By Sir Timothy Garden
The television cameras remain focused on the images of war from Afghanistan. The commentators talk about the speed, aims and expectations of the military operation. With the wobble in support, there is even more political rhetoric about the importance of the bombing campaign. As a result, a picture is being painted of success in Afghanistan producing safety from terrorism at home. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case. The military campaign and the subsequent rebuilding of society in Afghanistan are both necessary in the long term struggle against international terrorism. However, it would be complacent to assume that they will have any effect on the near and medium threat of major terror acts in the West. The capture of bin Laden is important for reasons of justice, but it does not make our citizens any safer in the immediate future. Some 10,000 terrorists passed through his training organisation and are already dispersed around the world waiting for an opportunity to strike.
The counter-terrorist authorities in the UK are well aware of this and are working hard to reduce the risks. It appears that extra money has gone to the intelligence agencies, which is a start. But redirecting the intelligence effort takes time. The enhanced police presence in London is a visible sign of greater preventative security, but is as much a reassurance to the public as a defence against the next mass killing attack. We need to be radical in our approach to the defence of the UK in the new threat environment. We have been somewhat self-congratulatory in Europe: that we already had counter-terrorist measures in force before September 11, because of our various local terrorist problems.
We need to look seriously at a more formal central direction for the new defence of the homeland since it crosses so many different departments and agencies. There has been an on-going review of emergency contingency planning arrangements. We have become familiar with Cabinet Office arrangements for counter-terrorism, and perhaps feel that they are well tried and sufficient. However, the US administration has felt it necessary to instigate a new office and organisation for the homeland security. The US Director for Homeland Security has responsibilities for counter terrorism aspects of: detection, intelligence, surveillance, plans training, exercises, evaluations, law enforcement, weapons of mass destruction consequence management, vital installations, borders, territorial waters, airspace, transport security, research, public health, threat response, incident management, economic consequences and public information. That is quite a list and involves the whole of government and local government.
Perhaps we need to think about having a powerful central figure to pull all of these different aspects together – a cabinet minister for Home Defence. Have we got a Red team exercising our planners? Have we thought about a new role for our military reserves, back to their traditional roles of home defence? Would we feel safer with the TA supplementing the police rather than civilian part-timers? Have we established a hot-line for information from the public on terrorist matters? Do we need military defences (including air defences) for the most vital facilities? Does the military need to re-establish a Home Defence Command in support of the police and security services – a sort of GOC NI writ large. Do we need to reactivate the civil defence organisation for a new challenge of potential mass casualties, which may be more likely than a nuclear exchange in the Cold War ever was? Is the co-ordination of local government disaster planning sufficiently good? How do hard pressed emergency services decide to allocate their funds between providing for current routine needs, and planning for unknown future major terrorist attacks?
The list of measures which it might be wise to consider in terms of defence in the UK is almost endless. Many of them will already be underway already, but are not seen by the public. There is a natural caution about publicising measures at home for fear of causing unnecessary alarm. However there is perhaps a need to remind the public that there is a threat at home as well as in distant Afghanistan. An opportunity for the public to play a part in reducing the risk to themselves and their families at home might also give greater reassurance and engender continuing support for the wider difficult campaign.