• Military
• WMD

• Intelligence Menu               

• Systems
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Imagery
• Links

• Homeland Security
• Space

DATE=2/11/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=TERRORISM TODAY
NUMBER=5-45432
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO:  This past week's hijacking of the Afghan 
airliner points up the changing nature of terrorism, 
according to a recent conference (Thurs., Feb. 10) at 
the Brookings Institution in Washington.  Participants 
said terrorism today is harder to understand because 
its motives are often unclear.  But as V-O-A's Ed 
Warner reports, that makes it no less dangerous.
TEXT:  Better get used to terrorism, says Richard 
Haas, director of foreign policy studies at the 
Brookings Institution, a Washington research 
organization.  It is here to stay:
            /// Haas Act ///
      Think of terrorism not as a problem to be 
      solved, but as a condition to be managed and 
      dealt with.  It is now part of the fabric or 
      structure of the post-cold war, globalized world 
      we live in.  We can beat it back, but it cannot 
      be eliminated.
            /// End Act ///
Contemporary terrorists do not always reveal their 
motives or even their objectives, says Paul Pillar, a 
former deputy chief of counter-intelligence for the 
Central Intelligence Agency.
            /// Pillar Act ///
      We see less of the measured use of terrorism, 
      hostage taking and hijacking and so on to 
      achieve some particular, precise political 
      result - the release of comrades in prison or 
      recognition of a group -- something of that 
      nature.  We have seen relatively more of the 
      indiscriminate striking out, inflicting death 
      and destruction simply because the terrorist 
      hates his adversary or seeks revenge for 
      perceived wrongs or is driven by some divine 
      motive in the case of religious terrorists.
            /// End Act ///
Mr. Pillar adds it is often not clear who is 
responsible for a terrorist act.  Increasingly, it 
seems to be the work of a free lancer rather than 
someone working for a state.  Today's rootless 
terrorist, he says, is harder to track as he shifts 
from one country to the next.
U-S anti-terrorist policy may not be keeping up with 
this change, says Meghan O'Sullivan, research 
associate in foreign policy studies at Brookings.  It 
continues to concentrate on state terrorism with 
ambiguous results.
            /// O'Sullivan Act ///
      Perhaps the best example of this frustrated 
      policy would be Iran, where comprehensive 
      American sanctions have had very modest success 
      in changing the behavior of the regime or 
      denying the resources, such as foreign exchange, 
      needed to carry out this behavior when our 
      European allies have continued to trade and 
      invest in Iran.
            /// End Act ///
Meghan O'Sullivan says U-S policy should distinguish 
more carefully among the varieties of terrorism and 
impose penalties that are appropriate.  Sanctions work 
best when they are not unilateral but have 
international support.
In an era of largely stateless terrorism, she says the 
United States should stop referring to "rogue 
regimes," as if some nations must be isolated and 
punished for actions that may not qualify as 
terrorism. (Signed)
NEB/EW/ENE/JP
11-Feb-2000 10:55 AM EDT (11-Feb-2000 1555 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.