Stopping terrorism no easy task

By Gabriel Koch

JAKARTA (JP): With whispered plots it begins. In carnage the schemes are laid. With cries of swift and effective retribution does the West respond. In murmurs of apathy and forgetfulness does the hue and action fade away. Thus the cycle of terrorism continues through the times. It usually starts with a warning as it began in the land of sand and oil.

In November of last year U.S. army offices were bombed in Riyadh. In May, the culprits, Islamic militants, were beheaded for the attack. Immediately following the not-so-swift but certainly effective retribution, the threats began. And, though U.S. servicemen were told to upgrade their security, the threats and security were largely ignored.

Said USAF Staff Sergeant Alfredo Guerrero there had been a lot of "strange things" going on near the base. "We felt that we were being watched." Certainly that were being watched. Terrorist generally do not go about their work blindly. They think, they observe, they plot and plan. And in their observation they can be caught.

Why people were allowed to stake out the military compound and why -- when feeling that they were being watched - U.S. forces failed to implement increased security measures are questions few people want to ask. But we need to ask them. We need to because there are 19 people who cannot ask them. We need to ask them because therein lies the real question. Why did these men die?

The answers are, unfortunately, general. They died because winning the war on terrorism means not preventing terrorist attacks, but catching them after the fact. They died because of a misunderstanding of the terrorists' motives. They did because they were too arrogant to believe they could die. But, ultimately, they died because those who should have been responsible for securing the base both on site and in the Pentagon failed to learn from history.

The Saudi bombing has drawn the inevitable comparison with the Lebanon bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and the French paratroopers. Usually the comparison is used to ask the question, will this force the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia? But that is not the real issue. What is, is how could the same thing happen twice?

Back in Lebanon, before the bombs that claimed so many lives, there were warnings. There were rumors. And there were some very believable sources telling the Pentagon just what was going to happen. Unfortunately nothing was done. And the U.S. did pull out of Lebanon in embarrassment as a result.

Now it is the 1990s. Threats were made. Warnings were received. Observers were noticed. And still no serious precautions were taken to prevent the bombing. History repeating itself. But why, specifically, nothing was done to prevent the attack we do not and may never know.

We do know why they were killed: Terrorism stripped of idealistic frills and political-religious mumbo-jumbo is in the end about greed and power. Its motivations lie in the desire to have or keep and the notion that no act is too horrendous if it brings the terrorists closer to their goal. In the case of the Saudi bombing the desire is simple: The Islamic militants want control of Saudi Arabia. To do so, they feel they need to get the Americans out of Dodge.

It's a simple formula really. The terrorists' plan is to foster ties with a power-mad leader who wants greater control over the world than they already have. Leaders in countries such as Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Next is its attack on whatever protective, restraining Western force is about, which usually means bombing Americans. This is a smart step on two counts. 1) It garners support from anti-West countries and 2) it attracts supporters from the populace who would not directly support a charge against the ruling power.

Eventually, foreign businesses are scared away. A compromise for control is forced from the ruling house. Finally, full control is taken and repression is implemented according to the twisted interpretation of whatever doctrine is espoused to keep control.

But the five-path plan to success which works so well in self- help groups is generally illusory for terrorists. Where there is money to be made (like in Saudi Arabia) or there is a strategic point to dig into the odds, the Westerners are not going to stay away, nor will they stop giving support to the ruling house.

While Lebanon, where the West did leave, may stand out in peoples' minds, the comparison is apples to oranges. There was no money to be made in Lebanon. It was not a strategic point. There was no way to really influence the Arab countries from there. It was an unfriendly, hostile climate. It was following the French, which is almost always a bad idea. In short, it was a dead-end trap that the U.S. would have loved to have pulled out of if they hadn't gotten themselves in such a Vietnam-like quagmire there.

Saudi Arabia is different. First, the French didn't go in there which is at least a sign that being there is not a huge mistake. It has a friendly climate. It has money. And it's a point of major strategic importance. As such, the U.S. is not about to pull out of the area. And because of that, the bombing in June, the bombings that will happen in subsequent months, will, in the end, be pointless.

But so to will be the Western response.

The culprits may be caught. Considering Saudi justice someone will undoubtedly lose their head. "International cooperation" and "The War Against Terrorism" and other media-oriented phrases will be bandied about for public consumption. And though voices will be loud and many and just maybe some "swift and effective" action will occur, ultimately it will be as a shout followed by a murmur.

Terrorism and its response works in waves of death and indignation. A terrorist does something and the West cries out in white-hot rage. Time goes by and that rage becomes a forgotten ember in history's ashtray.

While it is possible that something may be done in response to this latest act of terrorism, it is doubtful that any real, continuous, pro-active efforts will come out of it. If this was a possibility then it should have occurred 15 years ago and just maybe 19 servicemen would still be alive.

Stopping a terrorist hell-bent on destruction is no easy task. If a terrorist is smart, is careful and patient, and is willing to die, they will have some successes. But these terrorists weren't that smart. They made threats instead of keeping quiet. They were observed making their observations. As such, they should have been stopped.

But the loud rhetoric that followed Lebanon and the measures that went along with it had died to a murmur by the time Saudi Arabia occurred. And though there are shouts now, they too will ultimately fall to whispers. And in the murmurs the cycle of terrorism continues. And in the whispers lives are lost.