If there is a "fog of war," there is probably a more dense "smog of
terrorism," for the small nature of terrorist groups, their close
interpersonal communications, and their predilection for soft targets of
opportunity make it difficult to predict their f uture operations.
Counterterrorism analysts must therefore peer through a very cloudy
crystal ball when assessing the intentions, capabilities, and targets of
existing and future terrorist groups. Life would be easier if, as when
assessing a conventional army, analysts could pour over communications
intercepts to discern orders of battle and make predictions based on the
enemy's known doctrine and strategy.
The problem of penetrating the "smog of terrorism" is further
exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult to infiltrate terrorist
cells to acquire the tactical information needed to prevent, or at least
to mitigate, a potential threat or actual incident. The most
sophisticated capabilities in the arsenal of technical intelligence are
no substitutes for the HUMINT (human intelligence) capabilities that are
needed to gather information on terrorists. The problem of predictive
analysis is further complicat ed by the fact that even if terrorist
organizations have an encompassing ideology—or what is at best a
proto-strategy—it tends to be rather general in nature and directed at
establishing a broad declaration on revolutionary action that may not
provide a c lear plan for action that can enable the analyst to have a
foundation for assessing future terrorist operations.

Furthermore, predictive capabilities are challenged by the tact that
there is a whole range of potential new terrorist weapons and associated
scenarios for destruction that create major problems for those
responsible for identifying a new generation of te rrorist threats.
There are those in the field who sometimes long for the "good old days"
when a "terror network" guided by Moscow could be blamed for bombings,
hostage-taking, skyjacking and other forms of mayhem.

Given these conditions, one faces an onerous task in attempting to
assess how vulnerable the United States is to future threats and acts of
terrorism. Nevertheless, such an assessment can prove useful if it can
assist the analyst and those responsible for countering terrorism to
look beyond the immediate threats or the latest incident. In their
contingency driven, highly pressurized environment, analysts must
concentrate on the collection and analysis of what is primarily
tactical, combat or operational i ntelligence. They often lack the time
to deal with strategic threats, to veer from the current requirements
for narrowly focused, tactical intelligence.

What follows is a brief overview of the terrorist threat to the United
States based on the application of strategic intelligence. This form of
intelligence has a broader application than either operational or
tactical intelligence, forms of information an alysis dealing with
immediate threats. Strategic intelligence integrates politics, social
studies, and the study of technology. It is designed to provide
officials with long-range forecasts of what is important rather than
what is urgent.[1]

THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The analytical framework employed in this chapter will consist of the
following components. The author will attempt to identify major changes
in the international environment. He will then discuss how these changes
create new terrorist threats in the Unit ed States. The author will then
focus on probable technological/operational changes among terrorist
groups. Finally, changes in terrorist motivations and goals will be
examined. All of these components will then be analyzed in a strategic
context to asses s potential terrorist targets, operations, and
resulting vulnerabilities within the United States.
THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Even though it probably never fully existed, the artificial superficial
equilibrium imposed by the Cold War has been destroyed. Within the
former republics of the defunct Soviet Union the order imposed by Moscow
on ethnic and nationalist movements has gi ven way to separatists'
demands often accompanied by political violence including terrorism,
various forms of low intensity conflict, rapidly growing organized
crime, and civil war. The instability has spilled over into Eastern
Europe where the former sat ellites are attempting to cope with the
uncertainties of democratization.
Additionally, now that Moscow and Washington are no longer inclined to
use regional surrogates as a way of avoiding direct confrontation, a
number of regional powers are emerging. Neither Moscow nor Washington
have either the inclination or the influence needed to constrain many of
these regional would-be superpowers. Iran is a case in point. Countries
like Iran, Syria and Libya use terrorism as a form of diplomacy and as
an adjunct to their foreign policies.[2] To these states, terrorism is
as integral a part of their diplomacy as the exchange of ambassadors.
Smaller states can easily emulate their example.

