Timehost: Welcome to
a special edition of our TIME chat, based on the dramatic events of
the day. As you know, President Clinton ordered missile strikes
on alleged terrorist bases in Afghanistan
and the Sudan, in retaliation for the African
Embassy bombings.
Of course, it was not lost on anyone that the attacks
come just days after the President admitted
that he lied about Monica Lewinsky. A proper response? Or are we playing a game of "Wag the Dog"? Our guest tonight is a terrorism expert, Frank Cilluffo,
senior analyst at the Center for International Studies. He's also head of the Center's Trans-national Terrorism Task
Force. Thank you, Mr. Cilluffo, for joining us tonight.
Frank Cilluffo: Thank you . My pleasure.
Timehost: Let's take a question that's been on everyone's minds...
Buttterfli_219: Do you think Clinton bombed, to take the heat off
him?
Frank Cilluffo: Certainly not.
Responding to the terrorist attack cannot be seen as a
domestic policy issue.
This was an attack against the U.S. Not simply the
Clinton administration.
And the U.S. needs to show its resolve and guarantee that
we will retaliate.
Furthermore, it has come to my attention, that another
bombing was imminent,
so the U.S. needed to respond swiftly.
This cannot be seen as a partisan issue , but rather
the attacks must be seen
as an attack against our country and what we stand for,
regardless
of who's in power.
DA_S__T: What are the Sudanese and Afghani reactions?
Frank Cilluffo: At this point, obviously, I don't
know.
Clearly the U.S. cannot accept terrorism regardless of
Sudanese or Afghani
views because this is an attack upon our country.
And at times you need to respond unilaterally in what
is our best interests.
That said, the reason we attacked Sudan is because they
have provided
safe haven for terrorists both in terms of training
bases and in this instance
were protecting a chemical facility so the U.S. needed to
respond strongly.
If Osama bin Laden had acquired a chemical capability,
his lethality and his threats would have increased
exponentially.
With respect to Afghanistan, they have provided cover
and protection
for a terrorist who is likely behind the bombings of
both Kenya and Tanzania.
It's important to note that these bombings killed not
only Americans, but a number of
Muslims, both Kenyans and Tanzanians.
So the US saw it in our national interests to respond.
DA_S__T: what about the claims the Sudanese target was a
pharmaceutical plant?
Frank Cilluffo: To the best of my knowledge, it was
actually a chemical facility.
Early reports indicate that it was a precursor to
create
VX nerve gas, which is exceedingly lethal and a threat we must treat very
seriously.
In the hands of terrorists, such weaponry could cause
many thousands of casualties.
And Osama bin Laden has demonstrated and advocated the
will to kill
many Americans , civilian and or military.
Stamm444: Will there be further attacks on the bin Laden
infrastructure?
Frank Cilluffo: To the best of my knowledge, the U.S.
must sustain our campaign
against a terrorist and as many organizations,
and if it were up to me, there would be further U.S.
responses.
Whether military, though, is questionable.
For example, perhaps we should pursue bin Laden's
personal finances
and attempt to cut him off from them.
What makes Bin Laden unique is that he is a
multimillionaire, with
assets close to $250 million and he is able to finance
a whole host of
terrorists and radicals with views against those of the
U.S.
He has financed and put together a loose coalition of
radical extremists,
the single common denominator is that they all perceive
the U.S. as the enemy.
Timehost: Actually, here's a bit of a follow-up about the
organization...
Miguel__Sanchez: How much do we know about the terrorist organization?
Frank Cilluffo: Well, clearly, we need to get more
intelligence.
But in this respect, we had enough information to
determine his role in the
recent bombings in Africa.
And the likelihood of another attack, which was imminent,
at an unknown facility.
That said, though, we don't know too much simply
because
he is an exceedingly hard target to acquire information
on.
And the U.S. must improve its intelligence capabilities,
largely its human
intelligence capabilities in order to get there before
the bomb goes off.
In order to do so, we need to be willing to recruit
ugly people, many of whom
may have blood on their hands, in order to save the
blood of Americans in the future.
This is a difficult ethical issue, but we must realize
that terrorists don't frequent the
cocktail circuit.
So we're put in the unpalatable position of having to
recruit these people.
Needless to say, we would like to get within the
decision making chain of a terrorist
organization.
