Thomas M. Sanderson
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Thursday, July 7, 2005
1:00 PM
Explosions rocked the transportation system across an arc of central London Thursday morning, injuring over a hundred people and killing at least three with the numbers expected to rise, according to early reports.
Described by authorities as a coordinated terrorist attack, the blasts hit at or near three stations of London's subway system, struck an undetermined number of subway carriages in the underground tunnels of the subway and tore apart least one double-decker bus. Several claims of responsibility followed during the day from groups saying they were connected with al Qaeda. None could be authenticated though experts interviewed agreed that the assault bore the hallmarks of an al Qaeda operation.
Thomas M. Sanderson , deputy director of the Transnational Threats Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was online Thursday, July 7, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the bombings and the hallmarks of an al Qaeda attack.
Sanderson also codirects the Multilateral Terrorism Intelligence Sharing Project and the Private Sector Advisory Group. His work focuses on intelligence and information sharing; terrorist groups, operations, and crime; and U.S. national security policy. Sanderson has co-authored studies on religious-based terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and the psychology of extreme violence.
____________________
Washington, D.C.: Given the statements of the previous person (on the difficulties of securing public transportation), what suggestions do you offer as a way to deter or prevent terrorists from attacking public transportation? Are bomb sniffing dogs the only remedy? And, finally, how do we strike a balance between security and practicality (i.e., it seems impractical to check every commuter that uses public transportation)?
Thomas M. Sanderson: As a metro commuter myself, I agree it is impractical and not plausible that every commuter will be screened before boarding trains. There would have to be a rash of very serious, high casualty attacks before wholesale security checks would come into play
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Do you feel this attack may move some of our reluctant partners to provide stronger support to our efforts in Iraq?
Is there any possibility such partners will think it a good idea to truly focus in Iraq in order to suffocate the insurgency there and (1) show to terrorist organizations that they will not be allowed to control the situation in any country and (2) that the democracies of the world are more than willing to present a united front against terrorism?
Thanks.
Thomas M. Sanderson: There will be a range of reactions. The British have a pretty stiff upper lip, a lot of resolve, so I only see this strengthening their response. Too, it might push some others to back the U.S., while others with very strong public opinion against the war in Iraq and US methods in counter-terrorism could be inclined to reduce or withhold additional support for fear of being attacked.
_______________________
Beaver Falls, Pa.: This seems to be the first time that al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for an attack right away, leading some to question whether it's really al Qaeda or not. What are your thoughts on responsibility?
Thomas M. Sanderson: I will try to answer the responsibility questions together. Too early to determine veracity of claims at this point, but my guess is that this group is clearly associated with al Qaeda, and took to heart OBLs suggestion and encouragement that Jihadists attack those engaged in counterterrorism campaigns, and to do so at their own choosing. I fully expect to see more of these in the future
_______________________
Oshkosh, Wis.: How effectively are international intelligence sharing networks currently working? Is data regarding known terrorists and suspected terrorists widely exchanged? Or are there still too much "turf" battles between various intelligence agencies and military branches?
Thomas M. Sanderson: One of my favorite issues Oshkosh. Please read the Dana Priest article published in the Post last Sunday, it provides excellent revelations on that subject. We are clearly doing better, but I would say internal turf wars and incompatibility remains a problem. Sharing sensitive intelligence with a wide variety of other nations is still a ways off, but the group of close allies is really stepping up the efforts (U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Spain, Italy, etc... to include others that don't win good global citizen awards but who have the hu,an intelligence, language and geographic assets we need. the question of course is, can that backfire and be counter-productive)
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: If you could somehow control the actions of France (or any other of our allies for that matter), what concrete steps would you take in response to these attacks?
Thomas M. Sanderson: France is a tremendously important ally in counterterrorism operations. please see my earlier reference to the Sunday Post Dana Priest article and another front page article from last November 2, 2004 by Craig Whitlock
_______________________
Athens, Ga.: Do you think the U.K. was targeted because it has troops in Iraq? What does that say about Iraq and "the war on terror?"