In this era of what should be called a "new world disorder" the
breakdown of central authority and the domination of the existing state
system has been under assault from a number of quarters. First, the
legitimacy of many states has been challenged by th e growing assertion
of both sub-national and transnational calls for "self-determination" by
ethnic groups and religious movements that deny the legitimacy of what
they perceive to be a discredited international order. Despite the
optimism of the past, pr imordial loyalties have not withered away in
the face of technology, democracy, and the introduction of free market
economies. Indeed, many groups and movements have fed upon a reaction to
what is sometimes viewed as the secular immorality of the West. Tr ibal
loyalties on a sub-national level share the rejection of secular mass
societies with fundamentalist movements. Some of these movements seem to
offer the chimera of psychological, sociological and political security
to people who are trying find their place in an uncertain, even
threatening, world.

New and dangerous players have emerged in the international arena. The
level of instability and concomitant violence is further heightened by
the rise to international political significance of non-state actors
willing to challenge the primacy of the stat e. Whether it be the
multinational corporation or a terrorist group that targets it, both
share a common characteristic. They have each rejected the state-centric
system that emerged 175 years ago at the Congress of Vienna.

All of these factors have accelerated the erosion of the monopoly of the
coercive power of the state as the disintegration of the old order is
intensified. And, this process will in all probability gain even greater
momentum because of the wide ranging an d growing activities of criminal
enterprises. These include everything from arms traders and drug
cartels, which will provide and use existing and new weapons in
terrorist campaigns as a part of their pursuit of profit and political
power.

In sum, present and future terrorists and their supporters are acquiring
the capabilities and freedom of action to operate in the new
international jungle. They move in what has been called the "gray
areas," those regions where control has shifted from le gitimate
governments to new half-political, half-criminal powers.[3] In this
environment the line between state and rogue state, and rogue state and
criminal enterprise, will be increasingly blurred. Each will seek out
new and profitable targets through t errorism in an international order
that is already under assault.

TECHNOLOGICAL/OPERATIONAL CHANGES
The remarkable changes in the international environment have been
accompanied by technological changes that may have serious ramifications
as regards future terrorist operations both internationally and in the
United States. Up to now, terrorists have not been especially innovative
in their tactics. Bombing, although not on the intended magnitude of
that at the Oklahoma City Federal Building, remains the most common type
of attack. Hostage taking and kidnapping are fundamental to the
terrorist repertoire and skyjacking is always a possibility. Automatic
and semi-automatic rifles and pistols remain the weapons of choice.
However, the employment of stand-off weapons like American Stinger and
Russian SA-7 hand-held anti-aircraft missiles, the U.S. Army M-72 light
anti-tank weapon (LAW), and the Russian-built RPG-7 anti-tank weapon may
be more readily available to terrorists than many like to believe. The
same may be said of terrorist bombing technologies. Dynamite has been
replaced by the more destructive and easily concealed Semtex.
Furthermore, the threat has grown as a result of increased technological
sophistication of timing devices and fuses. But weapons need not be
sophisticated to be destructive. One only has to consider what might
have happened if the pilot of the lone single-engine light aircraft
which crashed into the White House had filled his plane with somethi ng
as simple as a fertilizer bomb. That incident, even if it was not a
terrorist act, should serve as a warning for those who are concerned
with more advanced technological threats. They should remember that
smaller and more conventional instruments of de struction are still
quite lethal and can have a profound affect on the targeted individual,
corporation, government or what is often the ultimate target: public
opinion.

A growing concern is that terrorists will cross the threshold to engage
in acts of mass or "super terrorism" by using atomic, biological, and
chemical (ABC) weapons. So far, the international order has been spared
terrorist incidents involving nuclear wea pons. Indeed, those that have
been reported have turned out to be elaborate hoaxes. Fortunately, the
threats have yet to be translated into actual incidents, but many
believe it is only a matter of time before they are.[4]

All this could easily change as a result of the disintegration of the
Soviet Union. The current trade in illicit weapon's grade plutonium
serves to underscore the fact that the necessary material and attendant
technology will be increasingly available for those terrorist groups who
may want to exercise a nuclear option, be it in the form of a dispersal
of radioactive material that could contaminate a large area or the use
of a relatively small but very lethal atomic weapon. The illegal trade
in weapons an d technology will be further exacerbated by the very real
dangers resulting from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is
good reason to fear that either a rogue state, its terrorist surrogates,
or independent terrorist groups will have the capacity to go nuclear.
Whether this threshold will be crossed will depend in part on the
motivation, attendant strategies, and goals of present and future
terrorist groups. In sum, there is every reason to be concerned that
terrorists will engage in their own f orm of technical innovation to
develop the capacity to make the nightmare of a nuclear, chemical, or
biological threat move from the pages of an adventure novel to the
shores of the United States.

