Understanding And Combating Terrorism AUTHOR Major S. M. Grass, USMC CSC 1989 SUBJECT AREA - Operations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: UNDERSTANDING AND COMBATING TERRORISM Thesis: In order to combat terrorism we must be able to understand a type of warfare that cannot be defined within a set of rules or principles. Issue: Understanding the threat that terrorism poses has become very complex and developing a means to effectively counter that threat is even more perplexing. Terrorism is a type of warfare that has no limits and knows no boundaries. It operates within a spectrum of warfare that is not defined by a set of rules or principles. Therefore, it cannot be effectively countered by a conventional warfare thought process. Terrorism is not new. It has been plaguing societies since the beginning of time. The terrorism as we know it today had its early beginnings in Czarist Russia. With the advancement of technology in transportation and communica- tion, this terrorism has been able to spread its terror worldwide. With this advancement in technology came the development of modern weapons that the terrorist has employed to elevate his violence to new levels. Democratic regimes have the most difficult task in countering terrorism. Democratic principles and foreign policy has made this an even more difficult challenge. This is further complicated by the fact the public cannot under- stand the psychological makeup and objectives that motivate the terrorist. The United States has a variety of military forces and weapons to react to terrorism. Many of these means are merely employed to demonstrate our resolve to utilize these forces if necessary. These operations have been reactionary vice being conducted within a doctrine based on the understanding of the threat. The Marine Corps is once again on the forefront of developing a doctrine and a force concurrently that can be used to counter terrorism. Until a doctrine and strategy can be developed based on an understanding of the terrorist threat, future attempts to combat terrorism will be futile. TITLE: UNDERSTANDING AND COMBATING TERRORISM OUTLINE Thesis Statement: In order to combat terrorism, we must be able to understand a type of warfare that cannot be defined within a set of rules or principles. I. Terrorism A. Definition of the problem B. Nature of the threat C. Goals of terrorism II. Historical Beginnings A. Russian origins B. Propaganda by the deed C. The spread of terror III. Profile of the Terrorist A. Profile by categories B. Characteristics of the terrorist C. Psychology of the terrorist IV. Modern terrorist threat A. Weapons of terror B. Arsenals of tomorrow C. Targets of the future V. Terrorism and Foreign Policy A. State sponsored terrorism B. Soviet supported terrorism C. U.S. policy VI. Combatting the Threat A. Democracy vs terrorism B. Defensive measures C. Military force considerations UNDERSTANDING AND COMBATING TERRORISM Introduction On 9 October 1983, 243 United States Marines lost their lives in an Iranian sponsored "suicide bombing" of the Marines Barracks, Beirut, Lebanon. Today the same powers to be has offered a 5 million dollar bounty for the author of the book, "Satanic Verses." These actions represent the type of threat the free world of today faces in the form of terrorism. The death of the Marines in Beirut, during the peace keeping mission, not only embarrassed its leaders but made them regretfully aware that they were not ready to defend themselves against a type of warfare that operates outside the rules and principles of modern day war. In a somewhat indirect way, the bounty offered for the author of "Satanic Verses" is a threat to one of the cornerstones of our own Constitution, the freedom of speech. To bring this point a little closer to home, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December of 1988, over the skies of Great Britain, in which seven University of Syracuse students and eight Army personnel were killed, demonstrates that Americans have become one of the prime targets of the violence terrorism poses. It is certainly time for the U.S. to realize that we must be prepared to defeat a threat that has the ability to change the way of life as we know it today. The world in which we live has become a violent and dangerous place. The forms of violence has many faces and ranges in intensity from nuclear war to conventional means. On the most primitive level, these highly destructive actions are those of the terrorists. Although terrorism is not a new form of violence, its recent changes in its tactics and modern weapons have made it extremely difficult to combat. What made this cancer on our society so difficult to fight is that we do not understand the motivation and thinking of the people that revert to such violent means to attract worldwide attention to a cause that we as Americans cannot relate to. Terrorism, like cancer, is a disease and therefore must be removed before it spreads and infects and eventually destroys the entire organism. Just as doctors look for new means to defeat cancer, the U.S. must develop a strategy to bring to an end the threat terrorism poses to our way of life. The primary focus of this paper is centered on developing a better understanding of terrorism in order to more effectively combat it. This paper will provide a clearer definition of terrorism and trace its origin within the Czarist Russia of the l880s. It will further