|
Attacks on U.S. Soil
With James M. Lindsay
National Security Expert
Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2001; 3 p.m. EDT
Tuesday morning, in a horrific unfolding of events, two planes hit and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one plane crashed into the Pentagon and another in Somerset County, Pa. in apparent hijackings. Thousands are presumed dead or injured as emergency services and relief workers continue to make sense of the chaotic scenes.
James M. Lindsay, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution and former National Security Council staff, was online to discuss the attacks on America.
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.
Reston, Va.:
Do you think that other attacks are likely?
What do you believe the world wide implications of yesterday's events will be?
My prayers go out to all those who are suffering.
James Lindsay: I want to join you in sending my prayers to those who are suffering as well. Yesterday was a tragedy for the United States and the civilized world.
No one know whether any other attacks are likely any time soon. The odds are that there won't be, if only because terrorists attacks are far less likely to succeed when a country is on high alert.
But sadly, we can probably expect more terrorist attacks in the years to come, though God forbid, hopefully nothing of the magnitude of what happened yesterday.
Baltimore, Md.:
Mr. Lindsay:
If, in fact, it is determined that Islamic extremists are responsible for yesterday's attacks, do you believe there will be a change in U.S.-Israeli relations? If so, how?
James Lindsay: How much yesterday's bombings affect U.S.-Israeli relations will depend on who is responsible. It is certainly the case that Americans now have a much better sense of what Israelis face on a daily basis and they may be more understanding of Israeli government policy. But on the whole U.S. support for Israel reflects very real common interests and values. Yesterday's events didn't change that. And keep in mind that the United States has friends, allies and interests in the Islamic world as well.
Washington, D.C.:
I would have thought that pilots are trained not to leave a cockpit in the case of a highjacking. News reports state that they were all lured out by threats and injury to flight attendants. What is protocol in this situation?
James Lindsay: Once we get a clear sense of what happened in the air yesterday, we will undoubtedly have extensive reviews of how pilots are trained. In at least three cases, we can conclude that pilots weren't prepared to handle the situation. But in some sense this is a one-shot deal. Terrorists used the element of surprise--until yesterday our mental image of how a hijacking played out looked very different. I think it would be harder for terrorists to pull the same ploy again.
Silver Spring, Md.:
I've heard that Osama bin Laden is worth millions. Is there any way to freeze his assets? Where are they?
James Lindsay: The U.S. government for years has tried to track down and capture Osama bin Laden, and failing that to disrupt his network. But it is a daunting task. Bin Laden can hide his money behind shell companies, secret accounts, and so forth. And as his residence in Afghanistan makes clear, he has countries that shelter him. All that frustrates efforts to roll up his network.
Pakistan:
Who is behind this matter?
James Lindsay: That is the question everyone is asking today. And so far no one knows. I don't think I would be moving the debate forward to speculate on who might have done it.
Washington, D.C.:
In light of the pentagon crash is it now time to permanently close Reagan National Airport. It is too easy to divert a jetliner into vital buildings and monuments without reaction time. It would be smart to declare a clear air space at the beltway.
James Lindsay: Closing National Airport is an appealing solution but I doubt it would solve the problem. After all, none of the planes involved in yesterday's tragic events flew into or out of National. But your question raises an important broader issue: How much inconvenience and disruption of our way of life will we be willing to put up with to make it harder for terrorists to attack us?
Houston, Tex.:
When the FAA allows flights to resume, how safe will it truly be to travel?
James Lindsay: I assume it will be reasonably, both because the FAA wouldn't allow flights to resume if it had good reason to believe otherwise and because terrorist attacks are least likely to succeed when a country in a high state of alert. The real danger may lies months or years down the road, should we let our guard down. Perhaps even more troubling is that as we do more to make attack's like yesterday's less likely, terrorists will look for other avenues to attack us.
Cheverly, Md.:
Had adequate airport security been in place to stop these hijackers, would they have just found another avenue to carry out their plan? Is there adequate security (or any security)in place that would have prevented a tractor-trailer loaded with explosives from driving up to the World Trade Center or Pentagon and detonating its load?
James Lindsay: Terrorists have an inherent advantage: they get to pick the time, place, and manner of their attack. That means they can probe your defenses looking for the weakest link. If we make airports invulnerable, they will look for other avenues of attack. This is not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to make airports and airline travel safe but to underscore the difficulty of the task we face. And yes, the Pentagon has security barriers in place to limit the ability of someone to drive an 18-wheeler up to the front door. Given what happened to the World Trade Center in 1993, I'd guess the same thing was true there as well. Sadly, they were defending against the wrong thing.
Baltimore, Md.:
There has been a lot of speculation that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania did so through some action of the passengers/crew against the terrorists. Since this crash occurred after the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, my question is how much did the folks on the Pennsylvania plane know about the other attacks, and do you think it influenced their actions.
James Lindsay: Until we know more about what happened about the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, no one can say for sure. It could be that someone learned about the attack on the World Trade Center by cell phone or a wireless internet device. Or perhaps the plane went down because the terrorists made a mistake. We just don't know at this point.
