It starts with
It took the 10 terrorists just 10 minutes to overwhelm Mumbai's defenses when they struck in November 2008.
A reasonable description of the day's events follows, and then some suggestion that we need to emulate Euro-style decentralization of anti-terror forces and put small groups in every major city. Maybe we should. Maybe we've already done it. Maybe it's a good idea - I don't know. But then near the end we get
All of which suggests that the American people are likely to act on their own if government doesn't protect them against the kind of threat that is so clearly looming.
Damn straight, Skippy. And you can leave off the "if government doesn't protect them" part. Sure, something like this would cause mayhem and death here just like anywhere else, but it's not going to end well for the knuckle-draggers, especially if they choose the wrong cities. Houston, anyone?
Now, a little earlier in his article the author gives a little away with the following line:
And there is another hard truth: The next Mumbai-, Baghdad- or Karachi-style attacks could happen in San Francisco.
Actually, they would have to happen in SF, or some equally de-boned metro area. Probably a school or university, somewhere safe from all those naughty guns, because most anywhere else here means 720 virgins hitting the on-deck circle in short order. So basically, I thought I'd fix the article's title for the author:
"John Arquilla not prepared for Mumbai-like terror attacks."
There. That's more accurate.