[iwar] [fc:Think.Again:.Terrorism]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-25 09:37:43
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Dehydrating.Conflict]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Why.air.power.may.be.more.humane.than.sanctions]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110251637.f9PGbhd13776@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Think.Again:.Terrorism]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Think Again: Terrorism

(This article was originally published in the Fall 1997 issue of Foreign
Policy.)


Terrorism, like the plague in the Middle Ages, frightens both leaders
and citizens.  It is a disease that is spreading, its cure is unknown. 
Controlling terrorism will require new mechanisms of cooperation-both
nationally and internationally-between intelligence and law enforcement
agencies.  Effective action must be simultaneously defensive and
offensive and inevitably requires some compromise of civil liberties. 

By John Deutch

"In the last few years, there has been a dramatic surge in terrorist
activity-much of it targeted against the United States."

Yes and no.  First, the good news.  International terrorism has declined
steadily since the late 1980s.  Last year represented a 25-year low,
with reported incidents down from a peak of 665 in 1987 to 296 in 1996. 
Although the United States' unique position as a political, economic,
and military world leader will always make it a choice target for
terrorists, statistics reveal that nations everywhere share this burden. 
In 1996, less than 25 percent of reported terrorist incidents targeted
the United States or its citizens abroad.  More than 30 other countries
were victimized, with some of the worst attacks occurring in Great
Britain, Israel, Peru, and Sri Lanka. 

While the latest State Department report on terrorism cites statistics
going back a quarter of a century, terrorism has been around for much
longer, whether in the Balkans, Tsarist Russia, or in Palestine during
the British mandate.  But today the changing methods that terrorists
employ have added a "new" dimension to an old threat. 

First, terrorists are operating increasingly on an international level,
not just in one region or country.  The dawn of the modern age of
terrorism could be dated at September 5, 1972, with the Palestinian
terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich.  This was
followed by a period of commercial airline hijacking, which culminated
with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. 

The second "new" aspect of terrorism is the growing possibility that
terrorists will seek more bang for the buck and make use of weapons of
mass destruction-nuclear, chemical, or biological.  The intelligence
community has received more than 100 reports alleging the diversion of
nuclear components from the former Soviet Union over the last few years. 
Fortunately, to date most of this reporting has proved untrue. 
Nevertheless, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of
Russian society and its economic difficulties have subjected the nuclear
security system of the former Soviet Union to stresses and risks that it
was not designed to withstand.  Thousands of individuals employed within
the Russian nuclear complex-many of whom have knowledge and access to
nuclear materials-receive salaries that are barely at subsistence level,
raising the possibility that they might be susceptible to offers from
anyone in the market to buy nuclear components. 

Moreover, governments have yet to consider seriously the threat of
chemical weapons and biological toxins.  Both of these types of weapons
are easy to manufacture and can have horrifying consequences for
civilian populations.  The first concrete example was the introduction
of sarin nerve gas into the Tokyo subway system by the Japanese cult,
Aum Shinrikyo. 

For years, the conventional wisdom stated that weapons of mass
destruction did not serve the goals of terrorists.  Mass murder, it was
argued, would only prompt a global backlash against the cause that the
terrorists claimed to serve.  It has been noted that "terrorists want a
lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead." Regrettably, Aum
Shinrikyo proved to be the exception to that rule.  In fact, we see a
disturbing new trend occurring across the globe.  More and more
terrorists are using powerful explosives to attack mass-civilian
targets.  So despite last year's decline in terrorist incidents, there
was a drastic increase in casualties (311 people killed and 2,652
wounded). 

The third aspect is really new-cyberterror.  It is all too easy
technically to penetrate the telecommunications and computer systems of
nations and private organizations and to introduce "foreign" computer
codes that will cause systems to go haywire or to fall under the control
of the intruder.  Such cyberterrorists could not only divert funds
electronically from banks but also could create havoc with a nation's
air traffic or power plant control systems.  Likewise, they could
introduce "morphed" images and messages into a country's radio and
television systems, spreading lies and inciting people to violence. 

So while terrorism is an age-old phenomenon, and historic techniques of
assassination and conventional explosives remain the methods of choice,
new elements of terrorism challenge the determination and patience of
established states. 

"Terrorism is best defined as acts of violence committed against
innocent persons or noncombatants that are intended to achieve political
ends through fear and intimidation."

Yes, but with some qualifiers.  While quantifying terrorist incidents is
simple, it is often difficult to characterize the terrorist threat.  To
help understand the true nature of terrorism today, I divide terrorist
acts into several categories. 

