caricatured as “the patient Hindu, the mild Hindu” may well have become angry Indians.
The transformation was waiting to happen. For more than a decade terrorists espousing unacceptable causes have blown up trains, bombed crowded markets, hijacked a plane and attacked places of worship. Indians have suffered stoically but left it to governments to take remedial action. Instead of building on that trust, the political class has approached terrorism as a game of political one-upmanship, stoked subliminal fears and then left India vulnerable. Every terrorist atrocity was followed by assurances of “tough” action, greater preparedness and continuing laxity. The fanatically motivated terrorists who held Mumbai to ransom for 48 hours have made a mockery of the state's ability to protect its citizens. They not only killed but made a whole country suffer.
The men in uniform did a wonderful and professional job under difficult and even adverse circumstances. They showed what the country is capable of achieving when driven by a common resolve. But India has been shamed by the incompetence of those it entrusted with running the country. Mumbai wasn't a victim of ordinary intelligence failure; the grim truth is that there was zero intelligence. India was caught napping.
It is important to vent our anger through the ballot box, to reject those who preened while our cities burned. Unfortunately, this isn't enough. The collective choice must be shaped by a candid realisation that India is no longer on a conventional flight path: it is at war. Another wrong turn and a Mumbai that is already suffering the burden of a government's mismanagement of public finance will end up as a Beirut, a Karachi.
India doesn't need to replace an uninspiring tweedledum with a dreary tweedledee. It needs someone inspirational, someone blessed with guts, imagination, energy, integrity and application. It yearns for a leader who has the self-assurance to prescribe a bitter dose of medicine. India doesn't need a leader to manage the peace; it needs a leader who can lead us in a war. We are through with a Chamberlain; it's time for a Churchill.
While initial reports suggested that Mumbai carnage was a localised attack by militant malcontents in India because of the "Deccan Mujaheddin" decoy that was used to claim responsibility, evidence cited by Indian army & security experts based on phone intercepts, nature of weaponry, mode of entry by sea etc., has quickly focused the attention on Pakistan.
The statement by India's normally cautious & restrained prime minister, Manmohan Singh, that groups based across the border, a thinly-disguised reference to Pakistan, has also galvanized the strategic and security community into examining Islamabad's role in the region that has already been subjected to scrutiny in the past.
Intelligence experts have zeroed in on Pakistan's role in the terrorist activities in Indian Sub-Continent. "There have been reports from credible sources for years that Pakistani intelligence has used terrorist groups to conduct war-by-proxy against traditional rival India. With the latest horrific attacks throughout Mumbai, evidence continues to accumulate that may add new substance to such reports," the website Washington Examiner noted.
What has added potency to the latest charges against Islamabad is the Bush administration's own assessment - leaked to the US media - that Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI was linked to the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul some weeks back that killed nearly 60 people including a much-admired Indian diplomat and a respected senior defense official.
This time, the US scrutiny is more intense because American, Israeli & other western nationals appear to have been singled out during the carnage. 100's of Indians have died in dozens of terrorist attacks in India in the past two decades without Washington losing too much sleep over it. In fact, Indian officials have often complained in private that successive US administrations have been incredibly indulgent about Pakistan's brazen involvement in fomenting terror in India, believing it would not touch the US.
Part of the coddling goes back to US patronage of the ISI during the Afghan war. As a result, Washington has done little to bring to book Dawood Ibrahim, a terrorist charged with masterminding the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993 that took 258 lives, although Indian intelligence agencies have identified him as living in Karachi under ISI protection.
While all major terror attacks in India are typically accompanied by knee-jerk charges from India & shrill denials by Pakistan, analysts point to mounting evidence Pakistan, especially under its military, has done little to combat the scourge of terrorism. Several terrorist and extremist leaders such as Masood Azhar & "Prof" Hafeez Mohammed Saeed, continue to thrive in Pakistan, often under official patronage. Extremists openly preach terrorism in jihadi gatherings overseen by ISI.
The Pakistani establishment has also dragged its feet on prosecuting Omar Saeed Sheikh, an accused in the Daniel Pearl murder because of his influential connections in the higher echelons of the ISI. Another terrorist Rashid Rauf, also known as the shoe-bomber, was killed last week in a US predator strike, months after he 'escaped' from Pakistani police custody while being escorted for a hearing. Western & Indian intelligence communities believe men like Sheikh and Rauf are protected by the ISI or rogue elements in the ISI.
The Pakistani military, which controls the ISI, has resisted any attempt to make it subservient to the civilian government because the army uses it both as a fighting arm for its proxy war against India & also to spy on its own civilian government.
Among the several question that security experts are grappling is the motive behind the latest attack & who stands to gain by it. The terrorists have notably not even raised the Kashmir issue for their action to be linked to the separatist cause. Nor did they attempt to extract any specific concession in exchange for hostages, other than to demand the release of "all mujaheddin".
They seemed intent on causing mayhem & dying in the same suicidal jihadi manner that was evident in the attack on India’s parliament & on the Akshardham temple earlier in this decade. Their victims, besides the scores of people who died, included India’s booming economy and tourism, both of which was the envy of a troubled neighbourhood.
A'Chraobh Dubh
To Bride’s grief the Uncle bore
her eldest son to far away shore -
A lingering wave to the four -
they passed afar, afar, afar!
