| There has been a major concern expressed by government and military officials over the last several years about a "new terrorism" threat on domestic soil. The main threat of terrorism in the future is characterized by the fears of sarin gas, anthrax, weapons of mass destruction, and chemical stockpiles that could kill thousands. These threats, however, are greatly exaggerated. While it is important to be cognizant of the worst possible attack imaginable against our homeland, these worst case scenarios should not be used to scare the American public into consenting to expand military jurisdiction within domestic borders, or be the sole focus of our anti-terrorism and counterterrorism efforts. This would hurt the overall security of our nation, unnecessarily threatening certain civil liberties, and even possibly helping domestic and international terrorists achieve their goals. |
| When considering the threat of terrorism that American’s are faced with, it is important that we control public expectations. While it is important to emphasize the commitment of our government to protect its citizens from abhorrent acts of terrorism, it must be made clear that there is no way to ever completely eliminate such a threat. That being said, the first step in combating terrorism is to understand the threat to American citizens, specifically on American soil. |
| Until 1993, most Americans felt relatively safe from political violence at home. The two most obvious reasons for the increased concern about terrorism since then are the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. This, however, does not explain the shifted emphasis towards terrorist threats involving unconventional forms of terrorism. There are three major reasons for this new fear: the1995 nerve gas attack in Tokyo, the 1997 disclosure of alarming information about the former Soviet Union’s massive biological-warfare program, and the disturbing discoveries about the extent of Saddam Hussein’s hidden chemical and biological arsenal. Preparations against an unconventional terror attack on the U.S. also became the President’s personal project following his reading of "The Cobra Event," a science fiction novel that describes a terrorist attack on New York City with a genetically engineered mix of smallpox and cold viruses. |
| However, there is a big difference between the public dread of such attacks and the actual threat. While the perceived threat of terrorism has changed, the nature of terrorist attacks has not. Chart 1 and Chart 2, in Appendix A, are comprised of statistics taken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an annual basis from 1981-1998. Over a span of 18 years, 646 American citizens were killed by international terrorism (terrorism involving citizens or territory involving more than one country). Including the Oklahoma City bombing, an act of domestic terrorism, this brings the casualty rate up to 814 killed and over 2720 wounded. By either count, more Americans are killed every 8 days in car accidents in the U.S. than were killed in 18 years by terrorist acts. Chart 2 shows another important statistic that should alleviate the fear of chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks. Over 80% of terrorist incidents against the U.S. from 1982-1997 were bombing attacks, and none involved unconventional forms of terror. In fact, of the more than 8000 incidents of terrorism that occurred in the world from 1968 to 1994, "only 52 had evidence of terrorists plotting such an attack, attempting to use chemical or biological agents or to steal, or otherwise fabricate on their own nuclear devices." Now that both the potential and most likely threats facing our nation have been established, one must examine what types of prevention and response mechanisms we have in place. |
| The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are the agencies that have traditionally taken the lead in fighting terrorism. The FBI has several assets that enable it to fulfill its mission to "prevent acts of terrorism before they occur or to react to them after they happen by bringing the perpetrators to justice." The Strategic Information and Operations Center (SIOC) and the Counterterrorism Center are two centers that have been created to help combat the threat of terrorism in the new century. The SOIC was recently enlarged and modernized with state-of-the-art technology. It is available during times of national crisis, such as following the commission of an act of terrorism, for use by FBI employees and representatives from other federal, state, or local agencies. |
| The Counterterrorism Center was established in 1996. Twenty other federal agencies participate in the FBI center. This center helps law enforcement and intelligence communities more effectively prevent or respond to terrorist threats by combining the experience and skills of each represented agency and enhancing the flow of intelligence, thereby allowing for a collaborative exchange of information. As one can see in Chart 1, in Appendix B, the number of attacks the FBI prevented in the 1990s, is greater than the number of attacks that actually occurred, and since the creation of the Counterterrorism Center, the FBI prevented more attacks in two years than in the previous seven years, combined. |
| FEMA’s mission is to "to reduce loss of life and property and protect our nation's critical infrastructure from all types of hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based, emergency management program mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery." It is the federal agency charged with building and supporting the nation's emergency management system. FEMA’s activities cover a large spectrum, aiming to prepare, respond, recover, mitigate, reduce the risk, and prevent disaster from happening. |
| In recent years, the response team has expanded to include the military, in the form of the U.S Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM). Under the FY 1997 Defense Authorization Bill, the Domestic Preparedness initiative was formed. Along with SBCCOM (the DoD representative agency), the FBI, and FEMA, partners in this initiative include the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and Public Health Service. The mission of this multi-agency team is to train city emergency responders and leaders and provide them with the knowledge and experience to conduct their own training programs for local community response teams. |
