Counterterrorism: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(More NPOV)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(More trimming for NPOV)
Line 116: Line 116:
}}</ref>. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber, exfiltration becomes moot.
}}</ref>. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber, exfiltration becomes moot.


These units are specially trained in [[tactics]] and are very well equipped for [[close quarters battle|CQB]] with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), [[sniper]]s, [[Explosive Ordnance Disposal|EOD]] experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. See [[Counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations]] for national command, intelligence, and incident mitigation.
These units are specially trained in [[tactics]] and are very well equipped for [[close quarters battle|CQB]] with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), [[sniper]]s, [[Explosive Ordnance Disposal|EOD]] experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers.  


The majority of counterterrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national [[police|law enforcement agencies]] or [[intelligence agency|intelligence agencies]]. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct [[police]] operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.
The majority of counterterrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national [[police|law enforcement agencies]] or [[intelligence agency|intelligence agencies]]. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct [[police]] operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.
See [[Counterintelligence]] for command, intelligence and warning, and incident mitigation aspects of counter-terror.

Revision as of 06:07, 10 May 2008

Counterterrorism (and antiterrorism is a set of tactics, techniques and strategies used by governments to prevent or mitigate terrorist acts. Counterterrorism is not specific to any one field or organization; rather, it involves entities from all levels of society. For instance, businesses have security plans and sometimes share commercial data with the government.

Terrorism is a tactic used by some insurgents or governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing. If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgency doctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defense (FID) is a term used by several countries for programs either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop.

Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts, and the response to completed acts.

Anti-terrorism versus Counter-Terrorism

The concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the concept of terrorism as well as an attempt to understand and articulate what constitutes terrorism in Western terms. It must be remembered that in military contexts, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Terrorism may be a tactic in a war between nation-states, in a civil war, or in an insurgency.

Counter-terrorism refers to offensive strategies intended to prevent a belligerent, in a broader conflict, from using the tactic of terrorism. The U.S. military definition, compatible with the definitions used by NATO and many other militaries, is

Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.[1]

In other words, counter-terrorism is a set of techniques for denying an opponent the use terrorism-based tactics, just as counter-air is a set of techniques for denying the opponent the use of attack aircraft.

United States Customs and Border Protection officers.

Anti-terrorism is defensive, intended to reduce the chance of an attack using terrorist tactics at specific points, or to reduce the vulnerability of possible targets to such tactics.

Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces.[1]

To continue the analogy between air and terrorist capability, offensive counter-air missions attack the airfields of the opponent, while defensive counter-air uses antiaircraft missiles to protect a point on one's on territory. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict,[2] Sri Lankan Civil War,[3] and Colombian Civil War.[4] are examples of conflicts where terrorism is present, along with other tactics, so that a participant uses counter- and anti-terrorism to limit the opponent's use of terror tactics.

Planning for Detecting and Neutralizing Potential Terrorist Acts

Building a counterterrorism plan involves all segments of a society or many government agencies. In dealing with foreign terrorists, the lead responsibility is usually at the national level. Because propaganda and indoctrination lie at the core of terrorism, understanding their profile and functions increases the ability to counter terrorism more effectively. See the series of articles beginning with intelligence cycle management, and, in particular, intelligence analysis. HUMINT presents techniques of describing the social networks that make up terrorist groups. Also relevant are the motivations of the individual terrorist and the Clandestine cell system used by recent non-national terrorist groups.

Most counter-terrorism strategies involve an increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional: interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin or religion, which is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds.

To select the effective action when terrorism appears to be more of an isolated event, the appropriate government organizations need to understand the source, motivation, methods of preparation, and tactics of terrorist groups. Good intelligence is at the heart of such preparation, as well as political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, a very difficult challenge for HUMINT because operational terrorist cells are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related.[5] Counterintelligence is a great challenge with the security of cell-based systems, since the ideal, but nearly impossible, goal is to obtain a clandestine source within the cell. Financial tracking can play a role, as can communications intercept, but both of these approaches need to be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy.