Scenarios addressing future acts of high-tech terrorism include a wide
variety of assaults on the delicate interdependent infrastructure of
modern industrialized society. These scenarios move beyond the bombing
or seizing of conventional or nuclear power plants to include the
potentially disastrous destruction of the technological infrastructure
of the information super highway. However, the scope of what constitutes
a terrorist act on computers and their associated facilities is subject
to interpretation . The bombing of a multinational corporation or a
government's crucial computer centers could be judged an act of
terrorism, but what if a terrorist hacker placed a computer virus in a
very sensitive network? The results could range from the massively inc
onvenient to dangerous or disastrous. Such an act, however, would lack
an essential element of terrorism as it is now defined: the use or
threat of the use of physical violence. Nevertheless, as the technology
expands so may definitions of what constitute s a terrorist act. From
the terrorist's point of view the following dictum may apply, "so many
new targets... so little time."

Finally, if indeed terrorism is "theater" and the people are the
audience, the stage is changing.[5] CNN and other networks provide the
terrorists with a potential and almost instantaneous means for spreading
their message of fear and intimidation. The re ality of video
proliferation is just as significant as that of nuclear proliferation.
Some terrorist groups already have the ability to stage and videotape
their acts, sending them out to either a broad or limited audience. They
can even transmit live ev ents through low power transmitter stations.
Furthermore, the next generation of terrorists may produce highly
imaginative presentations to seize the attention of a violence jaded
public, one which has grown used to the now standard images of hooded
terr orists holding hostages in embassies, prisons, or aircraft cabins.
This kind of theater of the obscene will find a ready mass audience
among those who watch the tabloid television shows and depend on the
National Enquirer for their news.[6] Given the pub lic's fascination
with television happenings like the O.J. Simpson trial, one can only
imagine what might happen if future terrorists direct and produce their
own television spectaculars.

CHANGES IN TERRORIST MOTIVATIONS AND GOALS
There are almost certainly going to be changes in both the motivation
and goals of terrorist groups. The traditional motivations for
terrorism: ethnic, tribal, and religious animosities, will continue and
intensify. Even while people of goodwill struggle to find solutions to
problems in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East, the disintegration
of the former Soviet Union and the related turmoil in the former
Yugoslavia and elsewhere have engendered new groups pursuing their own
varied agendas through vio lence, including terrorism. While much of the
violence is confined to the various regions, the potential for involving
surrounding states and for international assaults is significant. Even
in the Middle East, where the Palestine Liberation Organization ( PLO)
and Israel are moving along a tortuous road toward accommodation,
various factions, willing and able to engage in non-territorial
terrorism, will continue to "bring the war home" to Israel and its
primary supporter, the United States.
Perhaps even more ominous is the growing significance of apolitical
groups which resort to terrorism in pursuit of financial gain as a part
of criminal enterprises. While a number of these groups may, in part,
justify their actions under the rubric of pol itical rationalization,
their major goal will relate to maximizing their profits through
co-opting, corrupting, and neutralizing the authority of the states in
their respective countries and regions of operations. These groups,
which include narco-terrori sts, are particularly difficult to
counteract given their vast resources gleaned by illicit trade in drugs
or weapons, and because of their ability to influence, control or
demoralize governments in countries where they operate. This new
criminal order ca n engage in operations with the kind of violence that
makes the old Mafia seem pacifistic by comparison.

Finally, one might anticipate that in addition to existing extremists
operating according to issue-oriented movements such as radical
environmentalism, fringe elements of the pro-life movement, and
extremist animal rights groups, there will emerge new gro ups willing to
use terrorism to avenge grievances both real and imaginary. These
groups, which at the outset may be small and not tied to any recognized
social or political movement, may have the capability to maximize their
impact through the availabilit y of a wide variety of weapons, a rich
selection of targets, and the skillful use of the media and
communications technology. There will be both old and new adversaries to
threaten the international order and, more specifically, U.S. interests
and citizen s both at home and abroad.

HOW VULNERABLE IS THE UNITED STATES AND WHAT ARE THE TERRORISTS GOALS?
The following assessment is based on integrating the analytical
components presented above. The focus will be on the vulnerabilities in
the United States to attacks by international terrorist or domestic
groups or by such groups with domestic-internationa l linkages.
The new threat environment may see the emergence of a wide variety of
sub-national and transnational groups intent on venting their
frustrations with Washington for what they perceive to be a lack of
support for their causes or, conversely, for supporting their
adversaries. As the major military superpower, with an increased global
involvement, even when engaged under the United Nations, the United
States is likely to be viewed as the primary party in future disputes.
Even when neutral, Washington is lik ely to be viewed suspiciously by
one or more warring factions. In addition, when Washington moves beyond
"peace keeping" to "peace enforcement"' operations, the likelihood of a
reaction among one or more disputants is possible.

Even though the United States may not want to be the policeman or the
conscience of the world, the parties in any conflict may question
whether Washington is intentionally or unintentionally pursuing a
political agenda that may be counter to their objecti ve. The result
might be the spillover of violence to the United States by one or more
parties in the dispute. Resort to terrorism could be a punitive action
or it might be an effort to dramatize a cause. As the United States
tries to redefine the formulat ion and execution of its foreign policy
in the post-Cold War era, even if Washington is motivated by the highest
of ideals, i.e., democratization, humanitarian assistance, or
nation-building, those who will be the objects of such efforts might
resent it. Their use of terrorism on American soil is a likely response.

The potential spillover effect may be intensified by the domestic
political and economic environment. The potency of ethnic-based
politics, coupled with the tendentious debates over immigration policy,
may provide fertile ground by which ethnic-based conf licts from
overseas may be transported to the United States. Even if that is not
the case, the existence of large immigrant communities may provide the
"human jungle" in which external terrorist groups can operate. The
emergence of a variety of issue-orie nted transnational groups could
also lead extremists within their respective organizations to establish
linkages with like-minded individuals or groups within the United
States. Such groups could undertake joint operations against American
targets in an e ffort to dramatize their causes or seek changes in
public policy. Cooperation between home-grown terrorists and their
foreign counterparts cannot be understated. In an increasingly
interrelated international environment, a new "terror network" might
emerg e with issue-oriented groups launching assaults on domestic
targets.

The threat posed by fundamentalist religious groups of all faiths cannot
be discounted. Not only Islamic extremists, but other "true believers"
of a variety of faiths are likely to engage in terrorist acts against
American targets. These groups might be s upported or joined in their
operations by domestic religious extremists. In addition, they might
also seek alliances with a variety of cultists, survivalists, or
neo-fascists who, for their own reasons, reject the existing social,
economic, and political order and await their own versions of
Armageddon.

Perhaps even more dangerous will be the resort to terrorism by
apolitical terrorists who are engaged in violence and intimidation as a
pant of criminal pursuits. Such groups have operated overseas with
impunity. Inner-city America could become a fertile g round for their
operations. They will be particularly threatening since, as a result of
their illegal trade in drugs and other criminal enterprises, they may
have access to vast funds with which to corrupt local authorities. What
will make these groups es pecially dangerous may be the fact that their
threats and acts of terrorism will not necessarily be meant to achieve
publicity or to dramatize their cause.

Such groups may use terrorist tactics in extortion attempts like those
used to "shake down the neighborhood'"-only these gangs may attempt to
blackmail the entire city. With their vast revenues, they could acquire
a formidable arsenal of weapons with whic h to challenge local
authorities and carry out their acts of violence on a scale not yet
experienced in the United States. Furthermore, it may be very difficult
for our already strained criminal justice system to address the
development of new criminal ca rtels.

