by Tim Garden
The academic community has been warning of the new age of asymmetric warfare since the end of the Cold War. Critics of expensive high tech military capability (exemplified by national missile defence) have warned that western powers are increasingly vulnerable to unsophisticated attacks by determined non-state actors. The weapon of the terrorist has been the crude bomb for more than a century, and yet its effectiveness has increased as commercial and government infrastucture becomes more complex. But the assumption has been that terrorists will tailor their actions to further their political ambitions. This calculus changes if the aim of the terrorist is entirely the destruction of western society.
The events of Tuesday 11 September demonstrated that it is now possiible to cause mass destruction (in the technical sense of thousands of immediate casualties), economic panic and the dispersal of the main organs of government with no more than a Stanley knife. The inquiries in to how this could have happened and what should be done to prevent future threats will be prolonged. The outcome will affect the routine of daily life in most of the western world.
The skies are filled with thousands of airliners at any given moment. The dangers of aircraft crashes from normal operating risks are well understood. Every flight safety precaution is taken in ensuring that each aircraft is properly serviced and operated through an international certification system. The risks of acts of terrorism directed against civil airliners and their passengers are also well known. Disasters still happen as the Lockerbie bombing demonstrated. Hijacks are much less frequent than in the past, but still occur from time to time. The measures which the international community some twenty years ago took in the light of a rash of hijacks and threats to aircraft safety have been reasonably effective. The measures have been multi-faceted. The intelligence community has devoted its efforts to counter-terrorism. Airport preventitive security measures have become near universal. Hand baggage is scanned, passengers pass through metal detectors, luggage in the hold is examined, and vetting measures for airport personnel have been strengthened. Nations have agreed to deal with every case of hijacking in a severe way, so that potential future hijackers are deterred. While none of these measures provides total assurance, the overall effect has been a considerable decline in such incidents in recent years.
The use of a hijacked airliner as a weapon of mass destruction is a new and devastating development. Deterrent measures can have little effect on fanatics who rejoice in their own death. The focus must therefore be on preventative measures for the future. The elimination (if it is possible) of those behind the events of 11 September will not stop others attempting to emulate this terrible example. Indeed, we should be concerned that copy cat incidents by deranged people may now be an additional risk.
Yet the first thoughts from the US public are understandably towards retribution. The mounting anger as the body count rises day by day means that the political imperative for military retaliation grows ever stronger. At the same time both short term and longer term defensive measures will need to be implemented. The closure of US airspace to all civilian flights in the immediate aftermath of the attacks was a very prudent measure. It caused chaos through the international airline system. It was however one way to prevent any follow on attacks from taking advantage of the confusion following the first wave of disasters. The UK took a rather less effective precaution. Airlines were prohibited from overflight of London. It is difficult to see what this measure was intended to achieve beyond political gesture. An airliner flies at speeds of around 8 miles per minute. This means that even those kept clear of London could be over Westminster in a couple of minutes. In that time, interception would need to be authorised and carried out, and might result in greater loss of life over a heavily build up area. Indeed using air defences, either ground or air launched, against potentially hostile commercial airliners is fraught with difficulties. Despite this, it appears that the US is considering flying military combat air patrols over Washington and New York.
Stopping overflights can only be sustained for a relatively short time, and at enormous cost to the economy. The US is looking to progressively open up its airfields and airspace, as tighter security measures are imposed. While many will be familiar with the relaxed security for US internal flights, these can be made more rigorous relatively easily. Yet even if the levels of security found at German airports had been in place at Boston, there is no assurance that they would have prevented the deadly terror hijacks which followed. Flying from London Heathrow on an early morning flight on 12 September, I was astonished to see that one of the shops in the duty free area (after clearing all security checks) was offering a selection of large Swiss army knives for sale.
What can be done inside aircraft to make hijacks more difficult? Israel has provided flying armed guards to protect its airline. If every flight in the world were required to carry an armed security guard, there might be less chance of a terrorist takeover. But among the thousands of guards to be employed, could we be sure there were no terrorist sympathisers? We would have put in place a regime which introduced weapons into the aircraft. Perhaps we need to look more closely at how the cockpit crew can be physically separated from the passenger section of the aircraft. There are flight safety issues, but they may carry less weight in the new circumstances. Aircrew would have to be isolated from whatever might take place in the cabin area. They would have to be prepared to ignore the threat of progressive killing of passengers and stewards. All of this may be easier to introduce in the aftermath of the massive death toll in the USA.
While measures such as these can address the suicidal aircraft attacks, they do nothing to reduce other major terrorist threats. The perpetrators of the 11 September atrocities are different from the traditional terrorist group who seek to use threats to make political gains. In this case the terror is an end in itself. The destruction of western power is the motivation. This means that we must expect other means to be used, regardless of the potential number of casualties. Biological weapons attack becomes a real and urgent threat, and the delivery means may be by a single person willing to die for the cause. Against such threats deterrence and retribution have little hope of success.
In the military and diplomatic field a difficult two pronged approach will be necessary. The remaining members of this terror group must be identified and removed from action. At the same time, the attractions of becoming a member of such a group must be reduced. A large scale disproportionate military response will generate many new recruits for the terrorists, as Israel has found over the last year. Good intelligence is the key to any operation. In order to get intelligence quickly, the West will need to seek the co-operation of the states which have in the past hosted terrorist factions. This will be a difficult trick to turn. If the whereabouts of the perpetrators are identified, the whole international community can move effectively. An alliance of many nations would support the USA in taking necessary action to extradite, eliminate or capture those responsible. If a more general military campaign is launched against those states, which NATO classifies as supporters of terrorism, then the outcome will be much less satisfactory. Whatever the outcome of such a campaign, the world will be a much less safe place for everyone in the future. Difficult as it is, this is a time to build alliances and take joint action as American, European, Arab, Asian and African partners against a universal threat. If such an approach were taken to find and capture those responsible for the mass killing on the US East Coast, we might move on to find solutions to future terror problems before it is too late. However, the difficulties are immense, and perhaps we had better get used to a much more restrictive but less secure way of life.