The first, and most dangerous, category is state-sponsored terrorism. 
The United States has designated Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan, and Syria as countries that have sponsored terrorism.  The
relocation of the notorious Saudi-born extremist, Usama bin Ladin, to
Afghanistan reinforces the likelihood that this country could be added
to the list next.  In the past, much, but not all, state-sponsored
terrorism has been directed against the United States.  External events,
international pressure, economic sanctions, and the threat of U.S. 
military retaliation have curbed activity in recent years by Cuba, Iraq,
Libya, and North Korea, although these countries harbor some known
terrorists and have both the potential and ideological inclination to
advance their objectives through terrorism.  Although not formally on
this list, other countries that may provide assistance and sanctuary to
terrorist groups deserve close scrutiny. 

In my opinion, the most serious question regarding state-sponsored
terrorism today is the degree to which Iran is sponsoring terrorism
worldwide.  Tehran's support for Hizballah training and subsequent
military operations conducted in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon stands out
as a noteworthy example.  Likewise, Iran has been implicated in the
assassination of dissident Iranians throughout the world (at least eight
during 1996).  The April 1997 German court decision that found
high-ranking members of the Iranian leadership responsible for the 1992
gangland-style murders of four Kurdish dissidents in a Berlin restaurant
should help to move many governments to a stronger consensus on the
consequences of Iranian conduct-a prerequisite for their greater
political engagement in U.S.  efforts to contain Iran. 

The second category is terrorism carried out by groups trying to
overthrow their own governments or to achieve independence.  Here we
find the largest number of incidents.  For example, the bloodiest act of
1996 occurred when the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam blew
up an explosive-laden truck in Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing 90 people and
wounding more than 1,400 others.  The pkk, a Kurdish separatist group,
continues to commit terrorist acts against Turkey, and the al-Gama'at
al-Islamiyya seeks the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak
through terrorism.  There is also the ira in Northern Ireland, the Aum
Shinrikyo and Japanese Red Army of Japan, the Armed Islamic Group in
Algeria, as well as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the
National Liberation Army in Colombia.  The Tupac Amaru Revolutionary
Movement (mrta) extremists held hostages in the Japanese ambassador's
residence in Lima, Peru, for 125 days.  The terrorism in this second
category is not usually directed against the United States. 

Drawing the line between terrorism and insurgency can be difficult.  In
Mexico, for example, dissident groups such as the Popular Revolutionary
Army in Guerrero and the Zapatista National Liberation Army in Chiapas
seek to change the country's political and economic system.  A third
category is terrorism committed by Islamic groups, which for the most
part operate in the Middle East.  These groups pose the most dangerous
threat to the United States, and many worry that their activities are on
the rise.  Some, notably Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (pij),
are dedicated to the overthrow of Israel and the establishment of an
Islamic Palestinian state.  Hamas was responsible for an outbreak of
terrorism in early 1996 that led to the March 1996 "Summit of
Peacemakers" held in Sharm al-Sheik in the Sinai, where 29 world leaders
gathered to pledge stronger efforts to fight international terrorism. 
Some terrorist groups share some common goals with Hamas and the pij,
although not their ideology.  The Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, for instance, also seeks the destruction of the state of
Israel but is a secular, leftist organization. 

Yet another set of Middle Eastern terrorists has a broader extremist
Islamic agenda, which includes direct action against American interests,
as embodied by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York.  Many of
these groups, although based in the Middle East, have nothing to do with
the Arab-Israeli conflict but reflect activity that more properly
belongs in the second "dissident" category.  The terrorists suspected of
blowing up the al-Khobar military barracks in Saudi Arabia, for example,
want to topple the Saudi monarchy.  American citizens frequently become
a target for this category of terrorists simply because the United
States is out front as a world leader, with a forward presence in the
region, and is associated with established regimes such as those in
Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 

Frequently, the rise of fundamentalist Islamic movements is equated with
extremist Islamic terrorism.  Indiscriminately linking the two
oversimplifies and distorts the complex and diverse Islamic world and
should certainly make one "think again." The largest religion in the
world, Islam reaches from Indonesia to Central Asia and Turkey, and
across the Middle East into much of Africa.  Islam is far from
monolithic.  The recent resurgence of Islamic movements often stems from
local economic and social conditions.  These groups seek to portray
themselves as viable alternatives to an established system that they
view as corrupt and inefficient. 

"The United States government is effectively organized to address the
terrorist threat."

Ha, ha.  There is probably no U.S.  government activity that earns an
uncritical response.  But terrorism is a serious matter, and if we are
going to mount an effective program to combat it, we must clarify the
roles and missions of various government agencies. 