Granted, this is easier said than done, but the U.S. has
become too dependent
on technical forms of intelligence collection and must
create a more robust
form of human intelligence collection.
son_of_mac: At what time was the bombing?
Timehost: What do we know about the planning and carrying out of
the strike?
Frank Cilluffo: Nothing other than it was done with the
utmost secrecy in mind,
so as to not compromise our response.
The planning was vigorous undoubtedly and required
input
from the defense, intelligence, and law enforcement
communities.
Planning for any military strike is an exceedingly
complex, time-consuming effort
and that would clearly be the case with today's
response.
Solipcist: Would I be correct in saying that both Afghanistan and
the Sudan are both suffering from severe internal problems, specifically the
conflict between secular and religious positions? How will U.S. involvement
affect this turmoil?
Frank Cilluffo: That's a very important question.
The US must recognize that there are different views ,
ideologies and beliefs
of the people within both these nations.
I also think we need to underscore that bin Laden and
his supporters are extremists.
They should not be reflective of the Muslim faith.
And again, because he also killed a number of Muslims
as well as Americans,
and it was very indiscriminate, it is likely he will be
further isolated
by those in the Middle East.
That's an important point because too many Americans,
all they see
is this lunatic on the air declaring how many Americans
he will kill,
declaring a fatwah, but that is not typical of the
region.
DA_S__T: So are you saying that these countries knowingly and
willingly provided protection for Bin Laden?
Frank Cilluffo: In this respect, yes.
Sudan more likely by turning a blind eye, yet certainly
a faction within the
country has provided him with safe haven and
protection.
And the Taliban in Afghanistan is well aware of his
whereabouts.
Credz: I am from Norway. As you know, we are allied to
you. Why didn't the US consult her allies before conducting a strike against
these countries?
Frank Cilluffo: When dealing with terrorism, every
country must consider
unilateral responses.
In this case, we were expecting another attack, it was
imminent, where time and speed
were of the essence.
Norway, or whatever nation it may be, would always want
to hold onto its
sovereignty to be able to respond to terrorism.
Of course, the threat of terrorism is transnational, so is
much of the response.
Yet for operational purposes and for speed, clearly we
have to respond immediately.
REPUBS_R_RIGHT: I've heard that intelligence knew about these
terrorists for a while now, why act so late?
Frank Cilluffo: We need concrete information to respond
to a given event.
In this case, it wasn't intelligence, it was broadcast
over
headline news throughout the U.S. with respect to bin
Laden's intentions.
That said, though, you need proof to be able to
retaliate.
There's nothing criminal about stating something, and
to the best of my knowledge,
we did not have any intelligence to determine that the
two embassies were at high risk.
It's also important to understand that the U.S. receives
many, many thousands of threats
each year, to its embassies and facilities.
And that is what a terrorist wants.
Though all terrorism is multi-faceted and differs from
group to group and incident to incident,
the common denominator is that it's a psychological weapon, designed to undermine
trust in our government, its policies, and its institutions, and to keep us on edge, not knowing
when another attack will happen.
The psychological element cannot be understated.
Which is why I oppose putting up too many walls,
because then the terrorist wins.
As tragic as the deaths were in the two embassies, the
ultimate target
was the millions of people watching it unfold on TV,
listening to it on the radio,
reading about it in papers and on the Internet. That's
the ultimate target.
Our adversaries recognize that we cannot be defeated
in a conventional war, tank for tank.
They're searching for where we are most
vulnerable, and
and adopting asymmetric tactics.
In this case, terrorism.
REPUBS_R_RIGHT: Where does bin Laden's money come from
exactly..what industry?
Frank Cilluffo: He is a member of an exceedingly
wealthy Saudi Arabian family
that is in the construction business.
He has been exiled from Saudi Arabia and isolated from
the family, yet still
has assets totaling around $250 million.
dholeski: Why would Bin Laden use weapons like
"car bombs" at African embassies, when he has the assets, and therefore
technology to use weapons such as Stinger missiles DIRECTLY against U.S.
interests (airlines)?
Frank Cilluffo: Well, clearly, terrorism, by
definition, inherently extends the battlefield
to incorporate all of society.
While I agree that we need to be concerned about his
use of advanced technology,
such as Stingers, but also weapons of mass destruction,
-- the car bomb,
which is not too difficult operationally to put in
place, unfortunately is very effective.
Just note what we have been going through for the past
two weeks.
It's had a large impact.
As did the bomb at Oklahoma City.
