 U.S. AIR FORCE/STAFF SGT. GREG L. DAVIS Two F-16A Fighting Falcons from the North Dakota Air National Guard lead an F-15C Eagle from Langley Air Force Base, Va., during a combat air patrol mission over the nation's capital. Visible landmarks include the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, White House, and the damaged Pentagon. |
| RAND has been at the forefront of terrorism research for 30 years. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, RAND immediately became engaged in supporting the war on terrorism at the global, national, and local levels, drawing upon a breadth of skills honed over the decades. This special edition of RAND Review represents the work done in the past year by multidisciplinary teams of RAND researchers engaged on multiple fronts. Updates of these and other counterterrorism projects will appear in future issues of RAND Review. |
We're Here for
the Duration
| By James A. Thomson |
James A. Thomson is president and chief executive officer of RAND.
After nearly a year, the war on terrorism remains a work in progress. There are really two wars: the war against Al Qaeda, the perpetrator of the Sept. 11 attacks, and the longer-term struggle against terrorism. Much more progress has been made on the former than the latter. The same is true on the research front. Although we have been working in the field of terrorism for 30 years (see the article by Brian Jenkins), there is much about the longer-term struggle we still do not know.
The war on Al Qaeda relies more on the U.S. military instrument of policy than does the long-term struggle. We at RAND have had numerous opportunities to help our clients in the defense department deal with the military challenges of Al Qaeda and prepare for other future terrorist groups. Several articles in this RAND Review draw on that research.
In the earliest stages of the war, as the United States sought to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan and to disrupt Al Qaeda's operations, U.S. policy relied almost exclusively on its military forces. Even allies and friends were not critical, except for base access and overflight rights. The United States is well positioned to conduct this kind of operation. A single agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, is responsible for military operations, and U.S. forces are by far the most powerful in the world.
But the war on Al Qaeda is now merging into the long-term struggle against international terrorism. The continuing effort to defeat the surviving elements of Al Qaeda around the world requires other policy instruments—including intelligence, police, and finance—to work alongside the military effort. Key actors in this broader struggle are spread across the federal government. The effort also depends more heavily on the cooperation of the international community.
Success will rely heavily on innovative research, particularly because the struggle
Unfortunately, outside the military realm, innovative research is just starting to develop. Four global trends have heightened both the threat of terrorist attacks and their potential destructiveness. Each trend calls for innovative policy research to reduce the probability of attacks and to ameliorate their destructiveness.
First, there are dissatisfied, angry, and disoriented people all over the world, especially youth. They are potential supporters of, and foot soldiers for, terrorist groups. Their dissatisfaction frequently stems from the poor public policies of their own governments—corruption, poor education, and poor public services, such as health. This situation provides openings for terrorist organizations to provide social support in the place of governments and to be an outlet for anger.
Students protest in Manila on Jan. 24 against U.S. military intervention in the Philippines in pursuit of the Muslim extremist group Abu Sayyaf, which is believed to be linked to the Al Qaeda network.
Second, the United States is the object of anger and hate in many parts of the world. This may simply be a consequence of our global dominance, not only militarily, but also economically and culturally. Moreover, the United States is a status quo power, sometimes protecting the same governments that are disliked by their own people. It is hard for non-Americans to avoid the United States—a power that seems to be everywhere and thus responsible for everything.
Young Hamas supporters wield a model of a homemade mortar shell (left) and a belt holding what was meant to resemble a bomb (center) during a June 28 demonstration in Gaza City.
Third, the advance of technology makes it possible for terrorist groups to cause catastrophic damage. As we saw on 9/11, terrorists can do a great deal using "conventional" means, but so-called CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) weapons, especially biological and nuclear, pose the threat of extreme catastrophic damage with potential deaths in the millions. The United States has a major interest in the effective control of nuclear and biological materials in the former Soviet Union and in stopping the nuclear and biological programs of hostile countries such as Iraq.
Fourth, the vulnerability of the United States (and other developed countries) to terrorism is growing, largely as a consequence of economic growth and integration—divisions of labor, globalization, and economic reliance on such key infrastructures as transportation, energy, and information. Because of greater global interdependence, terrorist attacks—especially with CBRN weapons—would disrupt the global economy in a major way. One important reason is the mass psychological effect that is fostered by the global media and instant communications.
Determining how best to reduce these vulnerabilities is a huge challenge that cuts across federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. The nation's analytical challenge is to discern the strategies of terrorists, especially as they adapt to our efforts to protect ourselves; to assess our vulnerabilities; to gauge the effectiveness of our measures to protect ourselves and recover from an attack; and to weigh the costs of those measures, including the economic and social ones. In this situation—characterized by numerous vulnerabilities but constrained resources—it is as important to decide what not to do as what to do.
The analytical challenge is of the same magnitude as developing a cold war strategy toward the former Soviet Union. It cuts across almost all policy domains and makes a mockery of the idea that national security and domestic policy are separate. It requires a large vision of the research agenda and a comprehensive approach to the problem so that U.S. citizens can be assured that their government is focusing a sensible amount of resources on key vulnerabilities.
An Afghan woman teaches a class of girls in the Rukhshana School in Kabul on March 11. The Rukhshana School will become the first Coalition Joint Civil Military Operations Task Force project funded in Kabul.
Today, the United States seems to lurch from one threat and vulnerability to another as an event occurs or a new piece of intelligence emerges. One week it's a radiological bomb, the next it's an airport shooting. No doubt considerable progress on reducing vulnerabilities has been made. But one cannot help but wonder if we are wasting a lot of effort on small problems while missing some big ones. A comprehensive analytical approach is essential. This was a key point of the president's homeland security strategy. This comprehensive approach is what we hope to provide in the coming years, drawing on our talented people from many policy domains and disciplines, ranging from international security to public health, from operations research to psychology. Four Troubling Trends
Could the United States and its allies reverse this trend? This question has received remarkably little attention. Perhaps it is too hard to answer right now. Our own research suggests that it might be. Nevertheless, we are grappling with this question in a number of research projects. Our Center for Middle East Public Policy (CMEPP) is focused on improved public policy in that region. Along with CMEPP, RAND Education is helping with education reform in the Middle East. The RAND Center for International and Domestic Health Security was recently founded, in part, on the concept that improved health policy could reduce the discontent that breeds support for terrorism (see the article by Robert Hunter, Ross Anthony, and Nicole Lurie).
AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/AARON FAVILA
Despite much journalistic speculation, the causes of anti-American hatred are not fully understood. So the United States has no good idea of what to do about it. At RAND, we believe that a careful, systematic inquiry into the causes of anti-Americanism is needed in order to find solutions. Such an inquiry is sure to touch on several politically explosive issues, such as U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and several other countries. We are seeking foundation support for such an effort. In his article, Richard Neu outlines the questions such a study would have to address.
AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/ADEL HANANo Time to Waste
Here at RAND, we are working on several aspects of this large problem, often with the assistance of donors. We believe that long-term research on this problem should be part of the mandate for the new Department of Homeland Security so that major resources and the nation's best talent can be marshaled.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE/U.S. ARMY/SGT. 1ST CLASS WILLIAM A. JONES