The Global War on Terrorism Round II Papers from the Bantle-INSCT Symposium March 31-April 1, 2005 The Global War on Terrorism Round II Editorial Team: William C. Banks Montgomery C. Meigs Melissa D. Kim Claudia Sawyer Jeremy Miller Nicholas R. Rossmann Symposium Organizers: Administrative Support: Marlene Diamond, Allen Feliz, Barbara Andersen, Melissa Kim, Dana Cooke, Susan Virgil, Brent Eastwood Technical Support: Matt Coulter, Tom Fazzio, and the Information and Computing Technology Group Graduate Student Support: members of the Student Association on Terrorism and Security Analysis (SATSA) and National Security Studies Program interns © INSCT 2005, 2014 This edition cover design and layout by Martin Walls. i Foreword The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 marked the beginning of what may be called the “age of global terrorism,” and the beginning of a new way of thinking about security and war. With the threat difficult to identify, locate, and disable, the United States and a coalition of countries have begun to refor- mulate security strategies and engage in a global war on terrorism. During the first term of the President George W. Bush’s administration the United States conducted military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. National Security Strategy was reformulated, and national strategies for homeland security, combating weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and protecting critical infrastructure were articulated. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security, a domestic combatant command - U.S. Northern Com- mand, and the office of Director of National Intelligence were created and law enforcement capabilities to investigate and prosecute terrorists were enhanced. As the second term of the Bush administration begins with four years of ex- perience in the struggle against terrorism, the United States must consider the impact and efficacy of these actions and determine how to prevail in the short and long-term over a threat that continues to change and evolve. The 2005 Bantle-INSCT Symposium on The Global War on Terrorism – Round II brought together academics, government officials, and media repre- sentatives to consider U.S. progress, successes and failures, and the challenges that lie ahead. The articles collected in this book build on presentations made by panelists at the symposium. They examine executive branch challenges in forming counterterrorism policy; dilemmas faced by governments in liberal de- mocracies in countering terrorism; the composition, formation, and operation of groups involved in the global salafi jihad; and legal considerations in the war on terrorism especially concerning the use of coercive interrogation to obtain critical intelligence. The symposium was organized by Syracuse University’s Bantle Chair in Business and Government Policy, currently held by Montgomery C. Meigs, the National Security Studies Program, and the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT). It was held at Syracuse University on March 31 and April 1, 2005. A video stream of the symposium is available on the INSCT web site at insct.syr.edu. ii Abstracts Former International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector, David Kay, calls for the creation of a new national security policy (to be distinguished from our prior policies of isolation and de- terrence) that would be responsive to the current era in which failed states span the globe, destructive science and technology are globally accessible, the U.S. role in the global economy has shifted, and there is a high probability of devas- tating shifts in the global climate. He identifies 6 major obstacles that impede such policymaking. Three relate to the federal policymaking process: the chal- lenge of setting priorities, especially among conflicting objectives; the inter- agency process which is hampered by powerful fiefdoms advancing their own institutional interests; and ineffective congressional oversight. The remaining challenges include: the lack of credible intelligence; the inherent conflict be- tween the development timelines of weapons and effective, acceptable policy options; and the design of the U.S. political system. Former Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism, General Wayne Downing, U.S. Army (Ret.), considers the U.S. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and finds it to be a sound strategy, but recommends that it be recalibrated in response to lessons learned over the past four years. The United States should recognize that the enemy is a global insurgency that uses terrorism as a tactic; employ all elements of national power instead of relying too heavily on the military; nurture and strengthen old alliances and forge new ones; focus on key battleground states and regions; win the war of ideas; and inhibit insurgent access to nuclear weapons and material. By applying unre- lenting pressure through ongoing worldwide political, social, economic, and security programs, General Downing maintains that the global reach and le- thality of the insurgency can eventually be reduced to the point where it can be contained by local law enforcement. Forensic psychiatrist and former CIA operative, Dr. Marc Sageman, an- alyzes the composition, formation, and operation of groups involved in the global salafi jihad that threaten the U.S. and the West. His research shows that the terrorists connected to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were not poor, ignorant, unsophisticated, or mentally ill. Instead, most were young married men from middle class, secular backgrounds, with college and professional degrees. Feeling excluded and alienated from society, they joined or formed terrorist groups following the guidance of friends, family, and spiritual advi- sors. These groups then formed networks on the basis of pre-existing bonds or common operational goals. Given the organization and operation of these networks, Sageman recommends changing the social conditions that promote such networks and engaging and succeeding in an ideological war so that the United States regains its credibility in the Muslim world. iii Israeli counter-terrorism expert and executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Boaz Ganor, identifies character- istics unique to the international radical Islamic terrorist network and the need to engage in a joint international counter-terrorism campaign. Although ter- rorist networks have existed throughout history, the new radical Islamic terror- ist networks possess a unique and dangerous combination of characteristics in- cluding belief in a divine command, experience on the battlefield, willingness to engage in suicide terrorism, and willingness to use non-conventional weapons. To be successful the counterterrorism campaign must reduce or eliminate both the ability of terrorists to perpetrate attacks and their motivation to carry out attacks. Ganor also maintains that the campaign must be a joint international effort and recommends establishing a “League of Nations Fighting Terrorism,” an international court for terrorist crimes, an international intelligence body, an international academic research network, educational programs for sharing and disseminating knowledge, and a system of international charters requiring nations to act against terrorists. Professor Philip B. Heymann, former deputy attorney general of the United States and current James Barr Ames Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, finds that the threat posed by terrorism requires some new laws and international understandings. In evaluating whether highly coercive interroga- tion should be legal in this new world, Heymann considers five relevant factors about which there is a great degree of uncertainty: the effectiveness of coercive interrogation in getting timely, useful, and truthful information; the cost of interrogation; the risk that highly coercive interrogation may be used more broadly than intended and cause the loss of trust in leaders; the national un- derstanding of the relative value of U.S. lives; and the costs of lost respect for legality and the loss of trust in United States upholding its promises. These and other factors lead Heymann (and his colleague Juliette Kayyem) to make a spe- cific legislative proposal that would permit the president to use highly coercive interrogation, short of torture, in life threatening emergencies as long as the form of interrogation would not be prohibited by the Constitution if applied to a U.S. citizen in a similar circumstance within the United States. Professor Oren Gross, director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Uni- versity of Minnesota Law and the Irving Younger Professor of Law, considers the debate about the morality and legality of preventive interrogational tor- ture—that is torture aimed, not at confession, but at gaining information to foil exceptionally grave terrorist attacks. Gross concludes that an absolute ban on torture should be upheld, but that in truly catastrophic cases public offi- cials may have to act extralegally and be ready to accept the legal ramifications of their actions. Among other reasons Gross’s conclusion is supported by the following considerations: general policy should not be based on exceptional cases; symbolism of human dignity and the inviolability of the human body iv prevent “emergencies” from trumping fundamental rights and liberties; an ab- solute ban helps officials resist employing torture in less-than-catastrophic cas- es; it is easier to justify