Chatham House Panel 3 October 2000
Terrorism was there before, some of it motivated by local political aims, some by single issue fanaticism, and some by unfathomable beliefs. Suicide bombers were not new. What is different is the targeting on a global scale of targets designed to cause casualties without limit and to undermine the global economy. They might be called strategic acts of destruction, rather than the tactical terrorist acts of the past. While it may have been possible for the international community to live with occasional acts of local terrorism around the world, it is not possible to live with non-state actors who have a mission to destroy the global system.
The most effective approach remains very much the same as in more traditional counter-terrorist campaigns. Priorities are to defend the most vulnerable targets and to arrest the in-place operatives before they can carry out new atrocities. These are jobs which belong primarily to the intelligence and police agencies around the world. Sharing information on a global basis is the only way to respond to a global threat.
The second priority in defence terms (but it is rapidly becoming the first priority in political terms) is finding and eliminating the direct supporting infrastructure of the sponsor of terrorism. This is always difficult, but is especially so when head office is located in the wild country of Afghanistan. The use of $2 million cruise missiles to take out a camel and a tent is a real problem. Nevertheless given good intelligence, carefully targeted air attacks and small but capable ground forces may be able to start to dismantle the bin Laden infrastructure. Capturing the man will depend on good luck as much as anything. The indirect support by States requires many different approaches. The Taliban have few supporters among the governments of the world; but some of those governments are aware that sections of their population are pro-Taliban. Overthrowing the Taliban is not a simple military objective, particularly if collateral damage is to be avoided. However, it is likely to provide the most visible part of the military campaign which the world is now expecting to see. As we have seen in the Balkans, planning what happens after the military action is perhaps the most important element. It is not yet clear how the power vacuum can be filled in a way which makes life better for the people and thus stops the growth of yet more recruits for international terrorism. Certainly providing a government that can bring the rule of law and dispense humanitarian aid must be a priority, and it will be a role in which the military can help.
One other aspect to consider when planning for action in Afghanistan is what may happen in other areas of concern. The massing of military power in the region is not just useful for any strikes on Afghanistan. It ensures that an opportunist action by Iraq can be deterred or countered quickly. Nor should we forget the Balkans. After a decade of work to stabilise that region, we need to make sure that we are not so distracted as to allow them to regress. The Israeli/Palestinian crisis is another problem for the international community.
Prime Minister's speech at the Labour Party conference was an inspiring call to the international community. It might be undermined by the somewhat limited capability that the UK can deploy compared to the US. The possible rebalancing of British Defence policy, anounced by the Defence Secretary at the Conference, suggests that the UK government is not thinking of spending much more on defence.