"There will be the obvious demands for the Department of Homeland Security to pony up an integrated transportation security planâ"which they have not done. We donât have a good sense of how much we ought to be allocating to the air security versus rail security versus any other transportation-mode security in this country. Itâs a very difficult question to address, and it needs to be done in a very careful and integrated fashion."
There is $150 million in the Federal budget this year for ground transportation (rail, bus, subway). A pittance in comparison to the scope of the problem. Just to beef up security for New York City alone would probably cost more than that. Ground transport is going to be vulnerable to terrorist attack for a very long time at the current rate of funding. David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8500211/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter âA Long-Term Threatâ A counterterrorism expert discusses how the London bomb attacks were carried outâ"and whether they could have been prevented. WEB EXCLUSIVE By Susanna Schrobsdorff Newsweek Updated: 4:06 p.m. ET July 7, 2005 July 7 - The first bomb went off at 8.51 a.m., in the midst of the London rush hour. By 9.47 a.m.â"56 minutes laterâ"at least four blasts had rocked the heart of the British capital. Three were on crowded underground trains; the fourth on one of the cityâs signature red double-decker buses. Hours after the attacks, the number of dead remained unclear. Hundreds, however, were injuredâ"many severelyâ"and tens of thousands of commuters were stranded after the city shut down its subway and bus systems. Who was behind the coordinated attacks? While British authorities initially said they were keeping an open mind, a group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe quickly claimed responsibility. The group also threatened future assaults on Italy and Denmark, two other U.S. allies that have supported the war in Iraq. The London incident, following 15 months after the devastating Al Qaeda-linked rail bombing in Madrid, has security officials around the world on high alert and investigators scrambling for clues as to exactly how the attack was carried out and by whom. Jack Riley, associate director of RAND Infrastructure, Safety and Environment and a founding codirector of RANDâs Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy, spoke with NEWSWEEKâs Susanna Schrobsdorff about how terrorist cells operate and what counterterrorism experts could learn from the attack on London. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: Is this attack similar to other Al Qaeda attacks? Jack Riley: It is evident from [their] nature that this has the hallmark of an Al Qaeda-inspired or actual Al Qaeda attack. There are very clear parallels to what happened in Madrid [in March 2004] and how the U.S. was attacked in September of 2001, which was also multiple simultaneous attacks. What was the logic behind the timing of the attack? Is it relevant that it was announced yesterday that London had won the 2012 Olympics, or did it have more to do with the G8 summit of the worldâs economic leaders in Scotland? The timing [with respect to] Olympic announcement was just coincidence. The timing of the attack was probably organized around the G8 summit, [but] that might also be just a coincidence. When you look at the list of cities worldwide that are at risk, London has been on that list for virtually as long as New York and Washington, D.C. How prepared was Britain for this kind of attack? There are very few places, in my opinion, that are as well prepared as the United Kingdom in terms of rail security. Thereâs no question that the Brits have been very serious about terrorism preparedness for a long time. Theyâve intercepted major recent threats, including the ricin poisoning plot a few summers ago. They have long, long experience with this kind of issue from the IRA [Irish Republican Army] campaign. They had excellent intelligence capabilities, particularly with respect to the radical Islamic threat. They watched what happened in Madrid very carefully. And to me, that just demonstrates how difficult it is to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening. What kind of logistical planning would it take to execute an attack like this? The demands on an organization to carry out [multiple] attacks like that probably increase exponentially. In other words, to carry out four simultaneous bombings is more difficult than simply just four times the difficulty of carrying out one bombing. You need to have people in position at the right place and time. It increases the risk of being observed by law enforcement and compromising the operation. There are all sorts of ways that these kinds of attacks raise the risk of the operation being compromised by someone on the inside who might be a turncoat. Or there could be law-enforcement penetration [of the organization]. How many people might be involved? Youâre looking at a minimum of six to eight people and it may get as large as 20. It depends on how sophisticated the cell is. You need the bombmakersâ"one or two people, and thatâs their specialized skill and contribution. You need the people to simultaneously place the bombs. Weâre still getting conflicting reports on how many there were. You probably had separate people involved in reconnaissance activities so that there was minimal risk that the people placing the bombs would be recognized. Then you need a team of one or two people to organize finances and provide logistics and support. So you pretty quickly get up to a fair sized number of individuals. How long would it take to plan? It would probably not take years, because youâre talking about attacking a pretty open system, as opposed to the attacks of 9/11 which probably had a much longer planning time. [Theyâd] probably want to do a couple of dry runs. [They] might send operatives on the train, have them leave packages that are unattended and observe how long it takes before someone notices and theyâre moved. That might influence the timing and scope of the operation. Depending on how sophisticated they are about this kind of thing, [they] might even want to practice this kind of dry run during another major political event in London. The group claiming responsibility for the attack has also threatened similar attacks in Italy and Denmark. How likely is it that they could organize another attack in Europe or the United States sometime soon? Itâd be harder to organize it immediately after [this one], but the reality is that these kind of rail systems thrive and function on being open and easily accessible. Itâs going to take determined vigilance and some luck to be able to completely prevent these kinds of events in the future. Youâre a specialist on security in the United States. What do you think the reaction will be in that community? There will be the obvious demands for the Department of Homeland Security to pony up an integrated transportation security planâ"which they have not done. We donât have a good sense of how much we ought to be allocating to the air security versus rail security versus any other transportation-mode security in this country. Itâs a very difficult question to address, and it needs to be done in a very careful and integrated fashion. What effect will this attack have in terms of security planning globally? In a perverse and odd way, these attacks are helpful to policymakers in the U.S., England, Italy and other places because this is a stark reminder to the public that this is a very long-term threat, and the threat is not going to go away. In the same way that the Madrid attacks really catalyzed attention on security issues and brought the radical Islamic threat home to ⦠Europe, these attacks are going to have very similar effect in England. It will contribute to increased resolve for multinational collaboration [to combat them]. Why didnât they attack the United States? That is the million-dollar question. I suspect that the answer is that they just donât have the people inside this country. England and a few other places in Europe have long been home to much larger radical Islamic populations [than the United States]. And, weâve done a pretty good job since 9/11 of keeping them out. I suspect that if they had the people inside this country to carry out these attacks that they would have done it at some point before this. Thereâs ample evidence that weâve impaired their capabilities ... which is why youâre seeing a return to carrying out attacks against U.S. targets and U.S. interests overseas. And of course London is an important ally in the war in Iraq. -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
