TERRORISM
JULY 10, 1985
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
|
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN
WILLIAM CASEY |
FROM:
|
HERB COHEN
– Executive Director
POWER NEGOTIATIONS INSTITUTE® |
SUBJECT:
|
THE SCOURGE OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
ITS’ THREAT TO AMERICA |
|
THE THREAT OF
TERRORISM
History is replete with episodes of “hit – and – run
terrorism”, staged acts of mayhem, enacted for the purpose of producing
calculated effects on a viewing audience. Deplorable and destructive as these violent incidents may
have been, they were predictably performed by small groups of extremists
who had few supporters and very limited resources. Consequently most of these vintage scenes of violence, confined as
they were in duration and geography, had little effect on the political
vitality and stability of the societies in which they occurred.
But, over the past two decades a new and more virulent strain of
the violence has emerged. No
longer bound in time, or by place, it has become a widespread contagion of
epidemic proportions. Sponsored
and supported by sovereign states, as a weapon of proxy warfare, the
malignancy of modern international terrorism, has grown to the point were
it can threaten the well-being and health of democratic institutions
everywhere.
Fortunately, we in the United States were spared much of the
savagery and chaos that came with the dawning of the “Age of Global
Terrorism”. Unaffected, unaware and uninformed as we were at the onset
in this international plague, it’s not surprising, that the tragic
mini-drama of the TWA Flight 847 in Beirut, like the epic-saga of the
Iranian Hostage crisis, filled Americans with incomprehension, frustration
and even fascination.
Certainly television ratings indicated that the drama-filled replay
of democracy’s impotence was a source of viewer enthrallment but
there’s reason to believe that Lebanon’s Shia version of “Play It Again Sam”, also produced considerable feelings of
agitation, indignation and maybe even humiliation. There, in living color were two “Beirut Bag Men”’ cowardly
criminals in pillowcases, taunting, threatening and terrorizing the
world’s greatest nation.
How did we react to this provocation? From the public’s perspective we responded immediately,
airlifting network camera crews to the scene and canceling the vacations
of Tom Brokaw and President Reagan- in that order. Then we deliberately
raised the stakes by placing all personnel of the four major networks on
alert status throughout the Middle East and Europe. Next we took the crisis to the brink by wearing down antagonist
Nahbi Berri with round-the-clock television interviews. From break-of-day
bargaining on “Good Morning America” to nocturnal negotiating
on “Nightline”, he was forced to stare into a camera lens until
he finally blinked. In the
end a novel “Doctrine of Media Retaliation” had delivered the message
“Mess with us and next time you’ll not only have to deal with Brian
Gumble by day but Larry King all night”.
Admittedly, this is an
exaggerated and perhaps a surrealistic chronicle, nonetheless beneath the
hype and hyperbole, is a crucial issue of causality.
Virtually accepted as dogma, for almost four decades, has been the
tenet that the credibility of America’s retaliatory capability has
constrained the Soviet Union from direct aggression against members of the
NATO Alliance. Indeed, this conceptual premise is the foundation for
Mutual Deterrence which posits that no sane government would start a
nuclear war if it believed that such an action might trigger unacceptable
retaliation in kind.
Simply put, as long as the Kremlin leadership cannot perceive the
benefit of a favorable exchange ratio, no incentive exists for a surgical
first strike. Therefore, Moscow’s decisions may be affected more by
their assessment of America’s resolve and determination to match its’
words by deeds and less by our stated policies or rhetoric. Tersely formulated: Will the Soviet Union interpret our prolonged
passivity in the face of recent terrorist provocations as a sign of
diminished resolve?
For their part the President and Secretary of State seem ahead of
Congress and the media in anticipating this question related to
“credibility carry-over effect”. Like the words of a Chinese proverb, “When you pluck a flower you
disturb the stars”, foreign policy is a complex tapestry, where a
multitude of threads are inextricably intertwined. To be sure, Mr. Reagan knows first hand that his swift response to
the PATCO Strike and the decisive invasion of Grenada had worldwide
reverberations.
Unfortunately,
Byzantine bloodletting in the labyrinth that is modern Lebanon is not
conducive to immediate and effective reciprocation to a provocation.
Delayed reactions, on the other hand, always cause problems in
communication and raise doubts about motive. Take as an example NATO’s decision to deploy Pershing II and
Cruise missiles as a response to the Soviet installation of SS20’s.
Since there was a five-year time interval between the decision and
its actual implementation, when it did occur it created the impression
among many Western Europeans that the move constituted an American
escalation of the nuclear arms race.
So before the memory of the skyjacked Beirut hostages, the recent
killing of six Americans in San Salvador, and the murder of two Americans
aboard a Kuwaiti Airliner in Teheran last December fade from the public
agenda, the United States must act to protect its citizens at home and
abroad. In essence,
tomorrow’s non-combatant victims of terrorism will be the result of
today’s flaccid response to terrorism.
We must match our works with the capability to predict, pervert and
punish these criminals. The
tying of Yellow Ribbons is not a strategy of deterrence but rather the
substitution of symbol for substance, words for deeds—the snare in whose
coils a President’s credibility can be destroyed.
When viewed strictly in numerical terms, the amount of casualties
produced by terrorist acts, pale when compared to the tortuous
bloodletting in Lebanon, the continuing carnage from the Iran-Iraq war, or
even the nation’s homicide rate. Still,
the spreading plague of international terrorism portends peril far greater
than statistics alone might imply. Although
the most visible crime of our time, the true nature and significance of
this new brand of political violence has failed to register with the
public at large.
What is Terrorism? It
is the calculated menacing and maiming of innocent civilians for the
purpose of producing fear and anxiety in the viewing audience in order to
gain political ends. By
trying to change our thinking, actions and policies through fear these
criminals are engaged in a form of mental rape. What is new is that to their megalomaniac recipe has been added the
stock of state sponsorship, a dash of high technology and a great deal of
theatrical seasoning. Indeed,
as practiced today it’s a form of show business, which combines
spectacle, fear, excitement and a message.
Consequently the criteria for measuring the success of a terrorist
operation depends almost entirely upon the amount of publicity it
receives. By this criterion, if you can get the United States of
America by its’ networks, its’ heart and mind will follow. In the final analysis the most likely location for terrorist
spectacles in the years or decades to come would be places where the media
exists in great numbers such as New York City, London, the Olympic Games
or even The Academy Awards.
Wittingly or unwittingly the media are the spokesmen of the
Terrorist transmitting their message, the instrument through which the
world audience instantaneously knows the deeds with all their excitement,
drama and horror. Television
journalists and commentators who cover these events are not the proverbial
flies on the wall, but co-producers in a theatrical extravaganza. Like it or not they are not objective observers but players in the
game.
By indiscriminately menacing, maiming or murdering innocent people,
the terrorist attempts to disorient and intimidate the viewing audience.
What appears as a random atrocity is so frightening to our own
sense of personal security that we virtually need to assume the existence
of an understandable reason, motive or explanation behind it? In short, we are already predisposed and conditioned to learn the
“underlying grievances”, which must have caused the frightening
effect. The next stop, of
course, is to blame the victim.
Moreover, living in an “Alibi Age”, we are even more
susceptible to the righteous self-justifications of criminal thugs,
especially if they proclaim a political motive. From the philosophy of John Jacques Rousseau to the lyrics in West
Side Story, the refrain is the same: “We’re depraved on account of
we’re deprived”.
Having said all this, the question is what can we do now to curb
the scourge of Terrorism, which at its current rate will become the growth
industry of the future?
1. TIMELY RETALIATION