Terrorism & Political Violence
“Hard” Policy Approaches
• Military Option
• Economic Sanctions
• Law Enforcement
© William Eric Davis - All Rights Reserved.
“Hardening” Likely Targets
A passive form of deterrence involves
hardening likely targets.
Such targets include Political Targets,
Economic Targets, Ecological Targets, and
Educational Targets.
Political Targets
1. The President
2. The Vice President
3. The First Lady
4. Mrs. Vice President
5. The President's Family
6. The Vice President's Family
7. Ex-Presidents
8. An Ex-President's Family
9. U.S. Embassies
10. U.S. Consulates
11. Foreign Embassies in U.S.
12. Governors of Key States
13. The Statue of Liberty
14. Political Conventions
15. The White House
16. The U.S. Congress
17. Air Force One
18. The Lincoln Memorial
19. Camp David
20. The Smithsonian Institute
21. The Washington Monument
Economic Targets
1. Oil Pipelines
2. Banks
3. Financial Institutions
4. Oil Tankers
5. Oil Companies
6. Auto Manufacturers
7. Fort Knox
8. The Wheat Belt
9. Important Bridges
10. New York Harbor
11. The Lincoln Tunnel
12. The Holland Tunnel
13. Postal Services
14. Empire State Building
15. Wall Street
16. NY Stock Exchange
17. Electrical Power Grids
18. Coal Power Plants
19. Nuclear Power Plants
20. Chemical Companies
21. FED Chairman
Ecological Targets
1. America's Farm Belt (Food Supply)
2. National Forests
3. U.S. Cattle Herds
4. National Parks
5. Hoover Dam
6. Other Dams
Educational Targets
1. Universities
2. Private Schools
3. Summer Camps
4. School Buses
5. Ivy League Schools
6. Schools that Politicians attended
Terrorist Targeting Formulas
When selecting a target, terrorists usually seek out the
one that is: (a) most high up in vital importance to
their enemy; (b) softest in terms of being
unprotected; and (c) most significant or symbolic to
their cause.
A series of attacks on the nation's landmarks, for
example, would NOT be the typical pattern of a
relatively small, emerging terrorist group.
That kind of totally symbolic strategy would most likely be
followed by a terrorist group that has already attacked
other targets, and is using the landmarks as a way to
"finish up" their work.
Terrorist Political & Economic Targeting
A group with an ecological target would also be typically
one that has already attacked in another way, the
purpose here being to demoralize or weaken their
enemy, but like groups with an educational target (like
an all-white school that rich kids attend), there might
be some unusual race-based or nation-based hatred
involved.
Therefore, the main targets are going to be POLITICAL and
ECONOMIC, especially as the two of these (and others) might
overlap.
For example, the terrorists can be expected to do their homework,
and they will find out which companies, corporations, causes,
and schools that the political leaders worked for, are involved in,
or attended. These kind of calculations will ultimately determine
targeting.
Targeting Transportation & Tourism
Many homeland security precautions, however,
are directed toward hardening what might be
called transportation, transit, or tourist
targets.
These are almost always insecure, if not "soft" targets,
and usage of them by terrorists may be more a
matter of convenience than calculation.
Their only value is the shock or fear effect produced, but
governments must and will go to great lengths to show
they are protecting their innocent citizens.
Tourist Targets
1. Museums
2. Theme Parks
3. Shopping Centers
4. Railway Stations
5. Subway Stations
6. Airports
7. Ferries
8. Opera Theatres
9. Musical Events
10. Expensive Restaurants
11. Expensive Hotels
12. New Years Eve Events
13. Cruise Ships
14. Ski Resorts
15. Golf Resorts
16. Casinos
17. Athletic Events
18. Hollywood Events
Tourism Tactics
With this last group of targets, there is the distinct possibility that a
terrorist attack will not be recognized as an attack when it comes,
and by that, is meant that some kind of "silent" WMD might be
used, for example, a germ warfare agent or a slow radiological leak
of some kind.
While there is no substitute for the value of news coverage that will be
obtained by bombing a tourist target, such "flashy" tactics by the
terrorists will make for little difference whether the target is big or
small.
In other words, a small shopping center in the heartland makes for as
good a tourist bombing target as a large shopping center in a
major city.
What the major tourist targets need are monitoring devices for a WMD
attack, not the usual additional bomb-sniffing patrols.
Overview of Military and Economic Options
Military and economic counterterrorism is successful
largely for symbolic reasons.