Thomas M. Sanderson: The UK was likely targeted for many reasons, helping the US in Iraq is at the top of that list. Everyone knows the UK is the US's top partner in most security issues. There can be hardly any doubt at this point that the war in Iraq has spawned a level of violence and an increase in terrorism that would not have otherwise happened
_______________________
Eastern Shore, Md.: The exact times of this morning's attacks seem eerily similar to those of 9/11 and 3/11. Any significance other than the congestion of morning commutes are attractive to terrorists?
Thomas M. Sanderson: That is basically it. when the goal is to demonstrate penetration, audacity, killing power, and an inability of the government to prevent such attacks, a Sunday evening strike just doesn't cut it.
_______________________
Upper Marlboro, Md.: Doesn't this prove we are nowhere near winning the war against Terror? I mean the same thing is going on and it is just a matter of time before we are hit here at home.
Thomas M. Sanderson: Correct. for all of the hard work, improvement in security, reforms (many still in their infancy), etc., we are still faced with an amorphous, undeterrable, resilient, radical, impenetrable, growing and largely misunderstood adversary. Try countering that with massive bureaucracies that still engage in turf wars and ignore (in most cases) valuable open-source, unclassified information.
_______________________
Centennial, Colo.: Is there any significance of the date? Do you think it had anything to do with the Olympics of the G8 summit? If either, why?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Nothing to do with the Olympics or G8. Having said that, the G8 date has been known for some time, and the preplanned attacks certainly benefited from the extra media presence.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: When the train attacks occurred in Spain, it ultimately resulted in the government falling and being replaced by its then-second-place rival party. Of course, the circumstances are not the same (Spain's government insisted, quite irrationally, that the Basques were responsible, whereas there are rightly no predictions coming from Blair's office.) Nevertheless, do you see this affecting Blair's ability to rule and, perhaps more specifically, the U.K.'s support of the war in Iraq?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Less effect on Blair's ability to rule, resolve will be tightened. Support for the war in Iraq may fall, but as I said earlier, it could also fire up the Brits. That's a safe answer at this point.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Help from France Key in Covert Operations , ( Post, July 3 )
_______________________
New York: In your view, what is the ultimate solution to the terrorism problem, or at least the best way of reducing the threat? Democracy in Middle East, economic development, changes in U.S. policy, better integration of Muslims into European society?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Good question from New York. It takes a multi-dimensional, multi-national, multi- disciplinary approach on the "understanding and fighting the threat" side of the question. Very important are some of the issues you point out: Democracy, an end to corruption (overlooked or allowed by the U.S. for the GWOT partners), reform of education systems (yes, the Muslim world's and ours), policy changes, more exposure of all the good done by the US, but also more carrying out more examples of the U.S. standing up for it's own ideals regarding freedom of religion, speech, etc. I will agree, it is a vastly complicated effort, but the U.S. has leaned too heavily on the punitive side of the tool box. Variety is good.
_______________________
Dundee, Scotland: Do you think this shows increased strategic political thinking in the al Qaeda movement? It seems that the attacks' timing during the G8 and after the Olympic announcement, like the Madrid bombing, may have been chosen to have a specific political impact (something not really true with 9/11).
Thomas M. Sanderson: We should all assume that these groups think strategically. OBL and Zarqawi in particular are excellent tacticians and strategists, and realize the value of media, symbolism, and timing. I'd rather overestimate than underestimate their capabilities. the smaller cells may not have the same skill, but 24 hour news and the Internet have been great tutors
_______________________
Mons, France: First, I would like to express my support to the English people.
