• Latest News • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

Attack on U.S. Soil
With William M. Arkin
washingtonpost.com National Security Columnist
Friday, Sept. 14, 2001; 9 a.m. EDT

Tuesday morning, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events two hijacked planes hit and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one plane crashed into the Pentagon and another in Somerset County, Pa. Thousands are presumed dead or injured as emergency services and relief workers continue to make sense of the chaotic scenes. The FBI and authorities across the country continue to track down those responsible for the crimes.

washingtonpost.com national security columnist William M. Arkin was online Friday, Sept. 14 at 9 a.m. EDT to discuss the apparent terrorist attacks.

The transcript follows.

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.

William Arkin: Hello everyone. I'm online now and prepared to address some of the hard questions of our military options, and this so-called war against terrorism.

Bill Arkin

Washington, D.C.: Isn't it true that those seeking revenge should dig two graves? Won't war plans to destroy Afghanistan and kill many civilians only create more hatred against the USA, leading to more incentives for terrorist acts against us?

William Arkin: Clearly the Bush administration must move forward deliberately to insure that it doesn't create a greater problem through the use of military force. But having said that, if this is war, then there is not one attack and one objective precisely to be carried out. It will be sustained, and that connotes that there will be counter-attacks. That will probably not be avoidable.

Alexandria, Va.: Is there any information related to the possibility of ancillary biological agent attacks? It seems a likely adjunct to the horrific attacks on NY and DC (pentagon) today. I, for one, am reluctant to use Metro given the convenience of using one or more stations as dispersal centers.

William Arkin: There has been a lot of focus in recent years on chemical and biological agents, and a lot of effort to respond to such attacks.

The hijackings on Tuesday were accomplished in a very low tech way and the aircraft themselves were the bombs. If we try now to protect against all possibilities perhaps we not only make ourselves unable to move and act, but we also fail to put our priorities into the most important things.

Washington, D.C.: What levels of response might the NSA and CIA be looking at at this time?

Might anyone be looking into whether there is any possible significance between today's attacks and today's date?

William Arkin: My problem with the CIA and the NSA is that though they failed to provide warning of this attack, they are now ferociously picking up the pieces for a trail back to the perpetrators. Now doubt with many eyes on the subject, better intelligence will result. But the other side will also now make extraordinary efforts to protect information, so I'm not sure that I am optimistic that we will do any better.

White Plains, N.Y.: It may be far afield to ask this, but could the general malaise of the military and the intelligence services that has set in during the past 2-3 years contributed to the intelligence and preparation failure here?

William Arkin: I think that terror cells are both a difficult target, and that the intelligence institutions failed. We have been watching Osama Bin Laden for years - closely - and still had no warning of an incredibly sophisticated plot.

Atlanta, Ga.: I read on CNN that the Air Force mobilized F-16's to monitor airborne aircraft after the Pentagon incident. Following the lack of immediate information on United Airlines Flight 175, and considering how quick information has come forth about the other flights, do you think it's possible that the military was forced to shoot flight 175 down?

William Arkin: There was both an intelligence failure in terms on not predicting or having warning of the September 11 attacks, and then there was an information sharing failure. Air Force aircraft were scrambled within minutes of notification, but clearly in our day-to-day environment, the mechanisms for the FAA to get information to the military, via NORAD, weren't working.

Washington, D.C.: Hey Bill,

Great column. I was wondering -- during the Gulf War, the information clampdown was unbelievably restrictive. I believe the report you wrote at the time was the most informative piece available. Do you think, given the similarities in administrations, we can expect similar limited information now and during whatever response occurs? If so, hopefully you can produce a similar report.

William Arkin: Already there is a chill on information ("Cold War like security, a friend in the Pentagon called it"). I for one am not yet prepared to surrender my rights to the government in this regard, for there still needs to be debate and dissent. But I also understand that the government wants to protect its contingency planning, which is a proper application of secrecy.