explore the profile of the modern terrorist, the weapons he utilizes and look at the terrorist arsenals and targets of the future. This paper will explain the relation between terrorism and foreign policy. Through this process we should gain a better understanding of terrorism and realize that it is a type of warfare that recognizes no boundaries and knows no limits. In order to combat terrorism, we must be able to understand a type of warfare that cannot be defined within a set of rules or principles. Finally, we must realize that terrorism operates under the philosophy that there is no distinction between combatants and noncombatants; both are targets. PART I TERRORISM Terrorism. The mere word brings to the mind images of hijacking, kidnapping and violent assassinations. These terms in no way cover all the issues within the broad spectrum of definitions attributed to the word terrorism. Terrorism represents a multitude of definitions held by a diverse collection of people worldwide. The concept that one persons "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter" has led to a misconception of the true definition of terrorism. Herein lies the problem; identifying a clear definition of terrorism and recognizing its warriors. The late Senator Jackson provided an explanation that provides a realistic view of what the terrorist is: The idea that one person's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter" cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don't blow up school buses containing noncombatants; terrorist murderers do...it is a disgrace that democracies would allow the word "freedom" to be associated with the acts of terrorist. 1 Despite the different perceptions, there are indisputable characteristics of terrorism, that are fact, not perception. Among these are that terrorism is a form of political violence with a goal of obtaining a political objective. The second is that terrorism is clearly a form of warfare. Therefore, operating under this definition, terrorism must be dealt with as a form of warfare. If we accept this definition of terrorism, then the means to best combat terrorism is best described by Albert Parry: To annihilate modern terrorists with their superior methods of battle, the counterblows must be a hundred fold smarter and stronger than the terrorists' own ways and weapons. In order to further define terrorism it is important to understand the nature of terrorism. Terrorism is clearly distinguished from other forms of violence. Its acts, by nature, are indiscriminate violent actions used to attack its targets. These methods include assassinations, bombings, death threats and utilizing innocent hostages as political weapons. The brutal actions of terrorism are not irrational actions, but are the premeditated use of force to achieve certain objectives. Therefore, terrorism is a goal directed form of violence. Terrorism is a psychological weapon and is directed to create a general climate of fear. As one definition cogently notes, "terror is a natural phenomenon, terrorism is the con- scious exploitation of it."3 Terrorism utilizes violence to coerce governments and their people by inducing fear. Understanding this, authorities who undertake the challenge to combat terrorism must engage in its own campaign of fear. With a definition of terrorism and idea of the nature of terrorism, the final step in understanding the threat is to examine the goals of terrorism. Ernest Evans, a research associate at the Brookings Institute, suggests that there are five specific goals of terrorism.4 These goals are: 1. The terrorist seeks to publicize its cause on a regional and international level. 2. The harassment and intimidation of authorities to force them to make concessions. 3. Polarization of society to bring down the regime. 4. To aggravate relations between states or nations. 5. The terrorist work to free political prisoners and secure monetary ransoms to finance their cause. Terrorists will ultimately utilize any means from death threats to nuclear proliferation to meet their goals. Governments must be prepared to deal with this threat and recognize terrorism for what it is; a form of warfare. ENDNOTES 1Terrorism and the Modern World, US Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. Current Policy No. 629 October 1985. 2Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Lexington Books D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982, p. 155. 3Stephen Sloan, Beating International Terrorism, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, December 1986, p. 2. 4Lieutenant Colonel Gary W. Nelson, Terrorism: The Military Challenge, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, March 1987, p. 9, 10. PART II HISTORICAL BEGINNINGS The organized terror that is seen today had its origin in Russia in the 1800s. Pressures had been building in Russia for some time due to the deplorable conditions of the peasants and the reaction of Peter the Greats' Westerniza- tion. The only way that we as Americans could understand this type of oppression is to read an excellent work about this era in W. Bruce Lincoln's book titled "In Wars Dark Shadow." In his book Lincoln vividly describes the harsh economic conditions within the turn of the century Russia with hundred of thousands of peasants from the famine stricken villages moving into what was to become Russia's urban slums. With this migration from the peasant villages to the industrial