As it stands now, the responsibility for counterterrorist initiatives is
divided among a host of government agencies, including the Department of
Defense, the fbi, the cia, the State Department, and the Federal
Aviation Administration.  Making use of several government agencies is,
in itself, not a bad idea.  Consider the spectrum of terrorist threats
with which we must contend: protection of the president and government
leaders; protection of the nation's communications infrastructure;
protection of our military forces deployed abroad at bases and
embassies; protection of U.S.  businesses and citizens abroad; and
security for air travel and commerce. 

With regard to domestic acts of terrorism, the law enforcement community
is clearly in charge.  However, once terrorism crosses national
borders-as in the case of Pan Am 103 and al-Khobar-it becomes a national
security issue and should be entrusted to the national security
apparatus.  The question then becomes: Who should be in charge?

Certainly not the fbi.  Yet the United States responded to the al-Khobar
bombing as if it were a domestic law enforcement matter.  Louis Freeh,
the highly capable head of the fbi, was designated the point man for an
investigation involving U.S.  military forces deployed overseas.  This
despite the fact that the fbi's mission is to collect evidence that can
be introduced in a U.S.  court.  Moreover, we witnessed the faintly
ridiculous spectacle of Freeh, an individual with impeccable law
enforcement credentials, who has successfully battled crime in the
United States, being stiffed repeatedly by the Saudis when he requested
coequal status in their internal investigation, and expected treatment
of suspects and evidence according to American standards.  Fat
chance-the Saudi royal family's conception of justice is quite different
from our own.  In any case, if the situation were reversed, it is highly
unlikely that we would let foreign law enforcement officials play a
significant role in a sensitive internal investigation of an incident
that occurred on U.S.  soil. 

If not the FBI, then what about the State Department? The State
Department sponsors and participates in international conferences that
discuss terrorism, but it has little capability to plan, fund, and
execute any serious counterterrorist program.  Diplomats cannot chat
with terrorists at embassy receptions. 

How about the Department of Defense? The Pentagon must have a principal
focus on protection of its troops and facilities abroad, but fighting
terrorism is generally not a military matter. 

Modesty prevents me from recommending the director of central
intelligence.  In any event, the intelligence community should not play
the role of policymaker.  That being said, it is important to know that
the intelligence community's Counter Terrorist Center (ctc), established
in 1986, is a model of effective interagency cooperation.  The ctc,
which reports directly to the cia's director, was designed to bring all
elements of the intelligence community together to collect and analyze
information from all over the world about terrorist groups-how they
train and operate, who supports them, and where they may find sanctuary. 
Today, the ctc has professional officers from 10 different agencies,
including the cia, the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the fbi, and the State Department.  Recognizing
that a foreign government sometimes may have better information about
terrorist groups operating in its own neighborhood, the ctc attempts to
access this information through liaison relationships. 

"Some loss of civil liberty inevitably accompanies measures to combat
terrorism."

Unfortunately, this is true.  Protecting individuals and society from
those who operate outside the rules frequently calls for compromise. 
The security measures now in place for air travel are an excellent
example.  We require people to identify themselves, submit baggage and
person to search, and spend more time waiting in lines to provide
partial protection and deterrence against terrorists who seek to hijack
or destroy commercial airlines. 

Many countries that believe they are threatened by foreign terrorists
anticipate situations where responsive action may be required.  Some are
establishing so-called "hostage rescue teams" (hrts) that are
paramilitary special forces units trained for, and capable of, immediate
response.  The trouble with these types of units is that in less
democratic countries political rulers may use them to suppress
legitimate dissident groups.  For example, during the Peruvian
government's 15-year war against the Shining Path, security forces were
implicated in a series of politically motivated killings.  It is also
not unknown for hrts to try to overthrow their own governments. 

But even long-established democracies face complex issues that go to the
core of their identity, especially those nations that have traditionally
maintained open borders and granted political asylum to foreign
nationals.  In countries around the world, Middle Eastern foreign
resident communities are increasingly subject to surveillance by local
authorities and often with justification.  Many capitals around the
world have foreign resident communities that support or harbor
terrorists.  For example, Canadian authorities recently arrested a Saudi
Shia dissident living in Canada, who allegedly had a role in the
al-Khobar bombing.  This heightened monitoring of high-risk foreign
resident communities has obvious civil liberty issues, as it contrasts
with past tolerance, perhaps excessive, for dissident individuals who
lived in or visited Western Europe.  British law may have protected the
notorious terrorist financier Usama bin Ladin on his occasional shopping
trips to London.  As the terrorist threat grows, countries need to
recalibrate the balance between protection of individual liberties and
their understandable interest in keeping track of what is happening
within high-risk foreign resident communities. 

