America is up to the challenge: Successfully confronting terrorism

Photo of author
Written By Carol Devine-Molin

During the past six months, our society has made notable strides in myriad ways for the purpose of effectively addressing this “war on terrorism”. We are an adaptive and creative people that have responded superbly to the crisis at hand. The clear and present danger of a horrific attack now looms ominously, with these murderous Islamic thugs attempting to perpetuate profound damage through the exploitation of our vulnerabilities and the utilization of advanced weaponry. The threat of nuclear and radiological terrorist strikes are now at the forefront of our consideration, given the intelligence community’s advisories. And this is quickly followed up by other warfare concerns including possible widespread contamination of our food supply, and the use of biological and chemical weapons.

Detection devices and high-tech sensors are already available and are expected to be more extensively promulgated in order to intercept radiological or nuclear devices. Detonation of a “dirty bomb” poses an especially credible threat to the citizenry, according to numerous experts on terrorism. The term “dirty bomb” is a colloquialism for a radiological bomb, a conventional explosive combined with radioactive materials that generates widespread radiation, and renders the affected area uninhabitable for years to come. Its primary purpose is to terrorize the citizenry. The “dirty bomb” kills relatively few individuals on detonation, but is a potent psychological weapon, inflicting ongoing fear and avoidance of the terrain that harbors pernicious levels of radiation. And of course, radiation poisoning and further resulting fatalities will ensue, beyond those that perished in the initial blast.

According to the 3/3/02 edition of the Washington Post (“Fears Prompt US to Beef Up Nuclear Terror Detection”) Geiger counters have now been replaced by “newer devices called gamma ray and neutron flux detectors”. The Army’s Delta Force has been designated to liquidate or disable individuals that are believed to possess a nuclear weapon, and with “turning (the device) over to the scientists to be disarmed”. Moreover, it’s quite feasible that al-Qaeda has acquired a “stolen Soviet-era tactical nuclear warhead or enough weapons-grade material to fashion a functioning, if less efficient, atomic bomb”. Although it seems incomprehensible, nonetheless we must be exceedingly prudent and prepare for a dreaded worst-case scenario involving a major urban center being subjected to nuclear or radiological attack.

Noteworthy, weapons grade materials were reportedly stolen from Russia, during the 1990’s. Experts now believe that “al Qaeda probably has acquired the lower-level radio nuclides strontium 90 and cesium 137”, which are radioactive contaminates and can be utilized to make a “dirty bomb”. This is not far-fetched, as Chechen rebels linked with al-Qaeda reportedly constructed a radiological device using cesium 137 and dynamite, but ultimately, the weapon was not detonated.

Being cautious and circumspect, President Bush has responded to these significant emerging threats with the establishment of a “shadow government” to be sheltered in a secure underground bunker, for the continuity of Federal command. This decision was achieved in view of the growing evidence of al-Qaeda’s “nuclear ambition”, and the possibility that Washington DC will be destroyed at some future point by terrorist actions. Clearly, the Islamic radicals are still attempting to orchestrate a massive attack against the US, with the nation’s capital and the New York City metropolis still considered prime targets.

Reports have only recently surfaced that the Federal government kept an “intelligence alert” under wraps this past October, one which had the potential to cause widespread panic if it was largely disseminated (“Can We Stop The Next Attack?”, Time.com, 3/3/02). Only a very select group among a handful of Federal agencies were aware of the possible threat, which ostensibly involved “a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal” being secreted into New York City for the purpose of being detonated by terrorists in another Jihad strike against the US. It was estimated by authorities that such a catastrophic attack would “kill some100,000 civilians and irradiate 700,000 more” with obvious deleterious after-effects and subsequent deaths associated with the latter group. Code name “Dragonfire” was investigated by Federal officials and was fortunately deemed to be unfounded. But initial reports did have the ring of authenticity, since there had been numerous claims during the 1990’s of small tactical nuclear weapons being sold off by disgruntle and financially needy Russian officers. And a 10-kiloton device is believed to be among the weapons missing from the Russian stockpile, although this has not be definitively confirmed.

To avert any type of chaos, not even the Mayor of NYC was advised of this possible threat to the city. Now that this whole story is out in the media, New York elected officials such as Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Hillary Clinton are in an understandable snit, ticked off that Federal authorities did not notify and consult with New York’s top officials. This raises some interesting questions. What could possibly be accomplished to protect the citizenry, in light of a “last minute” warning of an imminent attack? And should a frenzied evacuation be ordered by authorities (resulting in possible injuries and deaths), pursuant to a late-breaking danger alert that is difficult to substantiate?

Importantly, the US is only now beginning to ameliorate long-standing inadequacies in the intelligence community. The field’s notable shortcomings, regarding its failure to effectively gather and analyze information, undermine its core goal. It’s essential to do away with the fiefdom-mentality of these organizations for the purpose of promoting cooperative efforts among various intelligence entities, which heretofore were acquiring disparate data that could not be successfully evaluated as a whole. The CIA and the FBI were both notorious for failing to share information. All data must be methodically collected, amalgamated and analyzed, by a centralized source or “fusion center”, if possible, so that the puzzle pieces yield an overall gestalt with integrated, meaningful results.

Another salient problem exhibited by the intelligence community involves an over-reliance upon technical data collection, giving short-shrift to human intelligence gathering by agents and recruited operatives in the field. Technical data can never replace the information garnered by discerning humans. Amazingly, it was reported that, until recently, the CIA had only “one Afghan analyst”, so obviously that agency was not sufficiently prepared to address intelligence needs in that sector of the world. Overall, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were exceedingly remiss for not properly anticipating their mission in this emerging landscape of the 21st century, and will therefore have to play catch-up. The field unquestionably needs to be revamped and invigorated with bold new leadership and a panoply of recruits in order to facilitate an expanding force. Moreover, the intelligence community must change its rules, and utilize “unsavory characters” as operatives in the field who can effectively infiltrate local groups and elicit valuable information. A “boy scout” will not be in a position to deal with scoundrels and garner information, as needed.

Even beyond the intelligence field, reinventing the military is absolutely key to winning the “war on terrorism”. As they say, hindsight is twenty-twenty, and the current military leadership realizes that failure to cogently retaliate against al-Qaeda for prior terrorist assaults upon US assets during the 1990’s (Twin Towers-1993, Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Africa, USS Cole, etc.), only emboldened this radical Islamic group. The lesson is that we need to hit back hard in order to deter terrorist strikes.

According to the 3/4/02 edition of Insight magazine (“Command Performance”), President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are “radically changing the way the country defends itself and wages war”. Their vision has resulted in a major paradigm shift, moving to “capability-based strategy” that stresses tough assessment of US vulnerabilities, and the manner in which these can be exploited by enemies. Penetrating analysis can then be effectively utilized to bolster US defenses and fight aggressors creatively. “The new Bush policy is to build a deterrence capability in four theaters at once, while swiftly and simultaneously defeating two aggressors, and preserving an option to overthrow an enemy regime, occupy its capital and install a new government”. The old thinking of the past fifty years depended upon “threat-based strategy”, with the emphasis on “geography” and the enemy, rather than focusing on America. It called for a “two major-theater war approach that involves occupying two enemy capitals at once, which risks leaving the United States helpless to anticipate or respond to future, newer threats”.

As indicated by Rumsfeld, transforming the military requires much more than obtaining new high-tech weaponry. It’s absolutely imperative that military personnel develop a new way of thinking or a new “mind-set” that highlights flexibility, willingness to change, and creativity, eschewing the rigid mentality of the old Pentagon bureaucracy and its resistance to innovation.

Leave a Comment