environment, there evolved a cadre of revolutionary terrorists, which would eventually create a new order within the twentieth century Russia. Within this new order arose the land and liberty party, of which evolved the violent sector known as the People's Will. In the founding conference of the People's Will, which was held from 19-21 July 1879, the decision was made to assassinate Czar Alexander II. The Czar was the representative of those who sapped the people's self government and therefore they felt the Czar deserved the death sentence. Yet, this was not the sole concern of the People's Will. Their aim was the people's freedom, the people's good.1 This in essence was the foundation of terrorism as we recognize it today. From these ideological beginnings in 1877, arose a concept known as "propaganda by the deed," which led revolutionaries to create an even higher atmosphere of terror and violence. This became a tool that the new terrorists used to awaken popular consciousness. Propaganda by the deed became a concept in which ideas were no longer contained to paper, but became clothed in flesh and sinew.2 The assassination of Czar Alexander was the epitome of propaganda by the deed. This act was carried out by members of the People's Will with a dynamite bomb which exploded in the Czar's coach. This planned and scientific use of dynamite for terrorist activities was pioneered in Russia and was favored by anarchist throughout Europe. Its effects are still felt today. The events of terror did not contain themselves to Russia and by 1878 waves of assassination attempts erupted all over Germany, Spain and Italy. By 1890 these had spread to France and the United States. The main difference between what was happening in Europe and Russia was the organization of terror. Zeev Ivianski, who developed a concept known as "blow at the center," points out that with the exception of the events in Russia, the terror which broke out across the European continent were unrelated. They were carried out by individuals who had no backing or support from established organizations. However, these individuals did share a common belief that they were backed against a wall with no alternative left to them other than terror. These individuals, despite their lack of backing were nonetheless dangerous. The Russian terrorists pioneered the type of organiza- tional terrorism we see today. They took an organized body and injected it with new ideological belief developed by the French in 1789 which allowed them to commit any excess as long as it benefitted the revolution. This thought process combined with an established organization and the techno- logical advances in destructive weapons ushered in the new age of terrorism. ENDNOTES 1Ariel Herari, On Terrorism and Combatting Terrorism, Maryland University Publications of America Inc., 1975 p. 54. 2Ibid, p. 54 PART III PROFILE OF THE TERRORIST The ability to recognize the modern day terrorist would be like trying to identify the child abuser or the rapist within a crowded sporting event within the United States. It could easily be any normal individual sitting next to you in that crowd. The question comes to mind in regards to the terrorist as to whether the terrorist can be labeled a normal person. Albert Parry alleges that "most political terror- ists have not been normal." He goes on to say, "not all political terrorists are insane or mentally disturbed, but most are."1 Although most people would tend to believe terrorist are mentally unstable, there seems to be no evidence to support this case. The mentally unstable person is not able to function properly within a group and therefore would be a detriment to the organization. The only means therefore to adequately identify the terrorist is to categorize him into some type of profile. The following paragraphs will examine such profiles. In order to provide a profile of the terrorist, we cannot simply place them all into one general category. We must be able to divide them into several distinct groups based upon either their beliefs or their objectives. The modern terrorists are not ordinary people. They possess distinct and unique characteristics and qualities. The terrorist must have a political belief or cause--otherwise, if he uses terrorism for personal gain, he is simply a common criminal.2 The modern terrorist can best be placed within a political cause framework. The first category being those who fight for world revolution in order to impose a certain political philosophy on everyone and destroy those who oppose them. Secondly, there are those who fight to impose a political philosophy on those within their own country. Finally, the third group are those who represent themselves as a liberation movement. The common thread being the devotion to some type of political cause. Categorizing terrorist in this manner is by no means the only method, but provides a framework in which to operate. The modern terrorist we see today is usually dedicated to a political cause or belief. This dedication also implies absolute obedience to the leader of the movement. This common denominator then assists us in both being able to better recognize the terrorist and eventually aids in directing our opposition to their origin. Terrorists have many recognizable characteristics that set them apart from the average individual. Because he faces the dangers of personal injury and death, he must possess personal bravery or