New terror threat for the USA

[richardm]

Employees of some of the most famous financial institutions in the US have been urged to report for work despite "credible" threats from al-Qaeda.

The security alert has been raised to "high" - the second-highest level - in parts of Washington DC and New York.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the intelligence received involved "extraordinary detail".

This intelligence came from a raid on an Al-Qaeda cell in Pakisatan, which does make me wonder how reliable it is (the suspicion is that it was gained through torture - Pakistan's record is not a good one. )

If you were a terrorist with a truck full of explosives, and it came out on the news that your target was stepping up security, what would you do? Try to press home the attack on the original target, perhaps to show that the victims are effectively helpless (assuming you don't get caught), move to a different target elsewhere (reducing the chances of getting caught and suggesting that intelligence is useless (again)), call the whole thing off ("Well, we've got this truck full of explosives, now what?")

I really, really hope nothing happens over the next few days. But we've been here before, and nothing happened then, either. I wonder what effect these new announcements will actually have. For people in New York and Washington, perhaps it will indeed make them prick their ears up; for everyone else, is it a case of "ho hum, not again".

In London, at the height of the IRA bombing campaign, people were actually pretty vigilant. But I can't remember ever hearing a pre-announcement like this, even though the IRA was infiltrated by MI5, and there must have been occasions when they knew something was brewing. But they made the choice to alert the police and army, and not panic the population (correct me if I'm wrong). Is the US tactic of repeated air-raid warnings like this the wrong one, I wonder?

(Edited to add link to full story )

 

[Hutch]

Is the US tactic of repeated air-raid warnings like this the wrong one, I wonder?[/URL] )

There is of course the concern about the "Chicken Little" effect, that if you raise to many alerts with nothing happening, the level of vigilance may decrease over time, so that when the terrorists are prepared to strike, people won't take the alert as seriously as they should.

I was listening to NPR coming into work and the "expert" they were interviewing (he had worked in Counter-Terrorism for the Defense Dept., IIRC) was saying in a way that alerts like this benefited the terrorists, because it showed the level and types of security they would have to find ways around--to use his description, it was like playing poker when you have to show the other guy your cards.

My greatest concern is that Al Queda might change tactics and instead of going after 'big kill' targets, might try 'monkey wrench' tactics (destroying water acqueducts, electrical lines and stations, et.al.) which would cause little human loss but huge economic and social jolts.

The one thing we can predict is that they will try again...but on their time scale, not ours. And that may be the scariest thing of all.....

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: New terror threat for the USA

I was listening to NPR coming into work and the "expert" they were interviewing (he had worked in Counter-Terrorism for the Defense Dept., IIRC) was saying in a way that alerts like this benefited the terrorists, because it showed the level and types of security they would have to find ways around--to use his description, it was like playing poker when you have to show the other guy your cards.

That is exactly what Al Queda wants. A little misinformation can teach you alot about how your enemy, (America), operates. Keep them jumping through hoops and while they are, study their tactics and exploit their weaknesses. Then hit them where they least expect it. 9-11 is a case in point. Al Queda hit overseas repeatedly, drew America's attention away from the homeland and POW goes New York and Washington.

 

[RandFan]

I really, really hope nothing happens over the next few days. But we've been here before, and nothing happened then, either. I wonder what effect these new announcements will actually have. For people in New York and Washington, perhaps it will indeed make them prick their ears up; for everyone else, is it a case of "ho hum, not again".

I don't know about Ireland but if there is a credible threat and the administration does not warn anyone and then something does happen then it is all over for the administration. All day and all night and ever question for days will be "you had the information and you did not warn us, why?" And no answer will suffice.

The administration is in a no-win situation. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

BTW, wasn't there allot more bombing in Ireland to cause the people to be vigilant? Just curious.

 

[Bikewer]

Al Qaeda is in the position at present where it hardly has to do anything. An occasional bombing on the other side of the pond "attributed" to their organization, and issuance of threats now and then...

It's certainly good espionage practice to have "vital information" convieniently fall into enemy hands, even to the point of sacrificing an operative or two to lend realism.

In WWII, the allies "manufactured" an intelligence agent with secret documents on a dead body to give the Germans false information.

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: New terror threat for the USA

I don't know about Ireland but if there is a credible threat and the administration does not warn anyone and then something does happen then it is all over for the administration. All day and all night and ever question for days will be "you had the information and you did not warn us, why?" And no answer will suffice.

The administration is in a no-win situation. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

BTW, wasn't there allot more bombing in Ireland to cause the people to be vigilant? Just curious.

Yes, all of that is true. I was thinking mostly of London, rather than Ireland -looking back, there weren't really all that many bombs - fewer than 15 between the 70s and 90s, but people are still cautious.

And I'm forgetting that in London, there was (and still is) the "ring of steel" process, in which the City (the financial district) is protected. Entry to the district becomes very tightly controlled, and it's generally quite a nuisance. I think the difference is that there is never much of a fanfare when it gets applied - the police just move in. No warnings are issued to the public that a heightened threat is upon us.

Still, I think you're right, and that perhaps the American public are still so unused to domestic terrorism that they need regular reminders that they are targets - better that, than to be reminded by a truck bomb going off somewhere in New York. I just worry that things have swung too far in the other direction. Let's face it, judging by the reports we've had yesterday and today, we're all pretty much waiting to see just when and where the bomb goes off. If it doesn't, that's another step towards complacency.

A difficult balance to strike.