U.S.
INSTITUTE OF PEACE |
||||||
|
||||||
27 September 2001 Hatred,
Violence,
|
Coping
with Terrorism: |
|||||
On September 21, 2001, the U.S. Institute of Peace convened a Current Issues Briefing -- "Coping With Terrorism: Challenges and Responses" -- featuring eight experts on terrorism to discuss the transforming crisis of September 11 and its implications for U.S. national security policy. This briefing was intended to inform and advance public discussion of effective approaches to dealing with the heightened threat of mass violence perpetrated by terrorist organizations. The summary below, written by Institute staff members Jon B. Alterman and Tom McConnell, draws on those discussions and previous meetings convened by the Institute under the aegis of the International Research Group on Political Violence. The views summarized here reflect the discussion at the briefing; they do not represent formal positions taken by the Institute, which does not advocate specific policies. The events of September 11 have forced the United States, along with the international community, to rethink the existing international world order and what constitutes an effective approach to deal with the heightened threat of terrorism. The United States has begun a process of revising its national security structure, initially with the creation of a cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security. It must now fashion a new security strategy that weaves together a number of complex components. The U.S. response to the September 11 attacks must be comprehensive and draw on all strengths within the government. To respond solely with military action could complicate the role of states that want to work with the United States, polarize the international community, and -- if not effective -- strengthen the position of terrorist groups. The coordinated terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 were unanticipated in terms of method and timing. The assaults pose a new level of threat because of the terrorists' skillful use of technology, broad and meticulous network-based organization, and the willingness of the perpetrators to die in the name of a global, millennial cause. Understanding a New Security Challenge To understand the character of terrorist threats, one must understand the interests and objectives of those carrying out such violent acts. Traditional use of political violence has been tied closely to governments, national liberation movements, or political ideologies with relatively narrow goals. Such acts are used to force negotiations, end negotiations, or intimidate or topple governments. The attacks of September 11, however, do not appear to be part of a campaign to pressure a specific response from the U.S. government. Not only has no one taken credit for the violence, some of the prime suspects have rushed to disavow it. The goal of this "strategic" terrorism is to destroy the aura of power of the United States and in the process demonstrate that big governments like the United States can be defeated by small but highly committed organizations. Apparent links of the perpetrators of the attacks on New York and Washington to the al Qaeda organization of Osama bin Laden suggest that the basic objective of the assault was not to do battle with the U.S. government. Rather, the target was a broader popular audience in Southwest Asia and in the greater Middle East. The objective was to symbolically expose the vulnerability of the United States, thereby diminishing its credibility in the Muslim world and enhancing the credibility of the terrorists' own political and religious movement. The United States provided the immediate target but was only of secondary interest to the perpetrators. More important to them was attacking the "idea" of the United States and positioning themselves to challenge their most important targets -- moderate Middle Eastern governments who maintain friendly relations with the United States. Weakening America's will to remain a security presence in the Islamic world, where it helps to protect friendly governments, was an associated objective. The bin Laden group wants the United States out of the Islamic world, the better to pursue their aim of creating more radicalized Islamic states. In combating terrorism, the U.S.-led coalition must develop long-term strategies that focus, in part, on bin Laden's success in harnessing the anger of the Muslim world against the West. Responses must contain approaches to inhibiting potential terrorists from joining such groups, fomenting dissention within terrorist organizations, encouraging those in the organization to leave it, and isolating the groups from their support networks. Implications of September 11th for U.S. National Security Up to now, complex and highly organized suicide missions like those of September 11 have been rare. Only a limited number of groups have employed such drastic action: the Sri Lankan group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; the Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas; Hezbollah in Lebanon; and bin Laden's syndicate. Nevertheless, speculation that the United States could be subjected to a catastrophic terrorist attack led many American security experts to call for a new focus on "homeland defense." Until the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, most experts looked toward nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as the most likely vehicles for catastrophic attacks. In 1999, the U.S. National Commission on Terrorism concluded that terrorist groups with broad "ideological" or religious interests are more dangerous than those with narrow political agendas. The traditional paradigm was of groups with specific political objectives focusing on killing small numbers of people in order to gain negotiating leverage. The new threat, by organizations such as bin Laden's al Qaeda, is broadly destructive violence in pursuit of a millennial goal. They seek maximum carnage in order to undermine political will, and to diminish U.S. standing as the leader and protector of Western values. Destroying the leadership of these organizations is not sufficient to eliminate the threat of terrorism. The goal must be to eliminate the terrorists' networks and to undermine the political and religious legitimacy of their use of violence. Moreover, the September 11 attacks highlight the difficulty of using target hardening as a primary strategy to fight terrorism. Weapons can be used in diverse ways. Hardening against one kind of threat or one kind of target can be countered by a terrorist merely shifting his aim to a softer target or working around extant defenses. Indeed, the perpetrators of the 1998 African embassy bombings may have chosen those targets precisely because they were less well protected than other American government targets around the world.
