• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUNATO
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Stephen Tankel"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Lashkar-e-Taiba: Past Operations and Future Prospects

Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of Pakistan’s oldest and most powerful jihadi groups, whose global reach has only expanded since it launched a multi-target attack on the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008.

Link Copied
By Stephen Tankel
Published on Apr 27, 2011

Source: New America Foundation

Lashkar-e-Taiba: Past Operations and Future ProspeLashkar-e-Taiba (the Army of the Pure or LeT) is one of Pakistan’s oldest and most powerful jihadi groups. Yet despite its long and bloody history, LeT only began generating significant attention outside South Asia after launching a multi-target attack on the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008. The 10-man assault team, which LeT dispatched, killed 166 people in the course of striking two world-class hotels, a café popular with foreign tourists, one of the busiest railway stations in the country, and a community center run by the Jewish Chabad organization. Although LeT began contributing to al-Qaeda’s global jihad against the United States and its allies after 9/11, the group was (and remains) strongly influenced by regional dynamics, and India has been its primary enemy since the early to mid-1990s.

The boldness of the Mumbai attacks and target selection suggested LeT continued to prioritize jihad against India, but was moving deeper into al-Qaeda’s orbit. Approximately one year after Mumbai, U.S. President Barack Obama wrote a letter to his Pakistani counterpart, President Asif Ali Zardari, in which he specifically mentioned LeT as one of the militant groups against which the government should act. A chorus of U.S. diplomats, security officials and military officers reiterated this call for action, pressuring Pakistan publicly as well as privately to move against LeT. Yet LeT’s position remains relatively secure. There are two main reasons. First, the country is facing a serious insurgency and the group remains one of the few militant outfits that officially refrain from launching attacks in Pakistan. The security establishment has determined that to avoid additional instability it must not take any action that could lead LeT to change this position. Second, the Pakistani army and its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) have long considered LeT to be the country’s most reliable proxy against India and the group still provides utility in this regard as well as the potential for leverage at the negotiating table. Thus, the consensus is that, at least in the short-term, taking steps to dismantle the group would chiefly benefit India, while Pakistan would be left to deal with the costs.

About the Author

Stephen Tankel

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

Tankel was a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, where his research focuses on insurgency, terrorism, and the evolution of nonstate armed groups.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Restoring Trust: U.S.-Pakistan Relations

      Stephen Tankel

  • Q&A
    LeT’s Global Rise

      Stephen Tankel

Stephen Tankel
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Stephen Tankel
Political ReformSecuritySouth AsiaPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Europe flags citizens demonstration
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    EU Enlargement Forgets Europeans

    Preparing candidate countries for EU membership is no longer enough. As the enlargement process becomes a reality, the union must also prepare its own societies.

      Iliriana Gjoni

  • Commentary
    Deciphering Europe’s Relationship with Turkey

    Debate is heating up on how Turkey could be integrated into a common European defense framework. Commercial and industrial deals offer a better chance at alignment than sweeping political efforts.

      Marc Pierini

  • Article
    EU Integration Without Ratification?

    Countries face several hurdles in joining the EU, including the final stage of ratifying their accession treaties. Procedural reforms and substantive adjustments could help move the process forward.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    There Is No Shortcut for Europe in Armenia

    Europe has an interest in supporting Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan as he tries to make peace with neighbors and loosen ties with Russia. But it is depersonalized support in the long term, not quickfire flash, that will win the day.

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Equivocating on Turkey Is Bad Geopolitics

    Following Ursula von der Leyen’s gaffe equating Turkey to Russia and China, relations with Ankara risk deteriorating even further. Without better, more consistent diplomatic messaging, how can the EU pretend to be a geopolitical power?

      Sinan Ülgen

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.