Communications surveillance is another area where democratic nations
might see civil liberties put to the test.  In the United States,
communications surveillance-intercepts or wiretapping-can be done only
with a court order, but that is not true in most countries of the world. 
There is no doubt that such surveillance is increasing worldwide, based
on the justification that it combats the foreign terrorist threat.  This
is also true in the United States, where the fbi now has access to
digital telecommunications (with a court order). 

The globalization of electronic communications has made it easier for
exile groups to support terrorists.  The response of authorities will
raise civil liberties concerns, as with Germany's recent efforts to
control Internet use by Angela Marquardt, a member of the successor
party to the East German Communist Party who sought to maintain an
electronic link to the Radikal, a newspaper considered to encourage
terrorism.  Some Internet users have even embarked upon their own form
of freelance counterterrorism.  The San Francisco-based Institute for
Global Communications was forced to terminate its link with the Basque
People's Journal after outraged Spaniards sabotaged the company's
computer system by overloading it with a barrage of junk e-mail. 

But the big battle internationally is over the liberalization of rules
for use of hard-to-penetrate codes or encryption in private and
commercial communications.  On the one hand, the increase in electronic
commerce points to the need for secure international communications,
most notably with regard to financial transfers.  On the other hand, law
enforcement and security services are reluctant to permit easy access to
strong encryption because it will make it simpler for terrorist and
criminal elements to ride on, and take advantage of, the information
highway. 

Technology already permits any determined party to employ encryption as
desired; the question is whether encryption will become so readily
available that there is no practical prospect of listening to the
conversations of criminals or terrorists.  The U.S.  government is
leading the effort for a "key recovery" system that would permit law
enforcement officials-as authorized by the judicial systems of
individual countries-to have access to encrypted records or
communications.  I believe a key recovery system can be constructed in a
fashion that serves the needs of both business managers and law
enforcement officials to access encryption keys.  But it is by no means
clear that the key recovery initiative will be successful. 

"The world is effectively organized to address the terrorist threat."

The fight against transnational terrorism cannot be conducted by
countries on an individual basis.  Yet, a coherent international effort
is more appearance and sentiment than reality.  Differences among
nations over how to treat countries that sponsor terrorism frequently
have been a source of friction.  In 1986, Europeans protested in the
streets following the U.S.  bombing of Libya in retaliation for a
terrorist attack that killed two American servicemen in Germany.  During
the recent terrorist standoff in Peru, Uruguay complicated negotiations
with the mrta when it broke ranks and released mrta prisoners shortly
before the release of its own ambassador from the Japanese compound. 
Today, the most important example is the difference in attitudes between
Europe and the United States toward Iran.  Future success requires
greater exchange of information on threats, adoption of common policies
on how to negotiate with terrorists and their supporters, and common
action to find and dismantle terrorist organizations. 

Considerable differences also exist in policies and practices for
dealing with terrorist incidents and groups.  For example, many
countries have a stated policy of "no negotiations with terrorists," yet
clearly negotiations go on-between the British and the ira, Israel and
the plo, and Peru and the mrta.  Such ambiguity is essential in dealing
with terrorists.  The central principle during a crisis should be to
minimize risks to hostages until the situation is resolved and control
is established.  From that point extraordinary efforts must be taken to
destroy the terrorist group. 

No combination of imaginable or affordable measures will give complete
protection from terrorist threats.  Nor should this be expected; after
all, large armies do not stop all war, and effective police departments
do not detect all crimes before they are committed.  But it is
reasonable to ask what protection can be employed against the range of
threats.  Not so long ago, the world endured a seemingly unstoppable
sequence of airplane hijackings.  The international community sought
common ground, improved airline security, and found it possible to deter
and limit such terrorist incidents.  A disciplined and sustained
international effort by intelligence and law enforcement agencies
worldwide is required to impede terrorist threats.  Due to established
channels of international cooperation, now we can be reasonably sure
that any terrorist group can be identified and tracked (here the issue
of sanctuary looms large).  But in the longer run, efforts must include
defensive measures, effective prosecution of perpetrators of terrorist
acts, and offensive action against groups that are engaged in
international terrorism until it is the terrorist who must "think
again."

John Deutch is an institute professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary
of defense, and a member of the editorial board of Foreign Policy. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Dehydrating.Conflict]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Why.air.power.may.be.more.humane.than.sanctions]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:57 PST