Sept. 25, 2001
In the Face of Terror
Three Faculty Members Discuss Sept. 11
From the Airwaves is a transcript of The
GW Washington Forum, the weekly public affairs radio program produced
by GW, hosted by Richard Sheehe, and broadcast on WWRC-AM 1260 in Washington.
This conversation with George Fidas, Leon Fuerth, and Peter Raven-Hansen
comes from a recent program.
Richard Sheehe: Terrorism has struck American
soil. Three GW professors with distinguished backgrounds and experiences
in this arena share their thoughts: George Fidas, intelligence officer
in residence with the Elliott School of International Affairs; Leon
Fuerth, Shapiro Professor of International Affairs, ESIA, and national
security adviser to former Vice President Al Gore; and Peter Raven-Hansen,
professor of law. Did these attacks come without warning?
George Fidas: I wouldnt say quite
without warning. There have been indications that Osama bin Laden, in
particular, was planning a major action someplace in the world. It wasnt
at all clear that it would be in this country.
RS: How organized does this attack appear
to you?
Peter Raven-Hansen: This is a systematically
well-organized event. The pilots were apparently training for more than
a year, and they now think theres a network involved. They must
have had some navigation skills, as well, to find their targets, some
engineering advice about where to hit, and what the impact would be.
So, this is an organization on a scale that transcends anything we have
seen before. It raises the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism
because state intelligence agencies might have this capability, but
its also possible and frightening to think that a network like
bin Ladens might also have achieved this level of organization.
Leon Fuerth: If there was no information
whatsoever in our intelligence collection systems about this, nothing
that rose above the normal noise level/background level, then the question
is how could they have planned this without emitting something loud
enough, in effect, for us to have heard? If, on the other hand, we heard
things, knew things that rose above the normal level of background noise,
then the question is, why didnt the pattern click?
RS: Professor Fuerth, you worked as former
Vice President Al Gores national security adviser not that long
ago. I know there are some things you cant talk about, but was
there anything rising above the usual static and noise that would point
to this when it was on your watch?
LF: Theres nothing that I can recall
that points toward this, but there were moments in our time when information
came across that definitely did rise above the noise level. For example,
information which led us to a major campaign to frustrate what we knew
was going to be an effort to use the millennium celebrations as an opportunity
to wreak havoc on Americans here and abroad.
RS: Is it difficult to think of this as
a war when we dont know exactly who did this or what states or
nations might be involved?
PRH: I dont think attribution is
as important before action as others have said in the press, because
we know bin Laden has been involved in prior episodes and hes
taken the credit on videotape for the USS Cole bombing. We know he has
the means and the intent to do it in the future. So, it isnt clear
to me why we need to pin this particular episode on him before going
after him. I think the war rhetoric is correct, given the scale of the
casualties and the risk future terrorism poses. It remains to follow
up with legal authority for conducting this war and planning this strategy
for it. I think its appropriate rhetoric given what weve
experienced.
RS: President Bush has received some criticism
for not coming back immediately to Washington after the attacks. Is
this valid criticism?
LF: I dont want to second-guess the
security arrangements around the president. For those of you interested
in this, I recommend you read Bill Safires commentary in the Op/Ed
page of The New York Times, which contains the message that the White
House wants to put out about why it did what it did.
RS: The focus on the recovery effort will
only take us so far. So, more and more, were going to be looking
at who did this and what kind of response the United States will prepare.
How do we fashion and blend a response among military, diplomatic, and
legal options?
PRH: I think first of all, we shouldnt
be just fashioning a response to this particular episode. What this
is, is an awakening to the need for a long-term response against all
terrorism and sanctuary states for all terrorists. Thats why I
said Im not sure that determining attribution is necessary to
going forward against some sanctuary states or other terrorist groups.
To some degree, our national security establishment has picked him as
the boogeyman unwisely because theyre giving the public the sense
that if we take him out, well have the problem cured. In fact,
there are three or four organizations that have nearly his resources,
as well as states that may still be in the business, but not fully known
to us.
RS: Was it encouraging that President Bush
said we will make no distinction between the people who committed this
and the states or individuals who harbor them?
LF: Im not particularly reassured
by it. He either has the legal authority to do what he wants or he doesnt.
If he doesnt, he needs to resort to the Congress to get the necessary
authority in a formal fashion and get it fast. Its a very bad
idea to use the rhetoric of war unless you are legally at war because
there are certain facts that flow from that distinction. What I am more
interested to find out is whether the president is going to act in accordance
with the rhetoric. We wont know that until we see exactly how
much retribution hes prepared to bring against whomever he considers
to have been harboring terrorists. In particular, one will have to see
whether he is prepared to come close to exacting retribution at a biblical
level or whether, because of various factors including the concern for
the deaths of innocent people, he will withhold the full measure of
an American response. Those are terrible choices.