Harrisburg, Pa.: In your opinion, who dropped the ball when it comes to terrorism in this country? It seems to me that Americans in general, have the attitude that it can't happen to them. Does the government follow suit?

William Arkin: Terrorism has happened here: World Trade Center in 1993, Oklahoma City, etc. Who dropped the ball? You've already heard me criticize the intelligence community, and I'll add to my list the counter-terrorism establishment and the government's obsession with weapons of mass destruction to the exclusion of paying attention to more pedestrian things (like basic airport security and immigration). But having said all of that, this war, if it is war, will be about being attacked here, in ways that we can't stop, by people willing to lose their lives.

Colorado Springs, Colo.: Explain DefCon or defense contingency and explain what level the defense dept is at.

If reserve components - active, inactive or retired military - are called to what extent will be called, also will volunteers be taken?

William Arkin: As far as I understand, President Bush declared DEFCON 1, maximum readiness, on Tuesday. This means that forces committed to war plans mobilize, move, and prepare to be able to carry out those plans. Also, that aircraft carriers, ships, submarines, etc., disperse. THis includes the reserves. Hundreds of air national guard planes have been involved in the response. I'm not sure what the legal authorities are, but I think we will see extensive use of the reserves, particularly over a sustained operation.

Albuquerque, N.M.: Do you think the terrorists will continue their assault on the American public? What are your thoughts on near future events?

William Arkin: My sense is that while we see the attacks as a human tragedy, those who hate America and want to do us harm see the attacks as a success: We have finally made America hurt.

So, yes, I see more attacks, and I see attacks that will attempt to find similar types of high profile targets. But I also think that if a shooting war starts, we should be prepared to see attacks on a small scale as well.

Aviano Air Base, Italy: Did any of the aircraft hijacked make any reference to the Air traffic controllers working them that they were in distress? If so what were the reactions of the controllers? If not then, can we assume the aircrew was already dead?

William Arkin: Now that the black boxes have been recovered from two of the planes, we will start to answer these questions.

All of the evidence now indicates that the planes going off course alerted the authorities, and eventually the White House, as to what was going on. THis did not mean that those in the WTC could necessarily be notified, but probably some people in command centers knew in near real time that aircraft were heading for NY and DC.

Moscow, Russia: It strikes me that the US has always had options available and the capability to follow them. What was lacking was public (and therefore) political willingness to accept US military casualties, eg ground war is messy and costly in human terms. Has this fundamentally changed now? To what degree? And if so, how long will it last?

William Arkin: The mood of the American public has changed, and American will will be tested in the coming days and weeks. Are Americans willing to make the sacrifices? I don't know. We insist on calling this war, and I know that it is a different type of war than we have seen before, but I'm not sure that "America" can wage this war, or a successful war, if there is such a strict delineation between the professional military and the entrenched institutions and the rest of society. If society is not involved, if normal people's lives go back to normal after air travel is resumed and the memorial services are over, then it seems to me that public support will eventually wane, and the demand for an immediate impact will become increasingly a constraint on the military and on the administration. In other words, war demands the resources (and heart) of the society.

Downtown, Washington, D.C.: This horrible attack begs the question: should hundreds of billions of dollars be spent on a missle defense system when such destruction can occur without the use of a weapon at all?

William Arkin: It is a good question, but it is not the only one, nor the most immediate one. Perhaps the winning of this "war," since we don't know what it will be, or who it will be against, will obviate the need for missile defenses. But clearly also we must focus on the immediate needs and not be immobilized by the lack of missile defenses (or a messianic zeal for them) in the days and weeks ahead.

Washington, D.C.: How can the US accept help from other NATO countries when there is a "chill on information?" Do you see a cooperative effort or will we be out there on our own, fearful of trusting even our allies?

William Arkin: The chill on information is immediate, and we will have to see where it goes in the coming days. Even under the best of circumstances, sharing information is difficult. But I think that if the United States waits for NATO or other allies in order to act, it will be following the wrong path. At least in the short term, the U.S. needs to build a consensus amongst its allies, but it also has to have the courage to act decisively and alone if it has a suitable target and if we think that there is a reasonable military option.

