战略与国际研究中心-Global-Terrorism-and-the-Middle-East_65页_264kb

Summary of Global Terrorism and the Middle East: A Pattern Analysis

Core Content

This report by Anthony H. Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies analyzes the evolving threat of terrorism to the United States and the broader Middle East, focusing on the distinction between terrorism and asymmetric warfare. It explores the challenges of risk assessment, the limitations of current definitions of terrorism, and the implications of both domestic and foreign threats. The report also discusses the need for a comprehensive and flexible approach to homeland defense, considering the potential for catastrophic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the changing motivations and methods of terrorist groups.

Main Points

1. Nature of the Threat

• The threat to the U.S. homeland includes both state-sponsored and non-state asymmetric attacks.
• These attacks can range from individual extremists to sophisticated networks and proxy groups.
• The use of unconventional methods such as biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons is a growing concern.
• The U.S. faces a complex and unpredictable threat landscape, with no clear patterns in attack frequency or lethality.

2. Terrorism vs. Asymmetric Warfare

• Asymmetric warfare is often considered a form of terrorism by the U.S. government, but the distinction is not always clear.
• The report highlights that states may engage in covert or proxy attacks, which are harder to attribute and more difficult to counter than traditional terrorist acts.
• The U.S. government often fails to recognize the full spectrum of asymmetric threats, leading to incomplete risk assessments.

3. Risk Assessment Challenges

• There is a lack of consistent and comprehensive data on the threat posed by terrorism and WMD.
• Federal agencies use varying definitions of terrorism, which complicates threat analysis and response planning.
• The report warns against over-simplified pattern analysis, as the number of attacks and their lethality do not always correlate.

4. Uncertainty and Future Threats

• The U.S. cannot reliably predict future threats due to the evolving nature of asymmetric warfare and the potential for new technologies to increase attack lethality.
• The report suggests that the U.S. must prepare for "worst-case scenarios" and invest in long-term capabilities to address these threats.
• There is a debate over whether the threat of WMD attacks is inevitable or exaggerated, with some analysts believing it is increasing due to the rise of religious and ideological extremism.

5. Government Response and Policy

• The U.S. has developed several policies and directives to combat terrorism, including PDD-39, PDD-62, and PDD-63.
• These policies emphasize prevention, response, and consequence management.
• New legislation such as the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act has increased federal spending on homeland security.

Key Information

Terrorist Attack Trends

• The number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. has declined since the early 1980s.
• The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was the only incident involving casualties approaching "superterrorism."
• There is no clear upward trend in the number of attacks on U.S. territory, but the lethality of attacks has increased.

Definitional Conflicts

• The U.S. government uses inconsistent definitions of terrorism across agencies:
  • State Department: Defines terrorism as politically motivated violence against noncombatants by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
  • FBI: Defines terrorism more broadly, including acts by groups for political or social objectives.
  • DOD: Uses "counterterrorism" for offensive actions and "antiterrorism" for defensive measures.
  • FEMA: Defines terrorism as the use of violence to intimidate or coerce.
  • GAO: Uses "combat terrorism" to refer to all federal programs against terrorism.
  • RAND Corporation: Defines terrorism as violence or the threat of violence to coerce others.

Regional Analysis

• Table One provides data on the number of international terrorist attacks by region from 1989 to 1999.
• The Middle East, once seen as the center of global terrorism, has seen a decline in attacks in recent years.
• Latin America and Western Europe have experienced more frequent attacks than the U.S. or the Middle East.

Motivations and Methods

• Terrorist motivations have shifted from political objectives to ideological, religious, and ethnic hatred.
• Some groups, like al-Qaida, aim to cause mass casualties without seeking political concessions.
• The trend shows a move toward more lethal attacks with fewer claims of responsibility or political demands.

Strategic Implications

• The U.S. must consider the potential for large-scale, complex attacks and the need for a robust, integrated defense strategy.
• The report emphasizes the importance of net assessments to evaluate the full range of threats and their potential impact.
• The U.S. is vulnerable due to its strengths, which make it an attractive target for asymmetric warfare.

Conclusion

The report underscores the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to homeland defense, recognizing the evolving nature of terrorism and the increasing threat of WMD. It calls for improved interagency coordination, better definitions of terrorism, and a focus on long-term preparedness to address both current and future risks. Despite the lack of clear patterns in attack frequency, the report suggests that the U.S. should prepare for more lethal and unpredictable forms of asymmetric warfare.