PRH: I just want to add that I agree completely
with Professor Fuerth about the need for clear legal authority, but
President Bush has some. In 1996, Congress expressly found that the
president should use all necessary means, including military force and
covert action, to take out the international terrorist infrastructure,
including training camps and supplies. That doesnt authorize him
to go after the political leaderships such as the Taliban, but its
a part of the authority that hes seeking and President Clinton
invoked it when we last attacked Afghanistan.
RS: How much does President Bush need Congress?
By going to Congress, will he be tipping his hand as to what he wants
to do?
LF: No, he doesnt have to tell Congress
what hes going to do, and he shouldnt tell anybody what
hes going to do until hes made his decision and communicated
it to the command structure with as much provision for secrecy as he
can possibly build into the operation. He needs the legal and moral
authority to back him for actions that possibly may be larger in scope
than any we have recently seen.
RS: Is there somewhere we have to indicate
who were at war with?
PRH: We always have and I would be very
leery of an open-ended declaration given the other domestic legal authorities
that it activates. But as I was saying before, Im not sure at
this stage if were in a new phase of the anti-terrorism game that
we need to specifically identify this culprit. Afghanistan has given
sanctuary to bin Laden for some time and maybe we are ready to go against
sanctuary states that have supported any terrorists.
RS: What will we likely see as a response?
GF: In the diplomatic area, and Im
assuming were talking about Osama bin Laden, then Pakistan plays
a major role because it is one of the few states that recognizes Afghanistan.
RS: One of only three. Is it encouraging
to you that the head of Pakistan came out and said he would cooperate
with the United States?
GF: Yes, but on the other hand, its
a next door neighbor and can suffer the consequences of any major actions
in terms of refugees and so on.
LF: I have a slightly different take on
it. Im not encouraged by it. Weve had these kinds of noises
from him (Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf) before. The only thing that
matters is what he does. If (US Secretary of State) Colin Powell has
communicated to him that we want bin Laden dead or alive, then dead
or alive is how we want him served up by Pakistan. Anything else is
just lip music.
PRH: I agree with that. I dont think
we should spend two months dickering about whether people should extradite
on this term or that term, or whether the evidence is sufficient for
Afghanistan. If its sufficient for us, then we want his head on
a platter.
GF: We are focusing on Osama bin Laden,
but as people are coming to know, were talking about a global
network of people terrorists, supporters, front organizations,
and the like. Again, this gets to the very nature of 21st-century war
and conflict. Taking out Osama bin Laden may not necessarily end the
activities of that network, certainly not other terrorist organizations.
RS: Thats true. One of your colleagues,
Jerrold Post, has been on this show before and hes made the point
that terrorists these days are much better at creating different cells,
any one of which could operate if the other is taken out.
LF: War can be prosecuted on many different
levels. It doesnt necessarily mean that you are using armadas
of aircraft or an invading army or navy. But, it does raise the question
of whether in going after these networks, we will continue to operate
according to ground rules we have had previously. In other words, are
we interested in finding these people and serving them subpoenas or
serving them death.
RS: It seems apparent that, in some sense,
Americans are going to have to change the way we go about our business,
starting with the airlines. What can we do differently to keep this
from happening again?
GF: In terms of the intelligence community,
our focus is overseas, so we need to step up our efforts to determine
who and what types of people are planning and plotting outside the country
and what their intentions are. The new element, at least as far as the
United States is concerned, is the element of suicidal terrorism. Weve
seen it practiced extensively in the Middle East and Sri Lanka. If this
is the beginning of a trend, and all signs are that it is because increasingly
these people seem willing and able to die for the cause, and there are
any number of them, it becomes very difficult to do.
RS: Should the FAA fall more into the category
of national security?
LF: Thats an exceedingly specialized
question. I do not know the degree to which the FAA is operating internally
24 hours a day on the subject of preventing terrorism. I know that they
dont sit in the National Security Council, and theres no
need for them to be present there 24 hours a day. Ive seen them
brought in on occasions like this to discuss the measures that theyre
taking. But frankly, I do not know that there is a way to prevent a
reoccurrence of this in the United States. I believe that in an effort
to reduce the probability, there are issues that are going to arise
much greater than airport security and which go to the fundamental balance
point of surveillance and personal freedom.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu