Mumbai terror yet again reveals the difference between India and the US

I was reminded of one of my posts from almost a couple of years ago where I had excerpted from the prolific Pankaj Mishra:

India may have been passive after the Mumbai attacks. But India has not launched wars against either abstract nouns or actual countries that it has no hope of winning or even disengaging from. Another major terrorist assault on our large and chaotic cities is very probable, but it is unlikely to have the sort of effect that 9/11 had on America.
This is largely because many Indians still live with a sense of permanent crisis, of a world out of joint, where violence can be contained but never fully prevented, and where human action quickly reveals its tragic limits. The fatalism I sense in my village may be the consolation of the weak, of those powerless to shape the world to their ends. But it also provides a built-in check against the arrogance of power — and the hubris that has made America’s response to 9/11 so disastrously counterproductive.

 How counterproductive?  Like so:

Afghanistan.
     Iraq.
          Pakistan.
               Yemen.
                    Libya.
                         Somalia.

And counting :(