| However, there have been indications that the U.S. military is moving away from solely providing training and equipment to protect its citizens domestically, to opening up the door for domestic law enforcement by federal troops. Effective 1 October 1999, the Unified Command Plan 1999 tasked the U.S. Joint Forces Command to become the "operational-level Commander in Chief over DoD support for CONUS [continental United States] WMD [weapons of mass destruction] management planning and response." While the Joint Task Force – Civil Support, that is under the CINC’s command, will supposedly only support the Lead Federal Agency during a WMD incident, this comes dangerously close to violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which states that troops cannot be used in law enforcement activities. |
| There are several reasons why expanding military jurisdiction may not only be unnecessary, but harmful to our nation’s well being. The first issue is military readiness. Just as our Army has seen overseas deployments hurt the combat readiness of several divisions, many officers worry that training for anti-terrorism operations will also degrade the military’s ability to fight. Another factor that could effect the readiness and strength of our military in the near future is maintaining domestic support. Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig believes that erosion of public support is one of the three biggest threats our military faces in the next thirty years. Without public support, the Department of Defense will not receive the funding needed to support its increasing budget requirements. Defense costs are likely to rise as a result of continuing peace keeping operations and the need to replace the large stockpile of planes, ships, tanks, and weapons bought in the 1980s that have reached the end of its useful life. There are indications that the use of our military domestically could result in a significant decline in support. Some critics, such as the powerful lobby group the American Civil Liberties Union, point to the siege at Waco, Texas in 1993, where military officials were called in to assist the FBI and ATF, as evidence that the military is already too involved in law enforcement. There was also some vocalized concern, made by way of so-called "Patriot" or "militia movement" Web sites, from extreme conservatives who began to warn others that National Guard exercises designed to prepare its forces to respond to a possible social breakdown resulting from the Y2K bug represented a "New World Order" plan to install martial law. |
| Another issue questions how a domestic military command could effect civil liberties and our democratic system. It is not only the government’s right, but it is the duty of our government to protect its citizens from harm. As citizens, we must not, however, be forced to relinquish other rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution in order for the government to perform this duty. Defense Secretary William Cohen, one of the biggest proponents for the Homeland Defense, disagrees with this opinion. He says that, "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection." By adopting this attitude, our government may be facilitating an environment where terrorists can be successful. Changing our policies, laws, and the role of the military, would show that terrorism works. Terrorists have succeeded in intimidating the government and its citizens. Allowing such legislation would not increase deterrent measures to terrorism but open the door to more terrorism. It is important that our government retains public support and commitment in the fight against terrorism and not only remembers who we are fighting, but what we are fighting for. |
| Besides the over tasking of our military and the threat to civil liberties, the over emphasis on responding to chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks in hurting our ability to be prepared for conventional terrorist attacks. While it is important that we prepare for all contingencies, our government is ignoring the most visible trend in terrorism since 1983 – unclaimed car bombs. Some of the most deadly attacks of the last two decades have been of this sort, to include the Marine barracks and American Embassy in Beirut, the World Trade Center, federal building in Oklahoma City, Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. While our conventional forces have to fight for every penny they get from Congress, since 1995, billions of dollars have been asked for from Congress and quickly approved to start making preparations for an unconventional terror attack on the U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre earmarked $49.2 million in the FY 99 Pentagon budget to begin preparations for WMD attacks because he said, "It is not a question of if {such an event will occur}, it is a question of when and where." Based on the fact that the most recent and deadly attacks of terrorism against Americans were caused by bombs at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam in 1998, it is time to start reallocating our counterterrorism resources according to the risks that our country is imminently faced with. |
| Despite the fact that there has never been a chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attack in the world that has caused mass casualties (the Japanese sarin attack resulted in only 12 deaths), both conventional and unconventional acts of terror are realistic threats, and our country should continue to find the most effective ways possible to combat these threats. The first part in determining how to stop terrorists is to understand their psychological rationale for conducting terrorism to achieve their goals. In recent years, many respected scientist have become the president’s top advisors on counterterrorism. Terrorism, however, is a "form of psychological warfare in which the killing of a relatively small number of innocent civilians is used to send a brutal message of hate and fear to hundreds of millions of people." Based on this definition, it is not likely or necessary for a terrorist to use a WMD to achieve his goal. Therefore, some of the biologists and chemists that have been called upon to help prepare for the unsubstantiated worst-case scenario of unconventional terrorism, should be replaced with the traditional terrorism specialists who understand our adversary’s preferences and values, and can provide us with a strong deterrence capability. |
