Cautious Optimism Amidst Elections and Violence in Pakistan

With former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif winning last week's elections, the future of the country remains unclear.

On the one hand, Sharif's succession to power will mark the rare democratic transfer of power in Pakistan.  Furthermore, Sharif ran a campaign promising economic revitalization in a country desperate for electricity and the resources to rebuild a struggling (possibly crumbling) economy.  Sharif's election also raises the specter of military détente and improved relations with India.

On the other hand, violent militant attacks continue to plague Pakistan.  On election day alone, more than 30 people were killed and more than 200 wounded by militant bombings and attacks.  Then, on the eve of a run-off election in her district, the vice president of the Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI, the party headed by former cricket player/celebrity Imran Khan), was murdered execution-style.  The idea of a major party's second-in-command being brutally murdered would be almost unfathomable in western democracies, yet it barely registers as a major news item.  The brazenness of such an attack on a party leader, moreover, may be a more ominous sign of Pakistan's stability than the scattered violence.

Incoming PM Sharif has a lot on his plate, yet one can only hope that a focus on economic revitalization will help promote stability in the country and the region at large.  Economic revitalization is not and should not be a separate issue from Indian relations; indeed, India appears ready to engage in cross-border transmission and pipeline projects that would go a long way toward easing Pakistan's crippling energy problems.  Given the large stakes, Mr. Sharif would do well to move swiftly.

Crowdsourced Intelligence

In the nexus between terrorism and technology, there are really only two standards floating upon a sea of change. The first is that despite the plethora of seemingly endlessly advancing technologies available, terrorists consistently utilize some of the most basic accouterments. While Black swan events such as nuclear terrorist elicit concern, it is the everyday kitchen anarchist who creates terror. The second standard is that it is equally impossible to determine beforehand what available technologies will be used to track down (and, in cases, eliminate the terrorist threat). In a mere decade, the United States has progressed from meticulous house-to-house searches to unmanned drones that stalk the night for hours.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, one interesting trend that has developed is the utilization of internet forums to sift through the vast amount of facts (video, stills, etc.) surrounding the attack to crowdsource intelligence on potential suspects based on group analyzation. Up to five potential suspects have been identified, though more officially, only two are being sought. If the pattern is limited to providing intelligence to the appropriate sources, then the vast amount of data being recorded each day is not beneficial to terrorist operations; however, if crowdsourcing moves beyond intelligence review on its face and to tracking those people down, the downsides of ruining a potentially innocent person's life have already been made clear in much more benign circumstances.

It is definitely a fine line to walk, but authorities did request assistance on information on the bombing. That information started to sift in quickly and it will likely not be so long before we start to see whether any, or all, of it is accurate.

Sticking to the Facts is the Hardest Part...

When it comes to terrorist incidents, sticking to the facts is the hardest thing to do. Conversations naturally boil down to polemics that insinuate motive and reasoning. It's easy to forget, for example, that Muslim terrorists were initially blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Therefore, initial reports that a Saudi national was the prime suspect may prove to be a dead lead.

The facts are limited, but also clear:

1. This was nearly certainly a terrorist attack (even if the President is hesitant to use that word). Some initial reports that it may have been a gas explosion are likely to be unfounded.

2. There were multiple explosive devices. Some reports suggest up to seven, although this could later come to be far too extensive (and is already being noted as such). For 5/7 devices to fail would be significant.

3. There was likely shrapnel in the explosive device. This suggests more of an intent to kill than injure, maim, or elicit terror.

That's pretty much the extent of the facts right now, apart from the casualties. It's too early to label the bombing as international terrorism or Muslim extremism - it could very well turn out to be right-wing extremism and/or domestic terrorism.

For the time being, while the professionals do their work, it's best to help those in need and keep those in Boston in mind.