• It makes us feel good to drop bombs on an enemy and to think
we are siphoning off their money.
• This is known as the “catharsis effect” of counterterrorism, and
there are some experts who argue that sometimes that is the
best policy.
• The truth, however, is that more innocent people than intended
targets usually suffer under these options.
• Bombs often go awry, causing "collateral damage," and it is
well-known that economic sanctions rarely cause the
sanctioned regime to suffer -- it is their people who suffer.
Evaluation of Military and Economic Options
At best, these options produce destabilization
in regions where terrorism thrives.
Also, since both military and economic options are
so closely tied to foreign policy, we will continue
to discuss that, with an overview of national
security strategy in the context of international
relations.
BALANCE OF POWER
“Balance of Power” theory is the idea of an
interlocking, equilibrium-based system of
international order.
Each nation would keep an eye on every other nation, and when one
nation showed signs of misconduct (starting a war or expanding its
colonies), the other nations would shift their alliances, the weak
against the strong, to restore the status quo distribution of power.
It suggests an equilibrium approach to keeping peace. However, it
ignores the influence of ideology, values, past grievances, and other
psychological factors that would obstruct a shift of alliances.
Nixon’s overtures to China in 1972 is an example: it set up the US as a
balancing influence against China and the Soviet Union. The separate
branches of the US government is another example.
Can Alliances Shift for Greater
Good of Peace?
It had always been the case throughout history
that alliances and treaties were formed on
the basis that one's ally is who they fear less
against the power they fear more (i.e., the law
of survival).
But it had never been the case, until the balance of
power idea came along, that the enemy of today
would become the ally of tomorrow.
Maintaining the Balance
There still were limited wars among the nations that
applied the balance-of-power principle -- to force
aggressors afterwards to the bargaining table and/or
to restore balance by forcing a retreat.
State Departments and Foreign Ministries were
dedicated to keeping their nations from “rocking the
boat.”
It also meant opposing a traditional ally, or supporting
a traditional enemy.
The Military Option is not always
necessary to maintain balance
Balance of power could be maintained by redistributing
economic wealth, commercial channels, monopolies
on technology, or other resources.
Balance of Power was a generally peaceful system for preventing
global domination by any one power.
But it all fell apart with World War I, but then was resurrected after
World War II (that version of it is known as detente, with only
two superpowers, Russia and the U.S., left to maintain the
equilibrium).
However, the US and Russia would form permanent alliances with
nations that shared their respective ideology and values.
Shifting of support was not based on imbalance, but on
ideology and values (and economic advantage).
The Cold War Version
The Cold War (the rivalry without military aggression)
between the US and the USSR led both sides to
support dictators and oppressive regimes so long as
the dictator opposed the other side.
In other words, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
It meant that sometimes the US would support the
“baddies” and oppose the “goodies.”
An example is when the US supported Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s against Iran. The
latter was the greater threat to the US and Iraq was
the only game in town to “check” Iran (without the
US doing the invading).
Post WWII (Post 1945)
Moving now to 1945, with the end of World
War II and the birth of the United Nations,
we see another type of strategy
developing - the doctrine of detente or
deterrence (and other names) - which was
a “game” played by the world's
superpowers, (Russia and the U.S.), with
the whole world as their playing field.
The Nuclear Age
1945 was also the birth of the atomic warfare
age, and the type of deterrence involved was
nuclear deterrence.
For four years after the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the U.S. enjoyed the privilege of being
the world's sole atomic superpower, but that all
changed in 1949 when Russia detonated its first
atomic bomb in a trial experiment.
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
The idea that collective world security could be
maintained by having a very small number of
nations, ideally two, in possession of enough
nuclear weapons so that conventional war would
become obsolete and the threat of global
thermonuclear war would become unthinkable and
suicidal.
“Mutual Assured Destruction” was the means of
deterrence.
It was meant to deter war, but provided no guidance on
how to stop a war if deterrence should fail to prevent the
outbreak of war. There were no other theories or policies
to deal with that either.
Mutual Assured Destruction
(MAD) and “Flexible Response”
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was a
deterrent philosophy. It meant that because
each side had the ability to wipe each other
out, they didn't dare do it.
The idea of Flexible Response (that augmented
MAD) was the notion of using conventional
forces first, and then developing and using
smaller nuclear warheads (20-megaton city
destroyers all the way to devices so small
they could be carried by one soldier).
