Page 2 of 2 Fighting terrorism -
but at what
cost? By Richard M Bennett
Central Intelligence Agency and FBI
all shed large numbers of staff who had been
tempered by long, hard operational experience
against the Soviet secret service (KGB) and its
allies.
Though all these services, in
common with those of their Western allies, are
quite evidently working hard and fast to repair
the damage, it will still take some years before
the new recruits can
be
welded into highly effective and truly
professional officers.
Will al-Qaeda and
the wider Islamic extremist movement be generous
enough to give the West the time to put its
security house back in order? I think not. Would
any government pay the true price of security?
"The first responsibility of any
government is to provide security for its
citizens," noted a recent US counter-terrorism
briefing. Indeed, without such security from
external aggression or internal revolt, there can
be no viable foundation on which to build the
economic and social life of the nation.
But with so many demands on often severely
limited national budgets from education, health
services, pensions and a hundred other areas,
would any government be prepared to fund a vast
increase in spending on intelligence and security?
Few Western politicians would really wish
to be responsible for the imposition of a virtual
police state; nor would they wish to be
responsible for a savage rise in taxation and risk
the wrath of the general public at the next
national election.
Even if they chose to
do so there is no certainly that throwing money at
the problem would solve anything or, indeed, make
the nation very much safer, only poorer. Larger
security services are simply not an answer in
themselves.
The communist leaders in the
Kremlin believed they could hide safely behind the
vast state security structure they had created
over 70 years. History proved them wrong; even
250,000 KGB operatives weren't enough.
If
a government doesn't have the support of the
majority of its citizens, no amount of secret
police will prevent its inevitable demise. Is this
what the ordinary British citizen really wants?
Is the general public really prepared for
the drastic measures likely to be imposed by a
government in any serious attempt to reach a
realistic, viable level of security?
The
terrorist threat at its most apparent in the
aftermath of an actual or attempted attack is
frightening and disruptive. However, this state
usually lasts for no more than a few days or so,
allowing a semblance of normalcy to return quickly
even to bomb-blasted streets.
The
draconian counter-terrorist measures needed to
have any meaningful impact on the threat of
extremist action would seriously affect the
day-to-day lives of countless millions of ordinary
citizens, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and
for the foreseeable future.
The denial of
basic human rights, restrictions on travel and
financial dealings and the slow demise of liberty
may soon be considered far too high a price to pay
to prevent the frightful, but occasional,
terrorist outrage.
Indeed, many civil
libertarians would no doubt argue that any such
attempt to clamp down on the present threat, with
the unavoidable challenges this must bring to a
civilized lifestyle, simply plays the terrorist
game and is exactly what al-Qaeda and the rest
want the West to do.
Even worse, such
strong anti-democratic measures would still be
quite unable to guarantee safety; the determined
terrorist would still get through the defenses
every so often. But more important, the Western
world would have voluntarily given up the
cherished aspects of our way of life we were
apparently seeking to protect: human rights,
freedom, liberty - perhaps even the raison
d'etre for our very survival.
Perhaps
for many, a form of terrorism-weariness simply
creeps in - it is just another problem to ignore
like debt, divorce, crime or cancer. Take
reasonable precautions, but otherwise simply shrug
your shoulders and get on with your life.
Today's Islamic terrorist is not only
clever, dedicated, determined, patient and utterly
ruthless, he has another major, but little spoken
of, advantage.
In medieval times no doubt,
nations would have linked the fate of the Muslims
living among them to the continuing "good
behavior" of their extremist co-religionists,
wherever they may be. This sort of response is
quite rightly denied to modern civilized
governments. Yet it provides a crucial operational
capability for al-Qaeda followers who are
therefore free to operate within Muslim minorities
in Europe and North America certain that their
appalling acts of violence pose no long-term
threat to the survival of those communities - sure
too that Western governments will usually and
sometimes reluctantly refrain from emulating the
depraved and inhuman actions so beloved of the
extremist.
The West must fight back That is not to say that there is nothing the
West can do, that there is no way to fight back
effectively. Many Muslim nations, including some
purported allies of the West, know far more about
Islamic terrorist movements than they care to
admit.
Despite constant denials from their
governments, it is a sad fact that
counter-terrorism cooperation with many of the
Muslim security services is limited and often
unproductive. Information is simply not shared;
action is not being taken to prevent terrorists
training and obtaining weapons and money;
effective restrictions on travel are not in place;
active surveillance is not even attempted in many
cases; and highly important intelligence on
terrorists' planned actions is not reaching the
West in time.
While admitting that there
is no "quick fix" for the Middle East, to many
security observers there remain viable options
open and underused by the Western powers. Much
greater emphasis must be placed on active
cooperation between Muslim countries and the West.
Those Islamic governments still failing to
take positive action to prevent either their own
citizens or foreign nationals based within their
borders from indulging in terrorist activities
should be positively encouraged to change their
stance, helped financially, politically and even
militarily if required. If all else fails, they
should face tough internationally agreed
sanctions.
The writer is painfully aware
that there are many other critically important
social, financial, religious, political,
geographical and indeed historical factors at play
in both the Middle East in general and
Islamic-Western relations in particular. It is
imperative that these issues receive a much wider
level of thoughtful, unbiased and positive
discussion at all levels of society, both in the
Western nations and those of Islam. However, the
writer feels they fall outside the scope of this
article.
Whatever else may be said, it is
probably true that success against the terrorist
will only be achieved by a long-term commitment,
and there are simply no easy or quick solutions.
If the Western powers want success, then
they had better be prepared to stump up the
financial and human resources to enable the
intelligence and security services to do the job,
and significantly, the general public will need a
high level of both courage and patience. Anything
else will hand a victory to the terrorist bomber
and gunman.
Richard M Bennett is
an intelligence and security analyst.
AFI
Research provides expert information on
the world's intelligence services, armed forces
and conflicts. Contact rbmedia@supanet.com.
(Copyright 2007 AFI Research. Used with
permission.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
