Larry C. Johnson

The August bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania left an indelible impression that we are facing a worsening threat of terrorism. When we see the images of crumbled buildings shrouded in smoke and battered, bloody victims crawling to safety from the rubble it is no surprise that Americans feel vulnerable and helpless. These events have reopened the wounds left in our national psyche from the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Shortly after the bombings in East Africa, we learned that the US Ambassador to Kenya had made two requests for funds to upgrade inadequate Embassy security. In a classic example of closing the barn door after the horse escaped, the United States Department of State is now requesting the funds from Congress to fully implement security measures recommended in 1985 by the Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, convened in the aftermath of an attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

Naturally, many security professionals are re-examining whether their companies or clients are doing enough to defeat the threat of terrorism. Assessing the threat has been made more difficult because there is substantial public rhetoric claiming the threat is worsening. If this is true then additional security measures and expanded security programs are in order.

However, if you look past the rhetoric and the slanted news coverage, a dramatically different picture of the threat emerges.

There has been little terrorism in the United States. There have been no significant acts of domestic terrorism in the United States during 1998. The following chart (Chart 1) shows a significant downward trend in the number of domestic incidents since 1982. Although it appears that the number of terrorist incidents jumped significantly in 1997, eleven of the thirteen incidents were letter bombs sent to an Arabic newspaper office in New York City and to Leavenworth prison. Fortunately, none of these devices exploded.

Since 1990, we have had three dramatic, high profile attacks in the United States:

Which countries have been most dangerous for Americans? Conventional wisdom generally points to the Middle East, but Chart 3 reveals that Peru, Turkey, and the Philippines have been the sites for the most anti-US attacks involving casualties since 1990. Yet the list of countries is constantly changing. In 1997, for example, the attacks that caused casualties occurred in Colombia, Israel, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Security professionals must regularly monitor attacks to detect threats and prescribe appropriate counter-measures. Fortunately, however, the number of countries where Americans face consistent threat is relatively small.

 CHART 5

Who is responsible for killing and wounding American citizens in terrorist attacks? Generally, it is foreign rather than home grown terrorists. Chart 6 identifies 21 groups that have carried out attacks during the period 1990-97. For several of these groups, American citizens were incidental rather than primary targets. However, there are many groups that have targeted, and continue to target, Americans. Principal among these is the organization, Al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Ladin. The question mark beside Osama indicates several attacks where his involvement was suspected or has only recently been identified. Let me emphasize that he is not simply the scapegoat of the moment, rather he has deliberately encouraged, supported, and planned for attacks against US targets.

CHART 6

The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals assoicated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama’s status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.

CHART 7

This data tells us where we have been, but does not tell us where we are going. Recent hype by President Clinton and Secretary Albright that we are facing a "new terrorist war" is not helpful. You cannot have a "new" war when the "old" war never ended. The United States has been fighting this threat for almost thirty years. Terrorism is not spiraling out of control but neither has it disappeared.

Yet, terrorism is not war. It is a form of political violence but we should not confuse it with the massive commitment of ground, sea, and air forces that typify a genuine war. More men died in one day on Omaha Beach in 1944 than died from terrorism in the last ten years. Terrorism can be used to provoke a war (e.g. World War I), but its value as a tactic for shifting political fortunes is limited.

We have had some important successes capturing and deterring terrorists. Our experience over the past decade suggests instead that sound policies, aggressive law enforcement, and good intelligence yield important results in containing terrorism. Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that groups and individuals that advocate terrorism are losing support rather than winning adherents. For the United States and other nations the task is maintain pressure on states and groups that engage in terrorism by disrupting their capabilities and limiting their targets of opportunity. By doing so we will improve our chances that terrorism will become an isolated, rare phenomena.