An Arms Race Begins
The doctrine of detente or deterrence which took the form of an
Arms Race and Cold War between Russia and the U.S. was not
managed by the U.N., but that international body quickly
became a forum for conflict between the world's two
superpowers.
The U.N. was helpless, and other nations were helpless. The U.N.
could take no action because both Russia and the U.S.
exercised veto power whenever it looked like the U.N. needed
to step in.
Strangely enough, the Cold War kept the peace pretty well and no
nuclear war ever erupted between any nations (or groups). This
may be because the US and USSR (and China, France and
England) have vetoes on the UN Security Council. It may be
because their leaders were rational.
MODERN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
Today, the situation has changed dramatically. Nuclear deterrence is no
longer a credible threat.
Nuclear deterrence doctrines no longer preoccupy policymakers.
Instead, the primary threats facing the United States, its allies and its
friends are terrorism, ethnic violence and a few small states that seek
to use force to intimidate their neighbors or to enslave their own
populations.
Some strategists have urged a renewal of deterrence as defense policy,
but terrorists and their sponsors are quite difficult to deter because
they actually seek destruction (the so-called "crazy states"
phenomenon), and threatening them with war and destruction in
retaliation for some violent act produces no deterrent effect. It also
causes lots of “collateral damage.”
Violence is not a means to an end for many modern terrorists, it is the
goal itself.
How Can the US Respond?
How can the US “retaliate” if a terrorist
succeeds in setting off a nuclear bomb in the
US?
Do we respond with a nuclear attack on the
terror group’s sponsor nations (those that
provided money, sanctuary, etc.)?
Can retaliation even be a part of our response
policy? If so, how?
Preventive Preemption
The idea that the best defense is a good
offense.
Under international law: it is the doctrine of
anticipatory self-defense or a preemptive war
that arises when one side decides there is a
very great risk its adversary will attack within
days or hours, and that the attack will cripple
its ability to defend itself or retaliate.
How Does Preemption Look Now?
Preventive preemption requires that policymakers
assess threats, decide if conflict is inevitable, and
then make one of the most difficult and horrific
decisions in international relations.
Policymakers have to make judgments about the level
of risk the nation is prepared to accept and decide
whether it is better to fight now while the costs are
relatively low, or wait and possibly confront a more
dangerous adversary later.
It will (and already has) led to anger toward America by
America’s allies and enemies alike.
Preventive Preemption Is Now
Official US Policy
Preemptive prevention was announced
by President George W. Bush as the
official U.S. policy during a speech at
West Point on June 1, 2002.
“Shock and Awe”
It is somewhat similar to a notion of deterrence,
however, the correct terminology is “dissuasion”.
Dissuasion refers to a situation where there is only one
superpower in the world, called a hyperpower, and dissuasion
suggests that military strikes by this hyperpower will be so
technologically and operationally advanced, that potential
competitors and enemies will abandon all threats.
Dissuasion is a hyperpower's way of playing asymmetric warfare,
since terrorists do just enough to taunt retaliation with their
guerilla hit-and-run tactics, the appropriate response is
overwhelming "shock and awe."
Democratic Difficulties in Preemption
There have been 20 preventive wars launched by great powers
over the last three centuries.
Pearl Harbor, for example, was a preemptive strike by the
Japanese against the U.S.
Preemptive strikes sometimes backfire. Democracies tend to
avoid them. Democratic societies are usually restrained by fear
of cost and doubts over the serious of a threat warranting
preemptive action.
Politicians also are concerned that voters will toss them out of
office if they over-reach.
Democracies (especially Europe) typically prefer to create an
alliance or coalition, relying on strategies of destabilization and
containment, or possibly covert operations in hopes of starting
a coup.
Preemption is Controversial
However, there is some precedent for
preemption. Military advisors suggested
preemption during the Cuban Missile Crisis,
and Israel definitely used it when they
perceived they were under imminent threat of
Arab attack in 1967.
Preemptive wars are rare because of the
immense costs at home and internationally,
and there are almost always debates about
the threat's gravity and immediacy.
UN CHARTER Provides Basic Right
There is also precedent for preemptive prevention in
the U.N. Charter by what is called "anticipatory selfdefense."
The U.N. Charter, Article 51, declares that nothing shall impair the
inherent right of a member nation to engage in individual or
collective self-defense if attacked.
It should be noted that there are controversies over interpretation
of Article 51.
