Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Expert Discusses FBI Warnings of Anti-aircraft Missiles in U.S.

Aired May 31, 2002 - 08:10   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, the FBI is warning U.S.- based airlines that terrorists may have smuggled shoulder-fired anti- aircraft missiles into the United States. The alert was based on a posting on an Arabic language Web site.

How seriously should the United States be taking this kind of a threat?

For that we are joined by terrorism expert Michael O'Hanlon.

Good to see you in person for a change.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, TERRORISM EXPERT: Nice to be here, Paula.

ZAHN: Nice to be here in D.C.

So what do you make of this latest threat? I think we -- first of all, for perspective, we need to make it quite clear the FBI is saying there's no specific evidence that would suggest that these shoulder-fired missiles are here.

O'HANLON: Right.

ZAHN: But clearly, when you see this on a Web site, and it raises the specter of it, you get concerned.

O'HANLON: I'm glad for the reassurance because we don't want to be unnecessarily scared. On the other hand, there is no way to be sure that one of these missiles is not smuggled into the United States and fired at a commercial airliner. There are all sorts of places from which you could fire without being detected, and let's face it, civilian airliners are vulnerable to this kind of missile. So you have to keep them out of the country and hope there aren't too many out there.

Unfortunately, we gave a couple hundred to the Afghan resistance in the 1980s when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Hopefully those missiles don't work any more, or hopefully, we can find some way to buy them back, or they've been lost over time. That has to be the hope. Or that they would be detected on their way into the United States. But they're small. There are a lot of them out there, and there is some risk, I'm afraid. ZAHN: So what you're saying is they aren't easily detected? I mean could you smuggle one of these things in in a backpack when you're going through normal airport security?

O'HANLON: No, it's bigger than that. But it's the kind of thing you could smuggle in in a container and so...

ZAHN: How big? How long would it be?

O'HANLON: Oh, several feet...

ZAHN: Even if you took it apart...

O'HANLON: It's man portable. So the basic idea is that you could probably have one or two people carrying it around a battlefield. It's probably going to weigh, I don't know, 50, 75 pounds. It's not tiny. But inside of a container coming into the United States, it's going to be much smaller and easier to hide than, let's say, the nuclear weapon fear that we sometimes have to deal with.

ZAHN: Once again, to not unnecessarily frighten people, we were told the airlines are not taking any special precautions, but they're advising all of us to be especially vigilant. So I know that Jamie McIntyre, from the Pentagon, earlier this morning was describing areas like not far from National Airport here, where people often watch planes taking off and landing.

How many of those vulnerable areas are there? Isn't there an area like that basically related to every single airport in the country?

O'HANLON: I think nearly almost every airport in the country is going to have that vulnerability. And airlines cannot do this. I think the way to address it is to have occasional foot patrols of soldiers or other security personnel in the woods, in the built-up urban areas near airports. The good news is these missiles don't have long range. They would have to be used during takeoff or landing. They have a maximum altitude of a couple of miles and a maximum range of three to five miles.

So in that sense, there is a way you can deal with it. You surveil and you patrol the areas near the runways. But airlines can't do that. The military or someone else has to do that. I'm sure at Andrews Air Force Base, for example, that is done. I'm sure that where the president takes off and lands, there are people patrolling the nearby woods. And we may have to consider doing that in some of the major airports in the United States.

ZAHN: Well, let's move on to another very troubling area of the world, India and Pakistan. We now know that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is going to be sent to the region.

O'HANLON: Right.

ZAHN: The big concern, of course, that there is talk that Pakistan is considering moving its troops from the border with Afghanistan to the Kashmir area.

O'HANLON: Well, that's a concern for us because then Pakistan won't be as helpful in trying to seal off the movement of al Qaeda. But there's even a bigger worry, of course, which is that there's some possibility of a war breaking out and then escalating between two nuclear armed countries. And I think that would be of greater consequence, even for Americans, because there are a lot of Americans in India, in particular, and they might not get out in time if this kind of thing really blew up.

Now, I don't expect that it would. But there is a danger here because if you think about the dynamics of the conflict, India is going to probably do a limited raid against Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, if it decides to go to war...

ZAHN: With conventional weapons?

O'HANLON: With conventional weapons. But the problem is Pakistan has no way, in my opinion, to stop that, and it has no real way to respond to that in a reciprocal, satisfying way.

So what does Pakistan do? Is it content to just strike back and give India a bloody nose but really not accomplish anything of particular military importance? Or does it choose to escalate? If India strikes into Pakistan-controlled territory, does Pakistan say, hey, listen, we're not going to put up with that, we're really pretty angry now, we're going to have to do something drastic?

If you get into that sort of dynamic, then you're really into trouble, because one of those countries could ultimately decide to use a nuclear weapon, and from that point on, who knows where it stops?

ZAHN: Fifteen seconds we have left. What is the message, then, that Mr. Rumsfeld has to take there at a time when he wants to make sure that border of Afghanistan and Pakistan remains sealed? What does he tell President Musharraf?

O'HANLON: Well, we try to browbeat him and remind him of what his promises were. But we also may have to start talking about a long-term political solution for Kashmir, and we haven't been willing to do that. India doesn't want it. It may be time to ask India that we have to engage in this dialogue, because otherwise Pakistan and Musharraf are not going to be willing to back down, and Musharraf may lose power if he pushes too hard.

Pakistan sees this as a very critical issue of sovereignty, and they feel like their terrorists are freedom fighters. And I'm not sure we can fully talk them out of that opinion.

ZAHN: Well, we'd love to have you come back from time to time to help us better understand this very complex situation that's burbling up over there.

O'HANLON: Be a pleasure.

ZAHN: Thank you. O'HANLON: Thank you.

ZAHN: Michael O'Hanlon, terrorism expert at the Brookings Institute.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com