Article: U.S. Must Identify State Sponsors

Summary

The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., have sent shockwaves across the nation. While international Islamic terrorists organizations linked to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qa'ida group remain the top suspects, some have suggested nations opposed to U.S. global hegemony may also have been involved. Historically, international terrorism has needed state sponsorship in order to be successful. But such involvement would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States, and although the suspect list is long, there is little evidence at the moment that singles any one country out.

Analysis

The attacks on New York and Washington achieve a number of objectives for the perpetrators. On a strategic level, they demonstrate the vulnerability of the United States. In one fell swoop, the sophisticated and well-coordinated operation paralyzed New York City and the U.S. financial sector, sent the nation's government spiraling into chaos and struck terror in the hearts of the American public. Such a feat, accomplished with only four airline hijackings, is almost impossible to comprehend and will impact U.S. defense and foreign policy for decades to come.

By immobilizing the U.S. financial sector, the strike threatens to push a nation, already suffering from a downturn, into recession. This will have ramifications for U.S. influence throughout the globe. It could also damage U.S. markets abroad as well as numerous other nations with economic ties to the United States.

Understanding the impact of the attack is important for identifying likely suspects. There is good reason to suspect international terrorist organizations linked to Osama bin Laden's umbrella group, Al-Qa'ida. More important, however, is the question of which, if any, states might also have been involved.

Historically, international terrorist organizations tend to seek government support. State sponsorship is necessary for a variety of reasons. Most important, governments can provide access to the target country that would otherwise be difficult. By using a diplomatic passport, a suspected terrorist could enter a country unnoticed. States can also construct cover identities that may be fraudulent but are undetectable to other nations and can provide secure communications within a target country, since diplomatic pouches aren't normally open for inspection.

There are numerous nations that have ample motive for assisting in the recent attack but only a few that have means and opportunity as well.

Topping the list of potential state sponsors are Afghanistan and Iraq. Ruled by the radical Islamic Taliban, Afghanistan has harbored Saudi-born dissident bin Laden for years. The Taliban is trapped in a seemingly endless conflict with the opposition Northern Alliance, which receives support from the United States, Russia and Iran and has several reasons to want to cause critical damage to the United States.

Washington launched missile strikes against the Afghan government following its implication in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Perhaps even more importantly, U.S. opposition has kept Afghanistan a pariah state, limiting international support.

Afghanistan, however, has limited diplomatic access to the United States as long as it continues to provide bin Laden with safe haven. Support for such an extensive operation as seen today would seem far beyond the Taliban's capabilities.

Iraq, another strong suspect, also has reasons to want to strike a blow at U.S. hegemony. The country, which is still suffering from U.N. sanctions, would benefit significantly from a U.S. decision to redirect its focus on homeland defense and reduce its commitments abroad.

Iraq's involvement would be aimed at reducing U.S. air strikes against the country. But the fact that Washington probably long ago penetrated Iraqi operational capabilities in the United States, including any and all diplomatic traffic, makes the possibility that such an operation was carried out without any advance warning less than likely.

Other Islamic nations such as Libya, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria all have reasons to want to see the United States damaged, but none are likely suspects. Libya, a chief supporter of international terrorism in the past, has little to gain and everything to lose from such an act. Even though it suffered from U.S. air strikes in the late 1980s, Tripoli isn't likely to risk European investment at a moment when it is poised to regain international trust. Syria also has no desire to further U.S. reliance on and support for Israel, and that is just what this attack -- if it were indeed committed by Islamic terrorists -- has done.

Pakistan does not have any strong reason to risk U.S. retaliation or its position in the international system. There are several radical Islamic groups operating in the country, but few would have access to the diplomatic avenues necessary for facilitating such an attack.

Sudan, implicated in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, has blatantly attempted rapprochement with the United States while curbing fundamentalist Islamic activity in country. Moreover, given the historical relationship with bin Laden, who lived in Sudan as a guest of the government prior to fleeing to Afghanistan, the United States has likely also penetrated its diplomatic traffic as well.

Each of these nations may have a reason to see the United States suffer, but few are willing to actually go to war. And there is no doubt that if these attacks were even tacitly approved or facilitated by a national government, they are tantamount to a declaration of war.

Today's attacks were very successful, and the perpetrators will want to stay alive long enough to enjoy their victory. Given the history of previous investigations such as the embassy bombings in Africa, the organizers of today's attacks, and their sponsors, aren't likely to be identified any time soon. Washington will likely, for now, continue to focus its attention on the sub-national terrorist groups based in the Middle East, and especially Afghanistan.

Thanks to:

(c) Strategic Forecasting L.L.C. All rights reserved.