The interests of justice requires a clear explanation by the
attacking nation of the grounds for preemption (need for
"regime change"), and there is probably some moral obligation
for reconstruction ("nation building") after preemptive action
has been taken.
Justification for Preemption
First strikes can occasionally be justified
before the moment of imminent attack, if the
point of "sufficient threat" has been
reached. This concept has three
dimensions:
• [A] A manifest intent to injure by an enemy
• [B] A degree of active preparation that makes
that intent a positive danger
• [C] AND a general situation in which waiting
greatly magnifies the risk
Preemption Rationale
• Protecting the territory and population of the
homeland
• Preventing the emergence of a hostile coalition
• Ensuring freedom of the seas, lines of
communication, airways, and space
• Ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy
supplies, and strategic resources
• Deterring and defeating aggression against allies
and friends
MILITARY COUNTERMEASURES
The military option is what most people think of when
they think of counterterrorism.
However, special counterterrorist operations usually
are only carried out under special, highly restrictive,
circumstances.
The basic problems are that the military doesn't work
well with criminal justice procedures (which are
often part of the mix when capture and prosecution,
rather than assassination, is the goal).
Military’s Purpose
The military's purpose is to kill people and blow things up, but
terrorists rarely provide a "target-rich" environment.
The military is also trained to carry out defensive as well as offensive
action, but in many cases (usually involving occupation of a
country afterwards), the need for defensive maneuvers interfere
with successful completion of tracking down terrorists.
Offensive action may be necessary to destroy regimes that align
themselves with terrorism, and these often have to be U.S.-led
efforts, in order to create an incentive for allies to send police
forces afterwards.
Offensive action is synonymous with higher morale at home. [Notice
how public support for Iraq war dropped once it turned defensive].
Special Forces are well-suited
for Counterterrorism
All branches of the U.S. military contain special
operations forces that are well suited for
counterterrorist missions.
It is well known that these special forces are more
effective and produce less collateral damage than
conventional forces.
They are also the kinds of forces that commit to the
most risk of death. This is the reason why
policymakers are reluctant to use them. However,
they often suffer fewer casualties than an invasion
force. Their use can be provocations.
America’s “Special Teams”
Some special forces contain police units, but most of
them are trained for reconnaissance, surveillance,
"surgical" raids, hostage rescue, abductions, and
liaisons with allied counterterrorist forces.
U.S. special operations forces are organized under the U.S. Special
Operations Command, and mostly consist of Green Berets organized
into units called A Teams. The traditional purpose of an A Team is
getting on the ground and multiplying their operational strength.
Delta Force is a more secretive group that also operates in small teams.
When large elite units are needed, America relies upon such units as the
Army's 75th (Ranger) Regiment, or the U.S. Marine Corps.
The U.S. Navy also has special assault units called the Sea Air Land
Forces (SEALs).
Assassinations
The most common objective of a special forces unit in
counterterrorism is to punish and destroy the terrorists, and
secondly, to destroy their military and paramilitary assets.
There are times, however, when you need to go further, and
destroy the terrorist's non-military sources of support.
This is when covert operations are called for. They are usually
arranged by an agency of the intelligence community, but
frequently involve U.S. military forces.
Some intelligence agencies have their own paramilitary force,
however. There is a long history of covert ops, or "shadow
wars," and probably the most controversial aspect of it is
assassination. This is generally reserved for the elimination of
key supporters of terrorism.
Evaluating Assassinations
There is little research on the effectiveness of assassination when
it comes to terrorism, and martyrdom effects are
likely. Needless to say, such missions are secret, and
government "deniability" is incorporated into such operations.
Some history: after the Vietnam war, in 1976, the U.S. officially declared
that it would no longer use assassination. It was Executive Order
11905, which also prohibited the US government hiring anyone to
commit assassination.
A presidential executive order signed in 1981 (Executive Order 12333)
expressly forbids employees of the U.S. from assassinating
adversaries. It reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies
sponsoring or carrying out an assassination.
In 1995, Clinton signed Executive Order 12947 limiting the US from having
dealings with anyone or group engaged in illegal activities. He also
expanded the ban on assassinations that specifically outlawed
deliberately killing Osama bin Laden, even though the CIA had Osama
bin Laden in its sights.
US Morality Can Backfire
Prohibitions on assassination kept us from “taking
out” people like Osama bin Laden, when he was
clearly a threat to the US.
The prohibitions were reconsidered in the wake of
terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland during
September 11, 2001.
During the George W. Bush administration this bans
against assassination were reinterpreted, and
relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United
States as connected to terrorism.
Psychological Warfare
Also covert and somewhat secretive in nature is
psychological warfare, which involves the creation
of mistrust, fear, infighting, and other types of
discord in the target society.
• Typically, this is a destabilization operation, and ranges from
dangerous activities like infiltrating a terrorist group or
dropping propaganda or disinformation leaflets over the
enemy.
• A number of newer techniques have incorporated principles of
cyberwar or information warfare.
Does this qualify as terrorism?
Terrorism Financing
Terrorists use a variety of means for financing.
Besides money laundering, they may use
drug trafficking, smuggling of bulk cash,
trade-based money laundering, charities for
fundraising, and informal money remittance
systems such as hawala.
A hawala (also known as hundi) is an informal
money transfer system used primarily in the
Middle East, Africa and Asia.
Hawalas
Hawalas originated in South Asia.
In the hawala system, money is transferred
via a network of hawala brokers, or
hawaladars.
The transparency of hawala networks (no
records are kept) may very well represent
the greatest challenge in fighting terrorism
on the economic front.
Hawalas in the US
Within the US alone, there are about 23,000
convenience stores, restaurants, and small shops
where the Hawala banking system is practiced.
It is difficult to investigate because record-keeping is not required
or controlled and, in contrast to the usual procedure of money
laundering, funds used by Hawala to underwrite terror
frequently start off "clean" (such as contributions to so-called
“charities”) and become "dirty" later.
Amounts are somewhat small, say around $200, adding to the
difficulty of tracking them.
Executive Order 13224
Fighting terrorism economically is a priority
established by Executive Order 13224 (September
23, 2001), which expanded U.S. power to target the
support structure of terrorist organizations.
Law enforcement (primarily the U.S. Treasury Department with some of its
new offices) now has the ability to freeze assets and to block the
financial transactions of terrorists and those that support them.
It also enables the United States to deny foreign banks access to U.S.
markets if they refuse to cooperate with American authorities through
identifying and freezing terrorist resources abroad.
As of early 2003, the United States has succeeded in freezing terrorist
assets in over 165 countries. Since September 11, 2001, more than
$112 million in terrorist assets has been frozen worldwide in over 500
accounts. More than $34 million of these assets was frozen in the
United States, and over $78 million was frozen overseas.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Besides Treasury Dept. initiatives, the USA PATRIOT
ACT also established the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network (FinCEN) intelligence unit
which is tasked with being the primary U.S.
intelligence source for domestic financial
information.
It is responsible for maintaining and analyzing
Suspicious Action Reports and Currency
Transaction Reports filed by financial institutions in
accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act.
It also works with law enforcement, the CIA, and regulatory
agencies to assist with intelligence of financial crimes
committed within the United States.
The EGMONT GROUP
In addition, there is the Egmont Group—an
international organization of 69 Financial Intelligence
Units formed six years before September 11, 2001 to
share intelligence of suspicious financial activities.
Other multilateral groups, such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund assist with legal
harmonization, which is a term meaning that technical
assistance treaties and extradition treaties all have to be
modified to support more sophisticated tracking of
terrorist financing (while at the same time being sensitive
to the different definitions of terrorism and legal systems
of foreign countries).
The Numerically Integrated Profiling
System (NIPS)
A Customs supercomputer called the Numerically
Integrated Profiling System (NIPS) has improved
the Treasury Department’s counterterrorism
efforts.
This intelligence software, which was originally designed to track
airline passenger information, was modified to track terrorist
financing activities.
NIPS is housed in the Trade Crimes Intelligence Unit within the
Intelligence Division at Customs headquarters, and the
service spends about $150,000 per year on it, which runs
under Windows NT and can search as much as 100G of data
nearly instantly.
“War on Terror”
vs. “Law Enforcement” Approach
The primary differences between a war on terrorism
versus a war on crime or other social problems:
•
Terrorists firmly believe their cause is just (while most criminals admit
they are deviant).
•
An effective war on terrorism needs military type weapons (police
have little need for military weapons and equipment).
•
A war on terrorism has (or should have) a clear and identifiable enemy
(while social problems are more ambiguous).
•
A war on terrorism is political (rather than social, which is “solved” by
tinkering with social service delivery systems).
•
A terrorist enemy does not enjoy U.S. legal protections (at least they
have fewer constitutional protections).