Planning for Response to Terrorism

Police, fire, and emergency medical response organizations have obvious roles. Local firefighters, and emergency medical personnel (often called "first responders") have plans for mitigating the effects of terrorist attacks, although police may deal with threats of such attacks.

Target-hardening

Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark, or reducing the damage of attacks. One method is to place Jersey barrier or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing. Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. English train stations removed their waste bins in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs. Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased bomb-resistant barriers after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts are in progress [6]. To put this risk into perspective, the first major lethal chemical attack in WWI used 160 tons of chlorine. Industrial shipments of chlorine, widely used in water purification and the chemical industry, travel in 90 or 55 ton tank cars.

To give one more example, the North American electrical grid has already demonstrated, in the Northeast Blackout of 2003, its vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with inadequate, possibly insecure, SCADA (system control and data acquisition) networks. Part of the vulnerability is due to deregulation leading to much more interconnection in a grid designed for only occasional power-selling between utilities. A very few terrorists, attacking key power facilities when one or more engineers have infiltrated the power control centers, could wreak havoc.

Equipping likely targets with containers (i.e., bags) of pig lard has been utilized to discourage attacks by Islamist suicide bombers. The technique was apparently used on a limited scale by British authorities in the 1940s [7]. The approach stems from the idea that Muslims perpetrating the attack would not want to be "soiled" by the lard in the moment prior to dying. The idea has been suggested more recently as a deterrent to suicide bombings in Israel [8]. However, the actual effectiveness of this tactic is probably limited as it is possible that a sympathetic Islamic scholar could issue a fatwa proclaiming that a suicide bomber would not be polluted by the swine products.

Command and Control

In North America and other continents, for a threatened or completed terrorist attack, the Incident Command System (ICS) is apt to be invoked to control the various services that may need to be involved in the response. ICS has varied levels of escalation, such as might be needed for multiple incidents in a given area (e.g., the 2005 bombings in London or the 2004 Madrid train bombings, or all the way to a National Response Plan invocation if national-level resources are needed. National response, for example, might be needed for a nuclear, biological, radiological, or large chemical attack.

Damage Mitigation

Fire departments, perhaps supplemented by public works agencies, utility providers (e.g., gas, water, electricity), and heavy construction contractors, are most apt to deal with the physical consequences of an attack.

Local Security

Again under an incident command model, local police can isolate the incident area, reducing confusion, and specialized police units can conduct tactical operations against terrorists, often using specialized counterterrorist tactical units. Bringing in such units will normally involve civil or military authority beyond the local level.

Medical Services

Emergency medical services will bring the more seriously affected victims to hospitals, which will need to have mass casualty and triage plans in place.

Public health agencies, from local to national level, may be designated to deal with identification, and sometimes mitigation, of possible biological attacks, and sometimes chemical or radiologic contamination.

Counterterrorism tactical units

Today, many countries have special units designated to handle terrorist threats. Besides various security agencies, there are elite tactical units, also known as special mission units, whose role is to directly engage terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks. Such units perform both in preventive actions, hostage rescue and responding to on-going attacks.

Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of the assassins [9]. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber, exfiltration becomes moot.

These units are specially trained in tactics and are very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers.

The majority of counterterrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.

  1. 1.0 1.1 US Department of Defense (12 July 2007), Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms
  2. Metz, Helen Chapin (1988), The Occupied Territories, Israel: A Country Study, Library of Congress
  3. United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions (5 September 2006), UN Expert welcomes Proposed Sri Lanka Commission
  4. Hanratty, Dennis M. & Sandra W. Meditz (1988), Post-National Front Political Developments, Colombia: A Country Study, Library of Congress
  5. Feiler, Gil (September 2007), The Globalization of Terror Funding, Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 74, at 29. Retrieved on 2007-11-14
  6. Weiss, Eric M. (January 11, 2005). D.C. Wants Rail Hazmats Banned: S.C. Wreck Renews Fears for Capital.
  7. Suicide bombing 'pig fat threat (February 13, 2004).
  8. Swine: Secret Weapon Against Islamic Terror? (December 9, 2007).
  9. Stathis N. Kalyvas (2004). "The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil Wars". Journal of Ethics 8 (1): 97-138.