DA_S__T: How much of what we know was gained from interrogating
terrorist suspects?
Frank Cilluffo: I do not feel in a position to be able
to answer that question,
since I am not interrogating, nor privy to such
information.
That said, clearly we had gotten information from many
sources, including
signals, intelligence, imagery, and likely,
interrogation.
You need all sources of information to verify what you
receive.
And in this case, it seemed that that was what we did
receive.
FEPE123: What is the response of the allies of the United States?
Frank Cilluffo: I think it's premature at this stage.
Yet I would guess that it will be positive as bin Laden
posed a threat
not only to the U.S., but to the rest of the world as
well.
That said, though, it is premature to know precisely
what our allies
and what many other nations feel.
There is the possibility of unintended consequences.
Timehost: Here's a follow-up about Bin Laden's money...
excagal: Can't we somehow get to his assets? Freeze them somehow?
Frank Cilluffo: I think that that is a tool and an
option we must
aggressively pursue.
It is a difficult task , but it is one we should
dedicate and devote a lot of our
intelligence toward achieving.
Unfortunately, today the international financial system
is global.
That said, I agree that that is one tool we need to
pursue aggressively.
radguy98: Will this strike increase the chances of retaliation?
Frank Cilluffo: That is very possible.
Yet clearly, bin Laden was going to attack the U.S. in a
full-fledged campaign
anyway.
But with respect to retaliation, that is a risk at all
times when we
retaliate to their attacks.
So , yes, the U.S. may well expect short-term terrorism ,
but as far as bin Laden
was concerned, he's in it for the long haul anyway.
Timehost: Our next questioner wants to know specifically about
threats to embassies...
FEPE123: Are there more threats to U.S. embassies now that we carried
out the strike?
Frank Cilluffo: I do not know the answer to that,
other than that we will clearly take security measures
to mitigate and manage the risk.
One concern I have with physical security in general
is if you harden one target, it forces the terrorist
to choose and select from the endless number of other
soft targets.
Physical security merely displaces risk.
And the terrorist often takes the path of least
resistance.
We simply cannot protect everything, everywhere, all the
time. And even if embassy security is so robust, the terrorist
may select a target like
businessmen, or tourists , such as was the case in
Luxor, Egypt and Islamabad, Pakistan.
We ratcheted up security at embassies so that it was too
difficult a target for
terrorists to attack, and he merely chose another
target.
QGrayson: Mr. Cilluffo: Does the U.S. have the ability to counter a
terrorist attack on our soil? How would we handle a biological weapon 'set
off' in New York?
Frank Cilluffo: That is a very important issue.
Something I have been addressing for quite some time.
It requires us to rethink national security.
With respect to chemical and biological weapons, time
is of the essence
in order to turn victims into patients.
That means that we truly need to empower our state and
local
first responder communities; our fireman, policemen and
Emergency Management Teams.
These are the people who are going to win or lose the
battle.
These are the people who need to be equipped, trained
to deal with these events.
This community must today get a seat at the policy
planning table.
With respect to biologicals, they are the most
frightening, since the first indicator
is often the falling bodies.
A biological can take many days for the symptoms to
manifest themselves.
With the chemical, you need to be able to administer
First Aid and triage in a very small window.
That is why we need to empower our municipalities.
Though we have very robust capabilities at the federal
level, they
would clearly arrive too late.
And as we speak, there is a large initiative by the
Defense Department,
entitled the Defense Preparedness Program, which is
training to respond to
weapons of mass destruction in a number of cities in
the US, ultimately 120.
Solipcist: Past terrorist acts have usually been described as
being the actions of small, unconnected groups. Now we seem to be seeing a
lot more cooperation amongst terrorist groups. Is this a fair
characterization?
Frank Cilluffo: Certainly with respect to bin Laden's
faction.
But terrorism has often been state-sponsored.
What concerns me about bin Laden is what I call the
changing face of terrorism.
Traditionally, terrorism was a political tactic to get
to the negotiating table.
Groups that are driven by radical religious beliefs,
ethnic beliefs, don't want to
get to the table, they want to wreck the table and
build a new one in its place.
With political terrorists they had a calculated
threshold as to how many people they could kill.
They were interested in popular support.
That is not the case with these extremists.
Timehost: Thanks, I understand you have to leave now...thanks for
joining us.
Frank Cilluffo: Thanks!