have no apparent fear of death. Further, in order to carry out the type of atrocities that send many completely innocent victims to their death, the terrorist must be completely void of any emotions or remorse. Accord- ing to the type of sophisticated explosive devices that were used to down Pan Am Flight 103 over Great Britain, the terror- ist must be a highly trained and well educated individual. We should realize though, that not all terrorists possess such qualifications. But it is also very important to under- stand to be a successful terrorist, a University degree is almost mandatory.3 One fact that almost in every case makes the terrorist stands out from the crowd is that he in one way or another is a fanatic. For example, the universal hatred of Israel moti- vates the Palestinian terrorists in their daily attacks on the government and people of that country. Terrorists are definitely drawn to their profession, much as the thrill seeker is drawn to excitement or danger, over the safe routines of regular hard work and slow advancement.4 It appears that terrorists seem to be withdrawn from reality and use the mystique of terrorism as an outlet. Within this world, they become both the hunter and the haunted and live within a base existence with few if any personal relation- ships. Although all terrorists do not fall within this psychological grouping, the very nature of their profession, allows them to accept the use of violence to gain their ultimate objective. In reality, the terrorist may actually live an outwardly normal life, but he does so only to cover for his terrorist activities. ENDNOTES 1Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982, p. 31. 2Edgar O'Ballance, Language of Violence, Presidio Press, San Rafael, California, 1979, p. 299. 3Stephen Sloan, Beating International Terrorism, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1986. 4Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982, p. 33. PART IV MODERN TERRORIST THREAT The use of terror and fear are the primary weapons of the terrorist. Violence becomes the medium through which the terrorist spreads his fear. To the terrorist the threat of violent acts and atrocities become their means of communicating with the rest of the world. The spread of terrorism and the technological revolution in communication and transportation have ran hand in hand. The introduction of jet aircraft in the 1950s and early 1960s gave the terrorist a degree of mobility and a field of operations undreamed of by their most dedicated and skillful predecessors.1 The use of modern aircraft has provided the terrorist a means to spread his violence worldwide within a matter of hours. In conjunction with the advancement in transportation, the development of modern weapons has provided the terrorist the means to conduct a new type of armed conflict. This presents a magnitude of problems when governments decide to counter this modern threat. The terrorist has a wide range of modern weapons at his command to employ against a variety of lucrative targets. These weapons range from the use of death threats as we have seen used against the author of "The Satanic Verses," Salmon Rushdie, to the latest generation of deadly explosive devices known as the Ibrahim-type bombs."2 With their high rates of fire and penetration power, firearms have become the weapon of choice of the terrorist. These weapons allow the terrorist to maintain a high degree of mobility, are inexpensive and easy to conceal. Small caliber rifles, such as the M-16 with high velocity rounds are very popular due to the weapons ability to use explosive and toxic ammunition. Today perhaps the most popular weapon among individual terrorists is the 9-millimeter submachine gun. Because of the current availability, low cost and the penetration power of its ammunition, the 9-millimeter submachine gun has become the universal weapon of the terrorist. Explosives, with more destructive power, are effectively employed by the terrorist. These weapons were used by terrorist in England as early as 1605. These weapons tend to have a great deal of shock power and draws more attention to the deed. Nearly 70 percent of all terrorist attacks involve explosives in some form or another.3 The reason for their extensive use is that they magnify the destruction and slaughter that one individual can inflict. Explosives provide the indirect means of killing and poses less a threat to the attacker. Explosives and the means to set them off are only limited to the imagination of those using them. New plastic explosives have added a new dimension to the terrorist arsenals of explosive weapons. Plastic explosives have commonly been referred to as--God's gift to the terrorist.4 These explosives can be used to destroy a variety of targets. These targets range in size from automobiles to aircraft and buildings. The 1970s became the beginning of the future of the most destructive weapons utilized against human targets. From the use of shoulder mounted, wire guided missiles to the possible use of chemical and biological weapons, the terrorist now has the means to hold the entire world as hostage. The terrorist has elevated death and destruction to a fine art. The present advances in weapons such as lasers and microwaves as weapons have the future possibility of bringing about an amount of destruction that would be mind-boggling. If I may, I would like to add a personal note to this paper. Since I began