Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Terror Networks

Public Must Defend Itself in War on Terror, Expert Says

2004-05-02

EFL
If the West wants to win the global war against terrorism, major changes are needed in public thinking as well as international law and intelligence, a former Israeli spy chief said. Speaking at a conference on terrorism countermeasures at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem this week, Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad (secret service), said the war against terrorism is a world war like no other. There is no specific battlefield, the enemy is not always clearly defined and the two sides are using completely different weapons systems and different concepts, he said. And, he added, this is the first time that the public has been responsible for its own defense in a war.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Maybe it's the first time in a couple hundred years. In pre-Geneva Convention days the populace was often both the target and the prize...

Halevy said that nearly three years into the global war, there have been far fewer casualties than there were during the first two World Wars -- and yet the fallout has been far greater. "I think this is the first war in which private enterprise is going to be -- and is already -- a major element in this struggle," Halevy said. Halevy said this is the first war in which the state has been unable to "provide a full kit of protection" for the individual, and the individual will not be able to depend on his countryâs weapons systems to defend him. The citizen must protect his own life, factory or business.

That's because wars are fought by soldiers. Terrorists aren't soldiers. They're bully boys.

Israel, which has been waging a war against Palestinian terrorism for decades, has been at the cutting edge of developing counterterrorism theory and measures. And while the other side may not be using very sophisticated weapons - such as a plane flying into a building - those fighting against terror will have to develop more and more sophisticated means to confront such tactics.

Except that I'd not call flying a plane into a building a sophisticated weapon. Sophisticated planning, yes; a sophisticated weapon, no.

Halevy also said that global cooperation was not a substitute for individual countries doing their utmost to fight terrorism. But Cary Gleicher, a legal attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the FBIâs representative to Israel, called global cooperation the "ultimate weapon" against global crime and terrorism.

I think they might be using two different definitions of global cooperation...

After 9/11, the FBI realized it had "a lot to learn" from foreign services, Gleicher said at the same conference. Last year nine Israelis from the army, the internal intelligence services and police came to FBI headquarters to train agents there on countering suicide terrorism. "It was the first time in FBI history that a foreign government came into our building to train our people," Gleicher said.

I'd have been ashamed to make that admission. I can think of several countries off the top of my head who'd have something to teach us in the antiterrorism field.

According to Halevy, winning the war against terrorism and ensuring the survival of Western society will require a major effort to educate the public about whatâs at stake. The enemy doesnât want to conquer new territory, he said. "They want to bring down society, they want to bring down the economy, they want to effect an international change." Halevy said itâs important to "school the world in the idea of preemption," without which "we stand no chance of success."

And as we've seen, that's a tough sell.

Israel has come under strong international condemnation for its version of preemption - the targeted killings of terrorist leaders -- although Washington has been quietly supportive of such measures.

I don't put those into the category of preemption. That's decapitating the enemy command structure, which has been a legitimate objective in warfare for thousands of years. Both Sheikh Yassin and Rantissi departed this vale of tears in the immediate aftermath of terror attacks. Preemption would have called for bumping them off before the attacks occurred. The IDF's periodic intel-driven roundups are what I'd define as preemption.

Two other areas where there need to be major shifts, he said, are in intelligence and international law. Without giving details, Halevy said called for a "new approach" to intelligence while international law would have to rise to meet the challenges before it for the "survival of society" before other "worse solutions" are found.

I'm not a great believer in international law. The usual suspects seem to have no trouble at all reading whatever they want into it. I'd be curious to see what "new approaches" there are to intel, though. Most things are the way they are now for a reason, to include compartmentalization of intel and the spheres of operation of the intel agencies. We don't really want the CIA operating domestically; there are too many unintended and unpleasant side effects. If he's talking about joint intel ops and information sharing, there's always room for more and better there.

Halevy said itâs human nature for people to resist change unless they are confronted by a traumatic event.

And even then, they tend to revert to old habits as soon as the adrenaline's receded.

"The traumatic events can work both ways. They can either galvanize society the way the United States sprung to the challenge after 9/11 or they can react differently — the way the Spanish population acted after the attacks on trains," he said. "We have to realize that this is a challenge that none of us can afford to lose."

Posted by:Mark Espinola

#7 Jawa - whadda ya mean, arming ourselves? You're not already?

Stock up on ammo, too.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-02 7:19:56 PM

#6 The 8000 AKs were inventory stockup (Century Arms?) in anticipation of the Assault Weapon's Ban expiration. With over 200 Million guns in this country, 8000 more don't mean Jack.

Posted by: ed 2004-05-02 4:42:26 PM

#5 Lets,betwen my brother and I:
2,9m Rugers
2,Ruger single-six,with interchangable cylynders
1,10-22 Ruger,with 3 25 round mags
1,Ruger in .223cal,with 4x6 variable scope
1,Marlin.22cal,wth 4 power scope
1,Ruger Mark 1
1,Ruger Mark2,with 12"barrel
1,Ruger .44cal,with 11"barrel
1,20 gauge pump
"Can Do"(U.S.Navy SeaBees)
Gotcha covered,any time you Jihadist buttwipes want to play just come on over.

Posted by: raptor 2004-05-02 4:34:54 PM

#4 A lot of people are short on current history.
Tenet was sent by Clinton at the Taba talks to see to a security arangement for the PA to control "things", then again when GWB tried to get the PC roadmap going at Aqaba. The result was a "hudna" and many deaths, including 3 American diplomats in Gaza (still not resolved).
This is what Americans should also be screaming about as it shows a dismal appraisal of the reality in the region and American defensive intel.

Posted by: Cynic 2004-05-02 1:01:54 PM

#3 #1

No, I don't think in terms of walking around armed to the teeth.
I believe he means that the population has be more aware and on the lookout for things out of the ordinary in their daily life, and also much more vociferous in their demands for actions from those agencies responsible for security to counter the possiblity of terrorist acts.
The population is more interested in relative privacy than a good intel system to get on top of potential terrorists.
The time has come when you do not know if the person actually is who he claims to be.
The population should be hysterical at the revelation that Mineta was fining airlines for:
As Mineta explained: "We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers."

"Arab hijackers now eligible for pre-boarding"

The amount of disinformation is also troubling when the media's agenda uses it to confuse the public's awareness of a threat.
Ted Koppel would not have had so many names to read had the PC confusion generated by "undefining" the enemy. There were lessons to be learned from the Israeli front which were squandered by kow towing to PC Euro politics and permitting the arabists in Foggy Bottom to dictate things

" it's not Rumsfeld's occupation; it's Colin Powell's and George Tenet's."

Posted by: Cynic 2004-05-02 12:53:03 PM

#2 Yes. It means we need to arm ourselves. My suspicion is that the 8000 AK-47's were bound for the Islamic elements that are already here.

There is a titanic battle coming soon to our cities. I fear that the majority of the sheeple will have no stomach for it.

-AR

Posted by: Analog Roam 2004-05-02 12:35:00 PM

#1 Someone will have to spell this out for me...does this mean arming ourselves for an out and out right here? Does this have something to do with the 8,000 assualt weapons confiscated in Italy that were headed here?

Posted by: jawa 2004-05-02 11:30:48 AM

00:00