| One of the most important ways of deterring terrorist attacks, whether it be car bombs or biological weapons, is through the idea of reciprocity. It is important that our adversaries are assured of the swift and sure measure that will be taken against those who engage in terrorism against the U.S. The following quote by President Reagan clearly states our policy of intolerance for terrorism: "We must make it clear to any country that is tempted to use violence to undermine democratic governments, destabilize our friends, thwart our efforts to promote democratic government, or disrupt our lives, that it has nothing to gain, and much to lose." The U.S. must maintain a terrorism response capability that echoes this policy statement in order to effectively deter terrorist attacks on its citizens. |
| The threat of terrorist attacks against American civilians both at home and abroad, is one that should be taken seriously, and, realistically, is a threat that can never completely be eliminated. Creating a domestic military command and narrowing our focus to mainly combating unconventional terror attacks, however, will not provide us with the most effective or appropriate response. Our government officials should continue to support the successful efforts of agencies such as the FBI and FEMA, and local, state, and federal civilian law enforcement that are constantly preparing for the worst imaginable threat to our nation’s well being. While it is important to recognize that terrorism is a legitimate threat, it is just as important to recognize that it is a limited one. Our nation should not react to criminal acts of limited violence in a way that could potentially destroy our unity as a nation and degrade our trust in the fairness and restraint of our government. As our nation struggles to win this fight, it is imperative that we remember what we are fighting for. We must maintain what terrorists seek to destroy: the democratic values that set us apart from all other political systems, which allow our country to thrive, no matter what catastrophes we may face as a nation. |
APPENDIX A
Chart 1:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Chart 2:
| Terrorist incidents | ||
| By type of incident and target, United States, 1982-97 (aggregate) | ||
| Number | ||
| Total |
183
|
|
| Type of incident | ||
| Bombing attacks |
147
|
|
| Malicious destruction of property |
4
|
|
| Acts of sabotage |
2
|
|
| Hostile takeover |
4
|
|
| Arson |
8
|
|
| Kidnapping; assaults; alleged assassinations; assassinations |
11
|
|
| Robbery; attempted robbery |
6
|
|
| Hijacking |
1
|
|
| Type of target | ||
| Private residence/vehicle |
18
|
|
| Military personnel/establishments |
33
|
|
| Educational establishments |
6
|
|
| Commercial establishments |
76
|
|
| State and United States government buildings/property |
33
|
|
| Diplomatic establishments |
17
|
|
APPENDIX B
Chart 1:
| Terrorist incidents and preventions | |||
| United States, 1982-97 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1982
|
51
|
0
|
3
|
|
1983
|
31
|
2
|
6
|
|
1984
|
13
|
3
|
9
|
|
1985
|
7
|
6
|
23
|
|
1986
|
25
|
2
|
9
|
|
1987
|
9
|
8
|
5
|
|
1988
|
9
|
5
|
3
|
|
1989
|
4
|
16
|
7
|
|
1990
|
7
|
1
|
5
|
|
1991
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
|
1992
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
|
1993
|
12
|
2
|
7
|
|
1994
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
1995
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|
1996
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
|
1997
|
2
|
2
|
21
|
| Total |
183
|
50
|
109
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
| Bender, Bryan. "DoD Approves Guard, Reserve Role in Domestic Terrorism."
Defense
Daily. 28 January 1998: 1. Danzig, Richard. The Big Three: Our Greatest Security Risks and How To Address Hoffman, Bruce. Responding to Terrorism Across the Technological Spectrum. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1994. Lewis Jr., John F. "Fighting Terrorism in the 21st Century." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, vol. 68, issue 3, (March 1999): 3-11. Netanyahu, Benjamin. Terrorism: How the West Can Win. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1986. "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1995 – Year in Review." On-line. Accessed 10 April 1998: A21. Stern, Jessica. The Ultimate Terrorists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Schweizer, Peter. "Terrorist Attack in U.S.? Don’t Put US Military In Charge." USA Today. 30 September 2000: 19A. "Terrorism in the United States – 1997." On-line. Accessed 15 April 2000. Available from http://www.fbi.gov/publish/terror/terr97.pdf. Internet. "US Martial Law Coming? Cohen Predicts Army Will Patrol Streets. " On-line. David A. Charters. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.
WORKS CITED "Ambassador Sheehan, Post-millennium Terrorism Review. " On-line. Accessed 5 Charters, David A. "Conclusions: Security and Liberty in Balance – Countering Department of Defense, 1995. Davis Jr., Edwin F. "Counterterrorism: A National Security Priority For the 21st Century." Strategy research project, US Army War College, 1997. "FEMA Backgrounder - Terrorism. " On-line. Accessed 5 March 2000. Available from Masters thesis, Naval Post Graduate School, 1987. Humphries, John G. "International Terrorism as a Form of Lawful Warfare: An Idea Publisher, LTD., 1998. Motley, James. US Strategy to Counter Domestic Political Terrorism. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1983. Netanyahu, Benjamin. Fighting Terrorism. New York: Farrar, Staus, Giroux, 1995. Richter, Paul. "Experts Assess Risk Of 'New Terrorism' Threat." Los Angeles Times. 7 February 2000: 7. Riley, Kevin J. and Bruce Hoffman. Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Preparedness. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press. 1995. Tarpley, John J. "Terrorism: The Challenge and the Response." Student essay, U.S. Army War College, 1986 |