A correspondent of Mickey Kaus who stayed at the Taj hotel in Mumbai in the past said that they had much heavier security in early November, additional staff and safeguards that were obviously not present the night of the attacks.
When I went to Amman, Jordan in January 2006, shortly after Abu Zarqawi sent suicide bombers into three luxury hotels, killing 63 and injuring hundreds, the security was heavy and very visible — I wrote at the time, “the guards are so gracious with their ‘good morning, sir,’ that their MP-5 submachineguns almost seem unobtrusive.” Describing the thoroughness of the airport metal detectors, “I had to take off my belt, shoes, watch… the only bit of metal left on me was my jeans button, zipper and a filling, and the metal detector was still going off. Both times, I got the usual pat-down.” Right around this time, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain shut down their embassies for a few days in response to perceived threats.
Would India’s biggest hotels have less security than Jordan’s? After the 200 or so deaths at the hands of terrorists in that country in the past nine months, why would the Taj reduce the security?