Detroit, Mich.: What steps will the FBI, CIA, State Department, etc., to secure the nation in this state of emergency? What has been done in the past?

William Arkin: I wish I knew the answers to these questions. No one does.

Scottsdale, Ariz.: Why isn't it possible to dry up Bin Laden's source of money?

William Arkin: We have to ask the hard questions, if indeed Bin Laden is the source, as to whether our so-called allies in the Middle East, and specifically I mean the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, have provided support for Bin Laden, and also whether their reluctance to confront extremism (for the preservation of their own regimes) hasn't provided some degree of succor.

Rockville, Md.: Some people talk about invading Afghanistan. To my knowledge, no foreign power has successfully conquered that country. If the US were to take action there, what would that action look like (large scale ground troops, small group of commandos, etc.)?
Thanks

William Arkin: Afghanistan is indeed a difficult target, and we are still paying for the legacy of the Soviet invasion of 1979, for it created the conditions of the Taliban to come to power and for the sheltering of Bin Laden.

London, England: Not sure if you read Thomas Friedman's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times but he made a good point that a US counter-attack could be used to recruit more Muslim extremists.

There are so-called terrorist cells all over the world so it would be quite difficult to eradicate the problem completely. In your opinion, what is the end-game?

William Arkin: Though Friedman is right, it is neither a justification for inaction, nor does it prove that more extremism and a willingness of our enemies to die for their cause won't flourish anyhow.

Tysons Corner, Va.: How safe are our Foreign Service officers in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Egypt, etc.? I am especially concerned about Pakistan because a friend is a CG there.

William Arkin: I would say that Americans are not going to be safe in places like Pakistan in the future, but only because there will be a war, and this war will not know the borders and the distinctions between combatants and noncombatants that previous wars have known.

Luxembourg: Bill,
Events prove it doesn't take a rogue missile to bring devastating war to the American heartland; all it takes are a couple of cardboard cutters and some careful planning. Defense pundits and others -- and not just those with an anti-missile defense-bent -- have raised the issue of how to cope with this kind of low-tech threat, arguing that U.S. focus since many years, and in particular in recent years, has been too myopically focused on high-tech threat scenarios.
Questions:
1. As a prime grade-A defense pundit read and admired also on this side of the pool, what is your take on this critique?
2. Can you give a historical perspective to this discussion: does it have a precedence, i.e., to what degree has the idea of striking a "better" balance in this regard been an issue within the U.S. defense establishment?
3. What, in your view, would such a "low-tech threat preparedness" require in terms of thrust, resources, organization and liaison (not the least in an international context)?
4. Specifically in terms of resources, do you think the events on 11 September will vindicate those within the CIA who have resisted the dismantling in recent years of the HUMINT element?
5. Lastly, and tangential to question four, what is you comment on William Safire's Thursday opinion in which he (a) speculates that the codes included in messaged warnings of threats to Air Force One points to terrorist mole activity within the U.S. intelligence community and (b) religiously invokes the emergence of a new Angleton to deal with this?
Paul Claesson

William Arkin: I'll answer one question, which is this call for HUMINT, more human intelligence. I think that this is an evasion, blaming Jimmy Carter for the problem, and also a falsehood that someone concerns expressed in the mid-1990's about not using criminals or human rights abusers in the drug world as controlled U.S. sources to the exclusion of acknowledging who they were. As far as I am aware, we have never turned down a human source relating to terrorism because of these rules.

Palo Alto, Calif.: Are there experts on staff who specialize in the psychology of Islamic terrorist groups and which have "first hand" contacts to draw on? Specifically, I presume it is critical to shape a response that acts as an ideal deterrent to future acts of violence, and due to cultural differences that may not be readily appreciated by typical North Americans.

William Arkin: Deterrence is probably not the task in front of us. And to articulate the task as deterrence begins to suggest that we are going to live in a society so different, in terms of our rights and freedoms, that it makes me uncomfortable.