The scope and magnitude of future potential terrorist organizations will
be enhanced by the rapid changes in technology that will provide the
next generation of terrorists with capabilities undreamed of by the most
highly dedicated and skilled terrorist o f today. In a sense the capture
of the infamous Carlos marked the end of an era. A new generation of
terrorists armed with technologically advanced weaponry will be able to
engage in violence that is more dramatic and destructive than that
intended in the bombing in Oklahoma City. The threat at the lower end of
the spectrum is likely to grow as well. The M-16, M-10, Uzi and AK-47
assault rifles will be supplemented by stand-off weapons like Stinger
anti-aircraft missiles, LAWs and RPG-7s, already availabl e on the world
weapons market. Just because a weapon is relatively unsophisticated does
not mean it cannot cause massive casualties. A stinger missile aimed at
a jumbo jet as it takes off or as it approaches a large metropolitan
airport could cause tremen dous casualties. A LAW or RPG round lobbed
into the right area of a nuclear power plant could produce catastrophic
consequences.

Ultimately, the most fearful and recurrent terrorist nightmare may be
drawing closer to reality. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and
associated technologies, and the diffusion of knowledge needed to
manufacture chemical and biological weapons, raises the fearful specter
of mass destruction that makes concerns related to use of anthrax as a
way of spreading both disease and panic pale to insignificance. The
scary truth is that the United States is all too vulnerable to this kind
of attack. The porous borders that have allowed massive illegal
immigration are just as open to those who want to import new instruments
of mass destruction. And, because there are significant profits to be
made, there are suppliers who are willing to provide the new generatio n
of portable nuclear weapons, chemical and biological delivery systems
despite Washington's growing concern and the improving technical means
to counter such threats. Furthermore, the next generation of terrorists
will have the capability of effectively exploiting the highly
competitive electronic and print media both to dramatize their
conventional or ABC capabilities and to extort money.

Technological changes will certainly have an impact on target selection.
At the outset, the availability of more sophisticated conventional
explosives could enable terrorists to inflict greater damage on
potential targets while lessening the risk of captu re that results from
having to process or transport the material. Highly symbolic targets
like government buildings and corporate headquarters will be more
vulnerable to attack. Major public events, like the Super Bowl or the
1996 Atlanta Olympics are als o prime targets.

Despite more effective physical security and technological
countermeasures it will be increasingly difficult to harden potential
targets. Even if the range of the weapons is relatively short, it will
be a considerable challenge to expand an anti-terrorist security zone
beyond the immediate periphery of potential targets like sports
facilities, government buildings, or nuclear power plants. Defense in
depth will require broader protective measures.

Even of greater concern is the potential threat of such weapons to
aviation security. While anti-skyjacking measures have been largely
successful in the industrialized West, the possibility of the threat or
the destruction of commercial aircraft cannot be dismissed. It is
exceedingly difficult to expand a security zone beyond the confines of
an airport. Moreover, stand-off weapons provide the opportunity for
highly flexible hit and run attacks. The resulting mobility will make it
very difficult to predict or take appropriate action against terrorists.
Finally, as potential targets continue to be hardened in urban areas,
there is no reason to believe that terrorists will not seek softer
targets of opportunity either in the suburbs (corporate headquarters) or
rural areas (nuclear or thermal power plants and other installations).
Despite these threats, it will remain difficult to develop the necessary
awareness, technology and training among those corporations outside
urban areas. Too many people may not t ake the threat seriously enough
due to an "it can't happen here" syndrome.

Most ominous, however, is the threat issuing from mass or
super-terrorism. Cities may be held hostage by threats to poison the
water supply or to disseminate any number of dangerous chemical or
biological agents. Such threats must also be taken seriously given the
proliferation of ABC capabilities. The threat might be overt, in which
case the authorities will have the onerous task of reconciling the need
to take appropriate action without creating a panic. Or the threat might
be covert, in which case gove rnments will be facing a form of nuclear,
chemical, or biological blackmail unknown to the public. Finally, one
can anticipate that there will be more incidents of criminal terrorism
directed against senior executives, public officials, and their families
. The terrorists will justify such acts of hostage-taking and kidnapping
on the basis of political causation, but in many cases they will be
motivated by nothing more than a desire for ransom money. There is no
reason to believe that criminal extortion, which has become a major
industry in Mexico and throughout Central and South America, will not be
emulated within the United States. In sum, the constellation of
potential targets and the means to attack them will continue to expand
in the coming decade.

