Hump Day!

Lessons From The Israelis

I'm no terrorism expert, but I have researched, read about, and followed the evolution of it for thirty years. It is a form of violence difficult to define. Almost every national level law enforcement agency and military organization has its own "official" definition of terrorism. The challenge is that the nature of terror changes over time and region. The nature of terrorism in the 1970s is different from today just as the terror practiced by the Bader-Meinhoff Gang and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the Seventies exhibited unique characteristics. This doesn't mean that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; there are some commonalities that cross time and region.

All terrorist groups seek to do what the label suggests--create terror and instill fear within a target population. The methods to do this vary, but the common element is shock caused by assassinations, mass shootings, bombings, hijackings, etc. Many people ask "Why?" after a terrorist attack. The answer has many nuances, but simply put, the primary objective is political. Almost every single terrorist attack. particularly international terror as opposed to the home-grown version, is conducted to get some type of political response. For the PLO and its affiliate groups the political goal was the destruction of Israel. For the Irish Republican Army (IRA) it was forcing Great Britain to leave Northern Ireland. For the Bader-Meinhoff Gang it was the establishment of a socialist/communist state in Germany and other Western European countries.

Recent terror, as best illustrated by al-Qaeda, also is an attack on culture. While the political factor is there (force the USA from supporting Israel, initiate a jihad to overthrow western democracies, etc.) modern Islamic extremism also is an attack on western culture and values. It is an attack on natural rights and freedom. It is an attack on secular law and trial by jury. It is an attack on representative government. It is an attack on basic equality between men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, the very notion of equality of opportunity. Samuel Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations, explains that after the end of the Cold War future conventional conflict would be based on cultural differences. This thesis holds true for terrorism. The purely political objectives of terror in the 70s and 80s have become entwined in the cultural differences of the world we live in. On the other hand any attack on culture is also a political attack.

So what can the United States do to combat this terror and particularly Islamic fanaticism. No country has been a target of this militant form of jihad more often than Israel? What can Israel teach us? It boils down to two things: vigilance and swift, violent response. Whether it be the PLO actions of the 1970s or the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah today, Israel has developed a security and intelligence apparatus that detects and tracks threats and a special operations capacity to strike swiftly and effectively at potential threats or as retribution for terrorist activity.

One example stems from the 1972 Munich Massacre in which eleven Israeli athletes were taken hostage and killed by a violent wing of the PLO called Black September. The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, immediately gathered information and began to track down the surviving members of Black September (a half dozen were killed at Munich). While vigilance in this case did not prevent an attack (when plots are foiled it rarely makes the news) the intelligence community had the resources at hand to quickly track down the perpetrators. A special team was assembled to track down and execute the five surviving individuals that were involved in the attack. The story of their efforts is courageous, suspenseful, sad, and sometimes disturbing. The end result, though, of this swift, violent retaliation was a clear message that those practicing terror will be dealt with.

Another example was the Raid on Entebbe. An Israeli airliner was hijacked and had flown to Entebbe, Uganda. Idi Amin's Uganda was a haven for terrorists and the hijackers felt safe since it was over two thousand miles from Israel. Following their policy of not negotiating the Israeli government instead approved a special operation in which Israeli commandos flew secretly to Entebbe, secured the airport, rescued the hostages and returned home--all before Ugandan troops showed up. Again, Israel proved that it was willing to take extraordinary measures to protect its citizens.

So what can the United States learn from this? First, intelligence is key. Agents in the field, aerial intelligence, support from allies, and coordination between the many components of the antiterrorism apparatus is vital in any effort to stop terror. Rivalry between agencies plagues all governments but when it comes to preventing terrorism it can be fatal. Second, there must be a swift, violent response at some point. This response does not have to be public or publicized like the Entebbe raid was, but can be covert and secretive like the Munich case (the world knew little about the Israeli efforts until the 80s). The key element is to show the enemy that their actions will lead to their destruction.

So how does this relate to the Boston Bombing? If the perpetrators were domestic then our rule of law determines the reaction. If it was a case of foreign spawned terrorism, then the US must task the intelligence community with idling the target and then striking with our special forces. Nation building is an uncertain endeavor and should not be a factor in our response to terror. If a base is located that is training terrorists, then it should be eliminated. Leaders, bomb makers, and foot soldiers should be targeted and strike teams sent out to capture or kill them. We have to remember that the world of terror do not operate by the rule of law like a civilized society.

Posted with Blogsy