A young man wise for his fifteenth year
on journeys away he had been before -
He passed his time on the deck above -
as he passed afar, afar, afar!
To a distant land he was borne
over seas in a craft most sovereign -
His uncle watched the lad amazed -
a child no more - but still he marveled!
A trading trip this was to be
the lad to help, no stranger he -
to hard work, travail and toil -
a builder’s son was he!
A slightly built lad with auburn locks
a fair lad of uncommon looks -
of a northern blood at first glance
but not from a southern clime!
Arrival on that Britannic shore
oh so many years ago -
he feet upon that distant shore -
a land of druids, bards and lore!
His learning of the Three
and priestly wisdom of the One -
Called down a new Order -
of the called and answered!
A waddle hut built by royal hands
a learned son into learned man
A son of wonder to a mother’s love -
Vigilance for the underwritten!
It begin there for the marginal son
a caste and persuasion of the Three -
an order to the One -
to the insult of the old!
They remained the young man and his uncle
until the time of the harsh winter winds -
and with a cold blue northern zephyr -
his lot was cast to a foreign shore!
To home and beyond the young son wandered
to his final destiny - and -
upon a stone it was destined or fated -
or upon a cold dark tree!
CuldeeDeacon
Police-Writers.com is a website dedicated to listing state and local police officers who have authored books. The website also separately lists international as well as domestic federal law enforcement officials who have written books. Today, the list added Michael J. Waldren, an expert on the use of firearms by the police in the United Kingdom.
In 1967, after attending college, Michael J. Waldren joined the Metropolitan Police Service in London. During College, Michael Waldren developed a keen interest firearms and shooting. Following his interest, in 1977, Michael, then a sergeant, joined the Firearms Unit of the London Metropolitan Police as an instructor. At the same time, he was also a member of the Operational Firearms Team.
Today, since the vast majority of Bobbies (London Police Officers) do not carry firearms, only certain police officers are trained and armed with firearms. They are called Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO). According to Metropolitan Police Service firearms policy, “the MPS provides an armed capability to assist in the combat of armed criminality within both the Metropolitan Police District and throughout the United Kingdom. These duties will also include diplomatic protection, Royalty protection, airport security, court security, armed surveillance, armed personal protection, proactive armed operations and Central London security patrols. The MPS will only arm officers how have undergone a specific selection and training programme and each Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO) will be equipped in accordance with their training and role. AFOs will be required to maintain specific leaves of training and fitness in order to continue their role.”
In 1982, Michael Waldren was promoted to Inspector. His first major command responsibility was at the Libyan Peoples Bureau in 1984. In the late 1970s he was regularly being asked by the media and television companies about the history of police use of firearms and he found that there were very few books on the subject. His research developed into a 1986 book which he co-authored on the subject of police use of firearms in England; tracing the history back to 1829 when the Metropolitan Police Service was first formed by Sir Robert Peel.
In 1987, now a Chief Inspector, Michael Waldren he became the MPS chief firearms instructor and as a result he sat on several national committees, which ultimately formulated police firearms policy throughout the United Kingdom. In 1992, he was promoted to Superintendent and in 1994, he was promoted to Chief Superintendent. In 1999, Michael Waldren was awarded the Queens Police Medal for Distinguished Police Service. He retired in 2000.
Michael Waldren authored the book Armed Police: The Police Use of Firearms Since 1945. According to the book description, “On 7 July 2005, just before 9 am, explosive devices detonated on London Underground trains at Liverpool Street, Edgware Road and Kings Cross stations and on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-six people were killed and over 700 injured. Suicide bombing had come to Britain. Two weeks later, the capital's commuters narrowly missed disaster when four more devices failed to explode. Security in London was increased to unprecedented levels as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair said his force faced 'its largest operational challenge since the war'. Heavily armed police officers patrolling the streets became a regular feature of television news programmes, leaving an enduring impression that unarmed policing in Britain had gone forever and with it the kindly image of the archetypal British bobby. Controversy rages over the increased use of firearms because in the public mind, the hallmark of British security has always been unarmed policing. Now, for the first time, former Head of the Metropolitan Police Firearms Unit, Michael Waldren, gives his insider account of the changes in Britain's policing, spanning over half a century and including many examples of extraordinary heroism, tragedy, controversy, comedy, intrigue and occasional farce.”
According to Bryn Elliott, the editor of Police Aviation News (United Kingdom), “The arrival for review of Armed Police: The Police use of Firearms since 1945 by Michael J. Waldren was like meeting an old friend after a long time apart. A decade ago Michael Waldren teamed up with Bob Gould to write the broadly similar ‘London’s Armed Police’ which effectively covered the history and development of arming the police in the Capital City. The title has been out of print for many years.
The new book effectively updates the same story in some detail since 1945 and although it appears to suggest a treatment in a far wider context it remains very much faithful to that original theme. There are stories from other parts of the UK but from the number omitted I would assume that the knowledge displayed of them is more autobiographical rather that based on pure research. They are very selective.
Likewise the later chapters appear to have become bogged down in reciting too much detail on the reasons the Metropolitan Police pulled their firearms operations out of their main base of Lippitts Hill for the tastes of the average reader. In the main though it is a good factual read and a worthy update on the original.”
Police-Writers.com now hosts 560 police officers (representing 234 police departments) and their 1179 books in six categories, there are also listings of United States federal law enforcement employees turned authors, international police officers who have written books and civilian police personnel who have written books.