Deterrence also connotes a culture of response, which is partly to blame for the events of September 11. We need a culture of action now. That action must make it clear to our enemies that they will not achieve their objectives in attacking us and our friends. That is not about deterrence.

Toronto, Canada: How are the repercussions of the past two days going to be felt within the immigration system in the U.S., and immigration between Canada and the U.S.? As well I would like to say that your Canadian family's prayers are with you!

William Arkin: We don't know the answers yet, but clearly the events will have a chilling effect, not only on the Canadian border, but overall. As it should.

Indor, India: Dear Sir,

It is very basic question, Do you think the terrorism can be vanished. So an ordinary person can live safely in this world. How?

William Arkin: No.

But we can address both terror itself, and redouble our efforts to resolve some of the root causes.

But we should not be evasive in such a way that we want our cake and we want to eat it too. People will die in this struggle, and that is not necessarily unjust, and right.

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Arkin, wouldn't it be a mistake to solely focus on bin Laden? There are other terrorists operating that are threats to the United States.

William Arkin: Bin Laden has been behind so many other attacks on the U.S. (Somalia, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc.), it is proper to focus on him and his followers. They are really the only organization with the capabilities and the finances (and the motivations, frankly) to pull this off. Was there assistance by others, or others involved? Perhaps. And did Bin Laden's approach inspire others to take action? Perhaps. But that does not mean that his hand wasn't guiding it, or that he is not blameless. He is the mastermind, in the most diabolical sense of the word, behind the new approach of this mega-terrorism.

Alexandria, Va.: Why not call our effort against terrorism a war?
You feel that sustained public mobilization will be necessary to succeed in reducing terrorism to a minimum level (I don't think zero is possible), doesn't calling a war a war help? Also, doesn't war replace police activity with military activity that could have greater chance of success?

William Arkin: The semantics of whether it is a war or not is not necessarily that interesting. It is obviously not a war like the Gulf War or Yugoslavia, nor is it a war of the 18th century, the beginning of the era of modern war. But what kind of war is it? And how will that war be waged? And under what rules? Those are important questions for us to ask and debate.

Montreal, Canada: Firstly, let me say that as a Canadian I am, of course, strongly with you all, my heart goes out to you, and I'll be hanging a U.S. flag from my office window today.

My question is: to what extent does the ongoing new coverage pose a threat to the various investigations and plans being made. While I am very interested in the happenings, I am worried that we are hearing things so fast that it could put at risk the official activities that are being undertaken, from retaliations to raids to simple hunts for clues.

William Arkin: The ongoing news coverage has to balance freedom of the press and the people's right to know with the government's interests. So far, the government has shown itself, in my opinion, unable to protect American citizens, which is the fundamental function of the state. So it is only natural to ask questions and probe deeply into what the government is doing. The press is the people's agent to do that.

Waldorf, Md.: America's reliance on foreign oil always seems to be a factor in how we deal with the Middle East countries, even though oil is not necessarily mentioned as a consideration. Please share your opinions on whether this will be a strong factor in determining how America reacts to this horrific attack.

William Arkin: Oil has been in the backdrop for decades, back to the 1973 Middle East war and the embargo. But it is not what we are fighting over now. September 11 is about the illegal and terrible loss of civilian life, and the willingness of our enemies to strike intentionally at innocent civilians to achieve political ends. Regardless of solving all of the problems of the world (e.g., oil, Israel, Iraq), our response to that act is what we must focus on.

Alexandria, Va.: Mr. Arkin, based on previous responses, do you agree that:
1 - eradication of all terrorism is not possible
2 - the best we can hope for is to reduce it to a level that is far less destructive than what has recently happened while being on guard for flare-ups?

William Arkin: We have to figure what our fight will be.

And as we fight, we have to ask whether there aren't things we can do to eliminate some of the root causes.

That also means that we have to fight in such a way that does not create more hatred and terror, at least in the long term.

Thanks all for your comments today.

Bill Arkin