Immediate Next Steps The panel of experts outlined several steps that U.S. policymakers should implement in the short term to deal with the immediate threat of global terrorism. Step One: Strengthen Homeland Security
Step Two: Remove Barriers to Maximizing U.S. Intelligence Capabilities
One lesson of September 11 is the need to address the deterioration of U.S. intelligence capabilities -- which can be dated back to the late 1970s. Sixty percent of the intelligence gathered by U.S. agencies focuses only on military intelligence. The current U.S. national security structure is a product of the Cold War and may not be appropriate for threats of the 21st Century. In that regard, the panel discussed the following measures, consistent with American values of due process and protecting civil rights and individual privacy:
Step Three: Ensure There Are No "Safe Harbors" for Terrorists
Step Four: Build International Coalitions
Terrorism is Political Warfare: Military Responses Will Have Only Limited Effect Al Qaeda -- the bin Laden network -- has few tangible assets. Based in a desperately poor country with little infrastructure and a government that is under international sanctions and is recognized by only one other government, both the network's leaders and its hosts appear to have little to lose in a physical sense. More than anything, the perpetrators' most valuable assets are the ideas they represent, which enable them to mobilize people for what they characterize as a righteous struggle against evil infidels and foreign invaders. While military action can defeat well-defined physical targets and vulnerable individuals and groups, other forms of response will be needed to undermine the terrorists' appeal. Unsuccessful, inconclusive, or ineffective military operations by the U.S. and its allies against the terrorists' network would bolster the group's prestige, by either making it appear invincible or, at the very least, a fair match for the world's major powers. In order to be effective, American military strikes must have appropriate targets. Cruise missile attacks on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan in 1998, in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, were roundly criticized as being either ineffective or having hit a mistaken target. As well, the barrage of missiles directed against a bin Laden training camp in Afghanistan in 1998 appears to have had little effect on the organization and its goals, and the destroyed property was far less valuable than the missiles used to destroy it. The real task before the U.S. and friendly governments is to uproot the network and destroy the political credibility of terrorists who use violence in the name of Islam. That will require effective diplomacy in building and maintaining an international coalition for an extended period, the cooperation of law enforcement services, intelligence services, financial experts, communications specialists, and others. The work will be long and arduous, and many of the successes in this struggle will not be evident to the public.
Biographies: Coping With Terrorism Speakers
Related Institute Online Resources Coping with Terrorism: Challenges and Responses (with downloadable audio files)
The United States Institute of Peace is mandated by Congress to strengthen the nation's capabilities to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflict. The Research and Studies Program serves as an active bridge between academia and the policy community. Through small working groups, public meetings, and written products, the Research and Studies Program performs a full range of policy-support activities, including convening foreign policy formulators, practitioners and regional experts to assess and discuss policy options for dealing with international conflicts. |
||||||
|
UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE Chairman of the Board: Chester A. Crocker |
|||||
Home | Jobs | FAQs | Contact Us | Directions | Privacy Policy | Site Map
United States Institute of Peace -- 1200 17th Street NW -- Washington, DC 20036
(202) 457-1700 (phone) -- (202) 429-6063 (fax)
Send Feedback