my studies in the area of terrorism, I have realized that the terrorist threat is very real. We as Americans have been lulled into a false sense of reality in that we take the security that our modern airports provide too lightly. The terrorist, with his training and modern weapons, has the ability to easily spread his violence within the United States. It is my hope that it doesn't take the fire bombing of a local elementary school to make us aware of the possibility of our hometowns becoming targets of terrorism. With our reliance on telecommunications centers and electrical power plants which all lie virtually unprotected, attacks to these type facilities are very probable and make our larger cities very vulnerable. With the possibility of the use of biological and nuclear weapons, the terrorist could bring about destruction within the United States as we've never witnessed. The very thought of terrorist utilizing such weapons should emphasize the urgent necessity to find an effective means to identify and combat this threat now and prevent its spread in the future. ENDNOTES 1Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982, p. 97. 2William J. Cook, The Technology of Terror, March 6, 1988, p. 24. 3Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Company, 1982, p. 100. 4Ibid, p. 105. PART V TERRORISM AND FOREIGN POLICY In today's world the cost of doing business, especially on the international market, is extremely expensive. This statement is very relevant when one considers the cost of training and supplying weapons to the terrorist. The weapons and training areas needed for the scale of terrorist opera- tions we see today are far too expensive and even harder to attain without formal support. Presently this type of sup- port comes from nations--states who see terrorism as a means of achieving their political objectives. These states pro- vide weapons, training camps and technical expertise to terrorists in order to improve the overall effectiveness of their deeds. US Attorney General Edwin Meese, while speaking before the American Chamber of Commerce and the Austro- American society on international terrorism, accused five countries of providing sanctuaries and training areas for terrorist groups. He continues to say that Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Nicaragua make no pretense of hiding their sponsorship of terrorism.1 It appears that armed with this type of information that the task of putting and end to terrorism would be a simple operation. This is definitely not the case. The terrorist ability to disguise his backers and means of support are one of the tricks of his trade. Therefore any attempts to identify the guilty party and render the appropriate retaliatory punishment is a very sensitive foreign policy issue. There is a growing number of states that support terrorism. Most of these states are found in the Middle East, such as Syria, Iran and Libya. The leaders of the countries have become more vocal in their support of inter- national tyranny and have directed many of their verbal attacks to the United States and former President Reagan. During the Reagan presidency the incidents of state supported violence became more and more common and forced the United States to take serious moves to protect her interest. The evidence that these countries also provide training camps is unrefutable and can be considered proof of that countries involvement in terrorist actions. Military operations such as those conducted against Libya by the United States have been the only effective means of deterring the threat that terrorism poses. Without this type of policy backed up by the popular support of a country's populace, terrorism will continue to be a dangerous threat to the free world. The purpose for state supported terrorism has many reasons. The primary reason is political, but other countries, such as Iran hide their support of terrorism behind the cloak of religious beliefs. This type of religious beliefs for these countries fall into the category of the fanatic and extremist. Iran and its leader Ayatollah Khomeini is probably the most well known of these religious fanatics. His fanatical hold on his country has led his people to believe that the rest of the world and especially the United States are its worst enemy. Examining the philosophy behind the beliefs of countries like Iran will assist us in understanding the motivation that drives terrorist to their destructive violence. The Shiites of the Muslim faith, of which there are 42 million in Iran, believe that death in a holy war guarantees them a place in heaven. This belief provides a foundation for an extremely activist and volatile state. William Quant, a Middle East expert at Washington's Brookings Institute says "committing terrorism is like achieving manhood for a Shiite."2 With a belief system based on violence and death for the guarantee of eternal life it is very easy to see why a means to defeat it are so elusive. The Soviet Union and its role in international terrorism is the topic of sharp debate. This debate is not over the question of Soviet support but the type of support and exactly how much is given. The economics of conventional warfare for the Soviets have placed quite a strain on the Soviet government. Therefore, the Soviet Union exploits low intensity conflicts around the world to continue the spread of Communism. The entire foundation of the Soviet doctrine is