The fallacy at the heart of the Bush administration’s “global War on Terror”, which was the organising principle of US foreign policy campaign, is the global bit. These jihadist groups are disparate ones with different goals and concerns. For instance, Lashkar-e-Tobiba (LET) was originally fostered by Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence division (ISI) for its proxy wars in Kashmir. Pakistan's weak and shambolic civilian government has little control over the military and ISI, which is a state within a state.

Another consideration is that India is a strong supporter of the embattled state of Afghanistan. Pakistan sees that support as a threat given its hostile history with India. Hence Pakistan's tacit support for the Afghan Taliban and allowed them safe haven in Pakistan's tribal territories along the border with Afghanistan.

It doesn't make sense to talk in terms of the global threat posed by Islamist terror to the West since the Mumbai attack is primarily about India Pakistan relations and was aimed to provoke a new confrontation.

In New Matilda Shashi Tharoor comments:

the terrorists knew exactly what they were doing. Theirs was an attack on India's financial nerve centre and commercial capital, a city emblematic of the country's energetic thrust into the 21st century. They struck at symbols of the prosperity that was making the Indian model so attractive to the globalising world — luxury hotels, a swish café, an apartment house favoured by foreigners. The terrorists also sought to polarise Indian society by claiming to be acting to redress the grievances, real and imagined, of India's Muslims.

by attacking Mumbai the terrorists hit India's economy, its tourism, and its internationalism, and they took advantage of the city's openness to the world. A grand slam. He says that this horror was not homegrown.

The neocon's view is that of radical Islam's war on the West etc Mervyn Bendle, uses the Mumbai event to argue in The Australian that it reveals:

radical changes in the strategy of the global jihad movement as it shifts its focus from the hard military targets of the "near enemy" in Afghanistan or Iraq, to the "far enemy" represented by soft targets such as the private citizens of democratic societies such as the US, Britain, and Australia, especially where they can be found in countries such as India, Pakistan, or Indonesia....It is now clear that jihadi terrorists have the capability to attack Westerners both within their societies and internationally, where they gather for business or tourism.

Notwithstanding the India Pakistan focus of this attack, Australian conservatives are saying that its all part of the growing war on the West. The implication is that there needs to be a crackdown on Muslims in Australia because they are the enemy within.