Cockeysville, Md.:
Mr. Lindsay,
Let's assume we confirm that Bin Laden is responsible for the attacks yesterday. What magnitude of military action do you think we can expect against him. Do you think an all out invasion of Afghanistan is out of the question?
James Lindsay: I'll grant your assumption. The magnitude of the U.S. response could vary from something as small as a commando attack targeted at Osama bin Laden personally to a full-scale bombing of Afghanistan. Much will depend on things like: (a) do we know where bin Laden is? (b) do the Taliban reject our request to hand him over? (c) do we have evidence that governments have helped bin Laden? The Bush national security team have the tough job of sorting through these and other questions.
McLean, Va.:
If we were to retaliate against parties that provide safe harbor to terrorists (e.g. Afghanistan), what countries are likely to respond negatively (either politically or militarily)?
James Lindsay: Much would depend on who we attacked and what evidence we had of their complicity. If we had a smoking gun that pointed to Afghanistan, few would come rushing to the Taliban's aid. On the contrary, if the evidence was ambiguous and pointed to other, less-isoloated countries, it could create devilish problems for the Bush administration.
Washington, D.C.:
There is increasing criticism of us counter-intelligence efforts. Is that a fair criticism and what realistically can be done
James Lindsay: We know that the intelligence community failed to warn us about yesterday's attack. We will have to wait to see if this amounts to an intelligence failure. Let me explain. It is unreasonable to expect the intelligence community to have a 100% detection rate. Simply ain't going to happen. What you want is an intelligence apparatus that can connect the dots when the dots are obviously there.
The argument that the intelligence community must have screwed up is psychologically powerful. It allows us to believe that if only we had spent more money or had a better structure or smarter people we would be safe. If however, the intelligence community didn't drop the ball, then we face the terrifying reality that as powerful and rich as we are we cannot make ourselves invulnerable to attack.
Chevy Chase, Md.:
Short of closing Reagan National Airport (DCA) and setting up a system to shoot down any planes which might breach D.C. airspace, how can we realistically prevent another kamikazi plane attacking the symbols of American democracy and power in the D.C. (Capitol, Lincoln, Jefferson, White House, Justice, State, etc.)?
James Lindsay: The short answer is you can't. A free and open society like ours will always be vulnerable to attack. The challenge that faces our policymakers is do the best they can to minimize our vulnerabilities. It's a tough task. Because the harder you make it for terrorists, the more you disrupt the lives we know and circumscribe the civil liberties we enjoy.
Austin, Tex.:
Mr. Lindsay,
I've been reading commentary questioning why the pilots, crew and passengers of the 4 planes did not overpower the terrorist hijackers, who were armed only with knives and box cutters.
I've had to point out that until now, virtually no airplane hijackings have resulted in plane crashes. In light of this, I believe the airlines have maintained a policy for their crew regarding how to deal with hijackers. This policy I'm betting goes like something like this: "If a hijacker wants you to go to Cuba, fly to Cuba. Hijackers aren't suicidal, and we'll get you back as soon as possible." Or something along these lines. Thus the crews on those planes had every reason to believe that doing the hijackers' bidding would result in saved lives.
Given that, this event means at least one positive definite thing. This is the end of hijackings, per se. No longer can any pilot, crew, or passenger assume that a hijacker intends anything less than using their plane as a human-guided missile. In other words, given 5 hijackers on a plane, it is far better for 5 or six passengers to die by knife wound so that the 7th passenger can kill the hijackers before they can get into the cockpit.
Your thoughts, please?
Would you comment on the wisdom of allowing properly permitted carriers of concealed weapons to carry their handguns on future flights? As a holder of a Texas concealed carry permit, I'd be interested in participating in a program that would make the flights of my future co-passengers more safe.
James Lindsay: I think there is a great deal of truth in your first observation. It is likely that the terrorists who seized those four planes yesterday took advantage of the passenger and crew's assumption that this was a "textbook" hijacking. So they were likely to "obey" the hijackers rather than rise up against them.
As for carrying guns on planes, that is likely to cause more mayhem than it prevents. When a passenger notices that the person in seat 13A has a gun, how will she know whether he is a terrorist or a law-abiding Texan?
Atlanta, Ga.:
How likely do you think it is that we will call on our NATO partners to fulfill their obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty to treat this attack as an attack on them?
James Lindsay: I doubt we will invoke the NATO Charter, and we don't need to. And our European allies will support any reasonable steps we take. I have no doubt about that.
Atlanta, Ga.:
In your view, what are the risks associated with a military assault against those responsible and/or associated states. It seems to me, that a violent response may serve as a deterrent, but it is just as likely to further mobilize our enemies.
James Lindsay: You put your finger on the fundamental dilemma that the Bush administration faces? How do you respond in a way that fits the crime and serves both America's interests and values? We cannot let yesterday's terrible deed go unpunished, but we also don't want to create more terrorists or do exactly the thing that we abhor. I hope God blesses the president with the moral strength to choose wisely.
Thank you for all your questions. And again my prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones yesterday. May God look after you.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