based on Marxist beliefs that the use of force is legitimate for the state to use and is the quickest means to bring another society to its death.3 The Soviet's support of terrorism is deeply rooted in this belief and ultimately has a lot to gain in its use. This support however cannot be overt. The Soviet Union is a superpower and must avoid disturbing relations with other major powers. During the March 1989 Erskine lecture, conducted at the FBI Academy, Ambassador Max Kamplem, former head of the US delegation to the negotiations on nuclear and space arms in Geneva, discussed arms control and Soviet relations. The Ambassador stated that he felt that the United States govern- ment treaded too softly in dealings with terrorism and outlaw countries, such as Libya. He further stated that the United States must deal firmly with these countries, but then must be careful when our actions affect our relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union clearly abuses this relation- ship that we share and will continue to support international terrorism when it is in their best interest. To this end, the United States should reassess its foreign policy as it relates to terrorism. It should evaluate its vulnerabilities in key elements of defense and security. To reinforce these actions, the government should develop a hard line policy dealing with terrorism, emphasizing a rapid and if necessary brutal response to terrorism.4 But presently it appears that foreign policy and politics will continue to be an obstacle to the United States' attempt to deal with terrorism. ENDNOTES 1Austria, Meese Accuses 5 Countries of Terrorism, USA Today, 11 December 1985. 2The Roots of Fanaticism, Time, 24 June 1985, p. 25. 3Merari Arid, On Terrorism and Combatting Terrorism, University Publication of America, Inc., 1985, p. 105. 4Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982, p. 259. PART VI COMBATING TERRORISM Democratic forms of government undoubtedly face the most difficult task in confronting the problem of combating terrorism. Authoritarian regimes have fewer limitations upon the means of force, particularly military, they may employ to meet the terrorist threat. Democratic governments, however, face a much more complex dilemma in that they must not only protect the populace and defeat the terrorist threat, but must preserve their democratic institution and way of life as well.1 In democratic governments it is necessary to gain the support of the people in order for any type of mobiliza- tion of forces to be conducted effectively. The government and its people must have the means and resolve to use the necessary force to defeat any threat. This is especially true when attempting to formulate a means to deal with terrorism as opposed to that of a major conflict. The most important thing a government must do when confronted with state sponsored terrorism is to realize that it is facing a military threat operating as a form of war.2 Democratic governments normally have to resort to using diplomacy, economic sanctions, social reforms and political pressures in resolving the problems of terrorism. As proven in the past, the use of force has been an effective arbitrator. But just as in any armed conflict, it is critical to know the enemies capabilities, weaknesses and objectives. This will enable the government to adopt its own political and military objectives and methods to defeat the threat. The democratic government, with the consent of the governed necessary, faces major problems in gaining support for military actions in opposition to a perceived threat. The secure world as we have known it within the United States will soon become as the dinosaur; extinct! An indication of this was the attack on the wife of Navy Captain Will Rogers Jr. on 10 March 1989 in San Diego, California, when the car she was driving was destroyed by a typical terrorist weapon, the pipe bomb. This attack was in probable retaliation by individuals sympathetic to Iran as a result of the downing of an Iranian commercial aircraft by the USS Vincennes. Captain Rogers was the skipper of the Vincennes at that time. An axiom that is popular in American sports is that the best offense is a good defense. This holds especially true in defending against the threat of terrorism. In order to defend against the terrorist and refuse him the means to carry out his violent acts, the security programs of the nation and its private sector must be well coordinated. These countermeasures will deny the terrorist targets of opportunity.3 Security has become a common word within the military, but is widely misunderstood within the private sector. Security measures to defend against terrorism must be understood by both parties and integrated as a system. The protection of American citizens in the past has been the responsibility of the government. This is no longer true. This responsibility must be shared by state and local governments and the private sector. This responsibility should entail an information process which stresses a public awareness program. The purpose of these programs would be to make the public aware of the future threat that terrorism poses to our local communities. It has come the time that the American public be made aware of the real threat that will in the future become a danger to our way of life. This would be the first step in improving our means to success- fully defend our nation from this type of