home > by publication type > interviews > Terrorism Expert Says Chances of New Attack in U.S. 'Very High'
Email
| Interviewer: | Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor |
|---|---|
| Interviewee: | Jessica Stern, Former Adjunct Fellow, Superterrorism, Council on Foreign Relations |
July 29, 2003
Jessica Stern, a leading expert on terror who was the National Security Council director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs in the Clinton administration, says the United States cannot let its guard down against terrorism because the chances for a second 9/11 attack remain “very high.” The author of “The Ultimate Terrorists” (1999), the forthcoming “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill” (August 2003), and "The Protean Enemy" in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, Stern adds that “the prospect for terrorist groups to get access to nuclear and biological weapons is a very, very grave threat.”
Stern is currently a lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor at cfr.org, on July 29, 2003.
Now that American forces seem to be closing in on Saddam Hussein, what have we learned or not learned about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction [WMD] or its links to terrorist groups?
From what I read, it doesn’t appear that we have learned very much about the WMD program. The fact that apparently nothing has been found doesn’t yet mean that nothing’s there. There are so many different possibilities: that WMD are there, and we haven’t found them; that they were destroyed immediately before the invasion; or that parts of the program were moved. In regard to biological weapons, the most important technology is intellectual, really. It is possible to produce those weapons fairly rapidly if the expertise exists. It is not necessary to harbor a large stockpile to still have a capability.
In regard to connections to terrorist groups, there is very little coming out in the press about that. But I did hear more than I wrote about in the Foreign Affairs article [“The Protean Enemy”] from Osama bin Laden’s biographer, Hamid Mir, who has seen Hezbollah quite active in Iraq. [Mir] reported that many people felt that the only way to fight U.S. troops [in Iraq] was through terrorism, that clearly that was the only way to resist. The notion of serving as a terrorist seemed to have quite a broad appeal, according to Mir.
But isn’t the fighting in Iraq going on now better described as guerrilla action, rather than as terrorism?
You’re right. One of the reasons to call it guerrilla rather than terrorist tactics is that [Iraqi attackers] are fighting U.S. troops rather than civilians. But I was fascinated to hear early on that a group claiming to be part of al Qaeda took responsibility for some of those attacks, while the Pentagon is claiming the attacks are coming from troops who were loyal to Saddam Hussein. Who knows?
Do you think Osama bin Laden is dead?
My guess is that he is still alive.
Some people have said that, if he were alive, we would have heard more from him. What do you think?
I’ve heard reports from Pakistan about reported sightings of bin Laden in Afghanistan for some time. This is an area rife with rumor, so you really don’t know.
You write in your Foreign Affairs article that you have been interviewing terrorists for five years. What got you interested in interviewing them?
I had been working on a book on the prospects of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. I just got an idea that maybe I could talk to some of the individuals who had acquired or attempted to acquire chemical or biological agents, and I realized that these guys liked to talk to me. When I started talking to individuals who claimed to be fighting in the name of God, I found it irresistible to try and understand how it was that someone who seemed to be quite religious, observant, or spiritual could do something so evil. I just had to understand this.
I got a bug and had to go and interview, and I started traveling around. I began this in 1998, and I first went to Pakistan in February 1999. There wasn’t much attention being paid to the groups in Pakistan then. Now, a number of them have joined bin Laden’s International Islamic Front. I think they were willing to talk to me because they hadn’t received a lot of attention at that point. They wanted to be taken seriously, really, as terrorists, even though they described themselves not as terrorists but as jihadis.
Did you ever talk to anyone who worked for al Qaeda?
I never went to seek out someone with al Qaeda because I did not think it would be safe for me. Since I had worked for the U.S. government, it was not a good idea. But a number of the Pakistani jihadis whom I knew well had joined bin Laden’s International Islamic Front. At the time, I had heard they had a connection with al Qaeda, but I did not know how close that connection would become.
Two years ago, your greatest concern was the possibility that nuclear and other weapons would be made available to terrorist groups. Is that still a very high concern?
Yes. I think the prospect for terrorist groups to get access to nuclear and biological weapons is a very, very grave threat. The fact that I have recently been focusing on the terrorists as opposed to the weapons doesn’t mean the latter aren’t a very serious problem. Biological weapons are a particular concern.
A lot of people have said that the technical difficulties of delivering biological weapons make them less threatening. Is that not accurate?
It is accurate. A high-tech delivery system is quite difficult to put together. But a low-tech delivery system is far less difficult. We saw a very low-tech delivery system using the U.S. Postal Service to spread some anthrax. Only 18 people or so were affected, and several people died, but [the incidents] did have a major impact.
In the past, you were very concerned about scientists from the former Soviet Union spreading nuclear weapons. Are you any less concerned about that?
Not really. There has been a lot of progress since I left the government when I was working on this issue. Nevertheless, there are still reports coming out of the former Soviet Union about criminal groups trying to acquire [nuclear weapons-grade] materials. There have even been reports of organized criminals working together with terrorist groups. Unfortunately, this is a threat that is going to stay with us for some time.
On terrorism in general, if you were going to grade on a level of one to ten, what would be the level of concern that Americans should have about another attack in the United States?
Very high. The prospect of other attacks in the United States is quite high but, at the same time, [it should not be a great concern] to individual Americans because the likelihood of any individual falling prey to a terrorist attack is vanishingly small. [Attacks are] a concern mainly for the government. It is imperative that the government take this threat extremely seriously, because the government actually has the capacity to do something about this. There isn’t much that individual Americans can do.
Where would your concerns be focused? On ports, for instance?
I can’t really say. There are a lot of vulnerabilities. You have identified one of the very major vulnerabilities— ports. We know that al Qaeda has been thinking of transportation systems— trains and bridges, for instance. I would be concerned about shopping malls.
So as we near the second anniversary of 9/11, the United States should not let up its guard against terrorism? And no particular reason for believing the war against terrorism is over?
No, I don’t think so.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.