Aren't these bombings a tragic reminder that the "fight them abroad so that they don't attack us at home" approach is empty rhetoric? Can you really fight terrorism with military means? Does the term WAR on terror make any sense?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Answers: Yes, not predominantly, and no. The military is doing superbly where it can help, but we once again reached for one of America's most impressive tools and found out that is was not entirely appropriate for the task. then we overused it for good measure.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What criteria did DHS use to raise the threat level given that the intel suggested no immediate threats to mass transit?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Unknown at this point
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What is the ultimate goal of these types of attacks from the terrorist's perspective?
I know about the thinking that it's all about instilling fear in people (which to me looks like a means to an undefined goal), elicit more support for their terrorist organizations (again, a means, not an end) and a hatred of democracy/U.S./Israel/etc.
But, what is the ultimate end result sought by means of these attacks? Is it to get to a point where the entire world population is controlled by Islamic fundamentalists? or is it something smaller in scale?
I ask because I just can't see how any goals (other than the smaller, short term "goal" of retribution for whatever past actions of democracies) can be served by these criminal and inhuman attacks.
Thanks.
Thomas M. Sanderson: Multiple goals by multiple groups. They include: reestablishing the Muslim caliphate, ejection of the US and other non-Muslim powers from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, revenge for real and perceived humiliation, ending the rule of (largely) authoritarian, repressive secular Arab regimes, humbling the US and its allies, destruction of Israel, destruction of the global economy, rollback of Western culture, etc. etc.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: There have been initial reports suggesting that this attack was carried out by a small, lesser-known group of al Qaeda sympathizers, and that instead of taking direct orders from al Qaeda they are independent actors pursuing al Qaeda's agenda. Does this mean there has been little benefit from our efforts to disrupt central al Qaeda structures? It seems that these groups have been effective in subverting our efforts and investments by de-centralizing the command structure. Are we fighting this war on the wrong front?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Well put. OBL provided the opening blow, and then called on others to form groups, and if already formed, to strike the US and its allies wherever and whenever they could. It would be unlikely that this small group would have taken direct orders from OBL for such a relatively small attack (too risky as far as revealing Al Qaeda communications and locations). the original Al Qaeda core will undoubtedly have a hand in the next spectacular hit. Saying we have destroyed 60 some-odd percent of Al Qaeda's leadership means something, but not as much as President Bush likes to imply.
_______________________
Salt Lake City, Utah: Is al Qaeda more or less dangerous now that its leadership appears to have been severed from its rank and file?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Al Qaeda "original" is somewhat less dangerous in the short term. While the offshoots bite our ankles, I think OBL and possibly others are gearing up for that spectacular strike. I think they will take their own sweet time and watch as counter-terrorism fatigue sets in on our side.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: "There can be hardly any doubt at this point that the war in Iraq has spawned a level of violence and an increase in terrorism that would not have otherwise happened."
How do you know this? Is there really a consensus among "those in-the-know" that Radical Islamic Terrorists were going to stop attacking, or slow their pace of operations, after the spectacularly successful attacks of 9/11?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Here's some more detail on my position. I feel that terrorist violence would have continued despite Iraq. after all, OBL's goals were NOT met by 9/11. But it can hardly be denied that our presence in Iraq, the decreased resources and attention to Afghanistan, the rage over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and the glaring absence of WMD in Iraq and the almost equally obvious lack or substantial terrorists ties between Hussein and global Jihadist terrorism have added significantly to our problems. I'm glad Saddam is gone (who isn't?) but we are paying a magnificent price for it.
_______________________
Tampa, Fla.: Would an attack in this country be more likely to involve an economic target rather than a symbolic one? Bin Laden seems to understand our nation pretty well, far better than Americans understand him. He said he chose the WTC as a target in part due to their significance in the U.S. financial system. So why not expect him to next attack a couple of oil refineries to give us $5/gallon gasoline?
Thomas M. Sanderson: Any attack in the US will involve multiple targets. I won't go into detail, but it will be well-planned, with a number of goals in mind.
Yes, OBL better understands the US, a major factor in the current state of counter-terrorism.
Five dollar a gallon gas will be here on it's own accord.
_______________________
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.