threat. Secondly, information programs within corporations, especially those with military contracts, and our educational institutions could provide the necessary information to help our citizens better recognize the potential situations that provide the terrorists the opportunity to utilize his skills to inflict terror through violent actions. These measures tend to be radical and extremist, but so are the actions of the terrorist. The United States possesses a multifaceted inventory of lethal weapons capable of defeating terrorism. The use of military force utilizing sophisticated weapons such as the F-111, F-18, the EA6B and electronic warfare equipment, in the attack against Libya is a prime example of this lethal inventory. But as operational sound and tactically proficient as this attack was, it was not conducted from a basis of a doctrine or strategy, but was merely a reactionary measure to prove that the United States had the means and resolve to use such a force. I submit that future counter- measures to combat terrorism must be designed on the basis of a strategy, based on an understanding of the threat. The United States Marine Corps has historically operated within the low intensity conflict arena. It utilized a strategy and tactics developed with the use of the "Small Wars Manual." This reference provided the guidance by which the tactics and forces were formulated to employ against hostilities encountered in Haiti and Nicaragua. These early efforts in a low intensity environment influenced the develop- ment of a doctrine and force that could eventually be utilized as a means to deter terrorism. This doctrine and force is known as the MEU(SOC) program. The MEU(SOC) is an amphibious force that has the capability to conduct special operations in a maritime environment.4 The MEU(SOC) has a diverse inventory of capabilities and is equipped with special weapons and highly trained personnel that have the ability to conduct a wide variety of missions. These missions range from, but are not limited to, amphibious raids and clandestine recoveries to tactical recovery of aircraft and extremist hostage rescues. It must be emphasized that these operations fall within the maritime purview and do not duplicate those of other special operation forces, but comple- ment them.5 The MEU(SOC), being forward deployed aboard Navy amphibious shipping, provides a rapid means to react to problem areas and would prevent a situation from reaching extreme proportions. Utilized in conjunction with other services' special forces, this joint force would provide the most effective, as well as most economically feasible force to counter the threat of terrorism. In conclusion, it is fully understood that these special operation forces are not the ultimate answer to counter terrorism, but is a step in the right direction in developing a doctrine and force concurrently. Well knowing, that the type of sophisticated and costly military operation conducted against Libya, may again be necessary under certain circum- stances, it is futile to use these type of operations in the future unless they are conducted within a strategy based on a clear understanding of the threat. ENDNOTES 1Donald J. Hanle, On Terrorism: An Analysis of Terrorism as a Form of Warfare, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, September 1987, p. 196. 2Ibid, p. 197. 3Neil C. Livingstone, The War Against Terrorism, Livingstone Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982, p. 4GySgt P. L. Cabal, Jr., MAU(SOC) Corps' Capabilities Enhanced, Marine Corps Gazette, July 1987, p. 8, 9. 5Ibid, p. 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Cabol, P. L., Jr., GySgt, MAU(SOC) Corps' Capabilities Enhanced, Marine Corps Gazette, July 1987. 2. Cook, William J., The Technology of Terror, U.S. News and World Report, 6 March 1988. 3. Earl, Robert L., LtCol, Combating Terrorism, Marine Corps Gazette, June 1986. 4. Helle, Ronald B., Major, Defeating Terrorism, Proceed- ings, U.S. Naval Institute, July 1986. 5. Livingstone, Neil C., The War Against Terrorism. Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1982. 6. Hanle, Ronald J., On Terrorism: An Analysis of Terrorism as a Form of Warfare, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 1987. 7. Lincoln, Bruce W., In Wars Dark Shadow. 8. Nelson, Gary W., LtCol, Terrorism: The Military Response, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, 1987. 9. O'Ballance, Edgar, Language of Violence, Presidio Press, San Rafael, California, 1979. 10. Simon, Jeffrey D., Misperceiving the Terrorist Threat, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 1987. 11. Sloan, Stephen, Beating International Terrorism, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1986. 12. "Americans Are No. 1 Targets," U.S. News and World Report, 21 October 1986. 13. "An Interview with William Casey," Time, 28 October 1985. 14. "Austria: Meese Accuses 5 Countries of Terrorism," USA Today, 11 December 1985. 15. Combating International Terrorism. 5 March 1985, Current Policy #676, US Dept. of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. 16. "Roots of Fanaticism," Time, June 1985. 17. Terrorism and the Modern World, October 25, 1984. Current Policy #629, US Dept. of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. 18. Peet, Christopher H., Understanding Terrorism, History Honors Thesis, Virginia Military Institute, 1986.
|Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list|