The traditional motivation behind the resort to terrorism by various
groups is sure to continue. Ethnic identification and hatred, the call
to right perceived wrongs, and the demand for self-determination will
continue to inspire terrorists. The ranks of the traditional terror
mongers will be joined by religious extremist groups who have rejected
what they view to be the excesses of Western and American secular
society. These forces of reaction may come from the Middle East, but
there will be the non-Isla mic equivalents of the HAMAS and Hizbollah
venting their anger and demanding the destruction of the "Great Satan."
These true believers, in the conduct of what they view to be a "just
war," may attack the symbols of their religious or secular rivals.

Acts such as the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish
Community Center in Buenos Aires might be emulated in Washington or New
York. Moreover. domestic groups acting either independently or with the
support of external terrorist organizations ma y launch their own
assaults. One need only recall how a sectarian dispute within the United
States was transformed into a mass hostage taking by the Hanafi Muslims
in Washington, DC in 1977. The most alarming aspect of the religious
extremists is the fact that they did not necessarily constrain their
actions by using terror as a weapon to coerce or to propagandize for
their causes. The new true believer, armed with the certainty of faith,
may not be concerned with current public opinion or a change in the
policy of an adversary. To them, being killed while undertaking an act
of terrorism may be a way to paradise in the next life. The image of the
smiling truck bomber driving his vehicle into the Marine barracks in
Beirut may be duplicated in a large urban center in the United States.
And the nightmare only becomes more horrific if such a perpetrator uses
a nuclear device. While one does not want to overstate the threat, the
strategic thinker must be willing to "think the unthinkable" so that
appropriate responses may be conceived.

The panoply of potential attacks, save for the nuclear option or other
forms of super-terrorism, will probably not create a major change in
U.S. foreign policy or the articulation and pursuit of U.S. strategic
interests and national security objectives. H owever, in this new world
disorder terrorism may come to the United States whenever foreign
adversaries want to test Washington's resolve in continuing its support
for activities of the United Nations and friendly governments. Given the
lack of coherence in the international environment and the low threshold
of pain in regard to the taking of American casualties in ill-defined
conflicts and the emergence of neo-isolationism, one must recognize that
future acts of terrorism, if skillfully executed, might h ave a
strategic result. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut changed
the course of U.S. policy toward Lebanon. That kind of act could be
duplicated in the United States with even more dramatic results.

CONCLUSION
As noted at the start of this chapter, it is difficult to see through
the smog of terrorism to assess America's vulnerabilities. Furthermore,
it is dangerous to either understate or overstate the threat. If one
minimizes the threat, little action may be taken. If one overstates it,
the public and the authorities might overreact. What is needed is a
realistic assessment which avoids both extremes. While recognizing that
there is a threat, but not overemphasizing it, appropriate measures can
be taken to le ssen the likelihood of an attack. Moreover, a balanced
and cautious view can assist both the public and policymakers in
developing a consistent level of anti-terrorism awareness and
countermeasures. Constant awareness and preparedness are fundamental to
d eterring terrorists. Such a prudent approach is far better than the
overreaction that might occur after an incident. In the final analysis,
the United States is vulnerable to the changing terrorist threat. But
the threat can be met through heightened leve ls of awareness, resolve,
counterterrorism measures, and consistent policies.[7]
ENDNOTES



What is your Opinion on this and do you think it's true?

My ohhhpinion on this? How vulnerable is the united states to terrorism?
those six terrorists who planned to take out fort dix and other military
installations yesterday pretty much sums my ohhhpinion of this up.
Terrorism is here. Its real. Its not going to just go away. We are at
war with them. We can fight them THERE or we can fight them HERE in
america. Lets leave it THERE. God bless america.