Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Questions of War: Terrorist Reaction
Aired March 03, 2003 - 07:18 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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: A question, Paula, about whether or not a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would bring a violent response from terrorists. Today, we begin a series called "Questions of War." This morning, a look at the potential for retaliation by terrorists against American and allied targets.
From Washington, terrorism expert, Bruce Hoffman of the Rand Corporation, is our guest today.
Bruce, good morning to you.
BRUCE HOFFMAN, RAND, TERRORISM EXPERT: Good morning, Bill.
HEMMER: Before we get to that issue of terrorism, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, you say as important almost as Osama bin Laden. How critical? Why almost?
HOFFMAN: Well, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a key linchpin. He was the main conduit of communications downward from bin Laden and Zawahiri. So, in other words, the threats that bin Laden and Zawahiri voiced that it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's job to put them into action.
HEMMER: So, he was like the COO, huh, the chief operating officer?
HOFFMAN: Exactly, exactly.
HEMMER: Let's talk about then about the focus today, whether or not terrorism could strike U.S. targets either at home or abroad. We have an example that we can use here. Twelve years ago, the Persian Gulf War, there were 100 more incidents in 1991 of terrorism prior to the year 1990 -- we can put up on our screen to show our viewers -- and half of these incidents occurred during January and February, the months in which the conflict was ongoing.
Do we use that as a benchmark right now to think that if war breaks out terrorists will strike back at the U.S. in return?
HOFFMAN: I think certainly we have to parse those incidents. Indeed, there was a tremendous spike once Operation Desert Storm began.
But retrospectively, we have to understand that the vast majority of those incidents were very low-level. In fact, despite months of threats by Saddam Hussein that Iraqi agents would be unleashed, despite months of threats by sympathizers and supporters of his regime throughout the world, particularly Palestinian groups, at the end of the day it fell flat. There were a handful of attempts by Iraqi agents that amounted to nothing, and most of the attacks were really along the variety of bombing American fast food restaurants in Peru and in places in Europe, his few significant assassinations of American military personnel.
But I think the point I want to make is that despite tremendous bluster, despite tremendous fears, at the end of the day, the threat in terrorist events of 12 years ago fell completely flat.
HEMMER: Why do you believe thats the case then? Are Arabs not willing to take up the case of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and fight and die for him? Or is it more than that?
HOFFMAN: It's a combination of factors. Firstly, back then what was perhaps the world's most successful counterterrorist campaign had been unveiled by the United States and the coalitions, with even countries like Syria, for instance, cooperating with the United States and the allies. So, there was a tremendous exchange of intelligence, there was a tremendous common perception of the threat that helped really to stifle it. It wasnt just luck.
At the same time, though, the rapidity of the war, the fact that it was over so quickly I think dissuaded many terrorist groups from climbing on with Saddam Hussein's bandwagon when obviously it was a failing crusade.
HEMMER: You know, Bruce, there's a different element involved here 12 years later, and thats the rise in popularity and success, for lack of a better word, of al Qaeda. How does that play into your scenario now?
HOFFMAN: Well, you're absolutely right, and I think here the key is when we thought about terrorist attacks against American interests and American citizens 12 years ago, it was invariably in the context of attacks overseas against American businessmen or citizens living or traveling overseas or against American diplomatic or military personnel.
Today, because of al Qaeda, because of the events of September 11, when we think about terrorist threats, it's invariably directed at the homeland, and that is a profound difference.
HEMMER: Thank you, Bruce -- Bruce Hoffman, Rand Corporation down there in D.C. taking us through step No. 1, "Questions of War."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Aired March 3, 2003 - 07:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: A question, Paula, about whether or not a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would bring a violent response from terrorists. Today, we begin a series called "Questions of War." This morning, a look at the potential for retaliation by terrorists against American and allied targets.
From Washington, terrorism expert, Bruce Hoffman of the Rand Corporation, is our guest today.
Bruce, good morning to you.
BRUCE HOFFMAN, RAND, TERRORISM EXPERT: Good morning, Bill.
HEMMER: Before we get to that issue of terrorism, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, you say as important almost as Osama bin Laden. How critical? Why almost?
HOFFMAN: Well, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a key linchpin. He was the main conduit of communications downward from bin Laden and Zawahiri. So, in other words, the threats that bin Laden and Zawahiri voiced that it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's job to put them into action.
HEMMER: So, he was like the COO, huh, the chief operating officer?
HOFFMAN: Exactly, exactly.
HEMMER: Let's talk about then about the focus today, whether or not terrorism could strike U.S. targets either at home or abroad. We have an example that we can use here. Twelve years ago, the Persian Gulf War, there were 100 more incidents in 1991 of terrorism prior to the year 1990 -- we can put up on our screen to show our viewers -- and half of these incidents occurred during January and February, the months in which the conflict was ongoing.
Do we use that as a benchmark right now to think that if war breaks out terrorists will strike back at the U.S. in return?
HOFFMAN: I think certainly we have to parse those incidents. Indeed, there was a tremendous spike once Operation Desert Storm began.
But retrospectively, we have to understand that the vast majority of those incidents were very low-level. In fact, despite months of threats by Saddam Hussein that Iraqi agents would be unleashed, despite months of threats by sympathizers and supporters of his regime throughout the world, particularly Palestinian groups, at the end of the day it fell flat. There were a handful of attempts by Iraqi agents that amounted to nothing, and most of the attacks were really along the variety of bombing American fast food restaurants in Peru and in places in Europe, his few significant assassinations of American military personnel.
But I think the point I want to make is that despite tremendous bluster, despite tremendous fears, at the end of the day, the threat in terrorist events of 12 years ago fell completely flat.
HEMMER: Why do you believe thats the case then? Are Arabs not willing to take up the case of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and fight and die for him? Or is it more than that?
HOFFMAN: It's a combination of factors. Firstly, back then what was perhaps the world's most successful counterterrorist campaign had been unveiled by the United States and the coalitions, with even countries like Syria, for instance, cooperating with the United States and the allies. So, there was a tremendous exchange of intelligence, there was a tremendous common perception of the threat that helped really to stifle it. It wasnt just luck.
At the same time, though, the rapidity of the war, the fact that it was over so quickly I think dissuaded many terrorist groups from climbing on with Saddam Hussein's bandwagon when obviously it was a failing crusade.
HEMMER: You know, Bruce, there's a different element involved here 12 years later, and thats the rise in popularity and success, for lack of a better word, of al Qaeda. How does that play into your scenario now?
HOFFMAN: Well, you're absolutely right, and I think here the key is when we thought about terrorist attacks against American interests and American citizens 12 years ago, it was invariably in the context of attacks overseas against American businessmen or citizens living or traveling overseas or against American diplomatic or military personnel.
Today, because of al Qaeda, because of the events of September 11, when we think about terrorist threats, it's invariably directed at the homeland, and that is a profound difference.
HEMMER: Thank you, Bruce -- Bruce Hoffman, Rand Corporation down there in D.C. taking us through step No. 1, "Questions of War."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
