Q1: Consider the following quotation made from the Department of Homeland Security:
‘‘Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon’’.
Address this argument critically using the evidence we have examined this semester about the constraints on violent action.
- Would you broadly agree with the DHS’s suggestion?
- Would you agree only in part?
- Do you disagree?
- Why?
I broadly agree with this suggestion but with limitations with regards to terrorist’s ability to attack with any weapon.
Today we live in a very interconnected and distributed world. The globe is interconnected physically through modern transportation networks and electronically through the internet and other global forms of communications. Modern technology makes it easy for terrorists to communicate, foster ideas, recruit and train perspective members. All without having to leave their home nation. When the time comes to physically move it is quite easy to get a flight or boat ride to any point on earth. These characteristics of the modern world make it very easy for terror groups to execute operations nearly anywhere on earth. 100 years ago this was not nearly as possible and terrorism was largely confined to nations and regions unless the movement took on a global following such as communism. In this regard it was a global movement but still required physical proximity to be successful.
The part I disagree with is the weapons part of the statement. Terrorist, fortunately, have not been able to get hold of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)thus far, or use them in a manner that would make them very effective. The most effective terror attacks using chemical weapons was subway attack in Japan that was no more destructive than attacks carried out with traditional explosives. It was the psychological effect that had a greater long term impact it seems. Nuclear weapons have not been used by terrorist thus far and while it remains a possibility the worlds nuclear powers take extraordinary measures to prevent the spread of the manufacturing process and the spread of the weapons themselves. Nations like N.Korea could choose to use them or give them to terrorists but that would most likely mean the destruction of the N.Korean regime, something they want to avoid. I believe N.Korea is a rational actor and secured nukes to help secure the existence of the Kim regime.
Some reasons terror groups may not use WMD:
Using chemical weapons is brutal but the public at large does not realize how difficult it is to effectively employ chemical weapons. The method in which they are released, the weather and the target characteristics all must be nearly perfect for chemical weapons to be destructive. Any flaw in the employment of them negates their impacts.
Using a nuke could incur the wrath of the targeted nation and the response would probably be the destruction of the offending terror group.
The use of WMD could have negative connotations to groups wanting to use them. They can be seen as too extreme.
In summary, WMD are not easily employed by terrorists and the DHS statement was perhaps a bit too pessimistic in this regards. Terrorists could use WMDs but the consequences they would face make it an unappealing option.
Q2: What is the best method to countering an insurgent group’s plan to utilize Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I believe the best method to counter an insurgent group’s plan to use WMD has two parts.
1. Deterrence. Peg the use of WMDs to consequences so high to offending groups they do not devote enough resources to acquire them, let alone use them. This comes in the form of developing and communicating national policy concerning the use of WMDs against a nation and its citizens.
2. Security and non-proliferation. Secure existing WMDs and the knowledge associated with their development and manufacture. The greatest of all WMDs are nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons while horrible, pale in comparison to the effects a nuclear blast would have on a populated city. Everything must be just right for chemical weapons to be effectively employed, such as delivery method, weather and characteristics of the target. Nukes are devastating regardless of the weather and target.
Nations with nukes such as the US, Russia and China must keep their arsenals secure, and their knowledge in house. Beyond that nations need to keep tight control of the most critical components of WMDs. For nukes this is highly enriched uranium. As a result international systems exist that track where inputs to weapons grade uranium is going to. The international effort focused on Iran is a good example of securing WMDs.
N. Korea would serve as a good example of poor non-proliferation efforts. The US and its allies tried for decades to prevent N.Korea from developing a nuke but failed because the knowledge and materials required to make a bomb was smuggled into N.Korea through a network of enabling states like China, Russia and Pakistan.
Through deterrence and non-proliferation efforts the world can limit the ability of terror or insurgent groups to get hold of WMDs. It requires a cooperative movement and as we experienced with N.Korea if everyone is not on the same page WMDs can and will spread.
Q4: Experts frequently highlight the current day threat of lone-actor terrorism.
- Does this threat represent a strength of modern day insurgencies or is it a response to their own weakness?
I believe this represents a strength of modern insurgencies. They are taking advantage of the technologies that fundamentally facilitate the recruitment, training and use of lone wolves. It would unnatural for insurgency groups not to encourage lone wolves unless it was specifically against their goals. Lone wolf attacks have turned ISIS, a mid east based movement, into a globally feared entity that uses the internet to recruit and train. Without lone wolves they would not be able to strike out against nations like the US and its allies so easily.
Lone wolves provide a major advantage that make them assets to insurgencies. This major advantage is the fact that lone wolves are difficult to identify. When insurgencies use or encourage lone wolves of they are often only identify after the damage has been done. The lone wolves are normally in receive mode with regards to communicating with the insurgents. And the insurgents may not even know if they are creating lone wolves until an attack takes place. How does one counter that? If the insurgents don’t know when the attack is coming how will the intelligence agency monitoring them know. They will not.
A second advantage is the level of fear lone wolves instill into populations and governments. Look at how Europe reacted to lone wolve driving attacks. Streets were reconfigured to prevent vehicle traffic. Here in the US most major monuments and locations in Washington DC are now off limits to vehicle traffic and even some pedestrian traffic out of fear of lone wolves. We are now patted down and go through metal detectors prior to attending a football or baseball game. These are things that began after the threat of lone wolves became real.
Q6: Is there a growing crime-terror nexus?
- What are the implications for counter-terrorism?
I don’t believe there is a growing crime-terror nexus to the extent we see dual purpose international crime and terror entities. They perhaps transform from one to another but in the end they are not compatible. Why?
The purpose of crime is to make money. Plan and simple. Crime organizations such as drug cartels can use terror as a tactic that keeps law enforcement busy fighting terrorists while the cartel cranks out the cocaine. Or they can use terror to influence govt policy with the aim of increasing their revenue. Crime in the end is all about profits. Terror is just a tool.
The purpose of terrorism is to inflict some change of behavior on a society or government. Just as a drug cartel can use terror to help sustain profits a terror organization can use crime to Fund its terror operations. Kidnapping is and was a major revenue stream for terrorists in Iraq at the height of the US occupation. Al Qaida in Iraq was not kidnapping because they liked to kidnap but because they needed money to fund their ops against the US. Emplacing an IED that targets US forces cost money, and often this money would come from crime. That is why the US placed a high priority on developing Iraqi police forces. The mission of the Iraqi police in many areas was to cut back on crime in order to financially starve terror groups.
If you have a terror group grinding the economy to a halt that is not generally good for a crime cartel, unless the purpose of the crime is to fund the terror group. That makes it a terror group. A crime cartel relys on a somewhat stable society and economy to maximize the money its making. Drug cartels in S. America thrive because of stable societies and weak governments. If a terror group were to intervene it would put at risk the drug cartel’s bread and butter operations, drug manufacturing and smuggling. The environment would not be crime business friendly.
There may be times when a terror group converts to a criminal syndicate or vise versa but for the most part crime and terror are in a symbiotic relationship as opposed to multinational terror-crime syndicate. This, however, does not mean there are no impacts for counter-terrorism operations.
Counter terror (CT) ops and policy must also morph with along with the criminals and terrorists. CT organizations must include more expertise in crime among the ranks and must consider how fighting crime can also help fight terror. As with the Iraq example above, if you target a terror groups funding you are targeting its very existence. Understanding crime can help understand and undermine terrorism. CT organizations need to expand their thinking when it comes to their mission and include crime in the equation as the relationship between crime and terror groups grow closer.
No comments:
Post a Comment