The 9/11 attack was planned to hit several American iconic symbols, like the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and unsuccessfully, either the Congressional Buildings or the White House by a 4th plane that was ‘officially’ recorded as 'crashing' before reaching its planned target.
It appears that the targets of the terrorists have changed since, shifting from iconic symbols to transport systems whose destruction would provide the maximum impact on the ordinary people’s lives. These new type of targets signal a change of strategy, as could be seen in the Madrid train bombings, the recent bomb attacks on London’s Tube system, an unsuccessful attempt to bomb the French train tracks near Troyes last year, and evidence of sabotage to derail a German high speed train track in 2004, though the Germans denied it was due to terrorists (probably to prevent widespread fear).
The Madrid and London cases indicated that the attacks were designed to be multiple coordinated events, so as (a) to minimise preventive intervention and (b) to derive maximum impact. But all, if successfully executed, would have caused enormous effect on the lifestyles and convenience of the ordinary public for considerable long duration.
The change of strategy could be due to the following factors:
(1) Iconic symbols like the White House, Palace of Westminster, Australian Parliament Building, etc would be highly guarded, especially after 9/11.
(2) Transport systems, other than airlines or airports, are relatively easier to attack. As we all know, since 9/11, the security focus has been on the prevention of hijacking of aeroplanes for either suicide flights or agricultural spraying of toxic bio-chemical agents. Unlike airports and aeroplanes, defending train and ferry systems, especially the former would be a veritable nightmare. The train system may be attacked anywhere on its very widespread network. So we may expect the attacks to be against trains, and to some extent, perhaps ferries rather than aeroplanes.
(3) Affect adversely the livelihood and lifestyles of ordinary citizens. This has a politico-strategic objective, which is to convince the public, suffering from inconvenience, to exert political pressure on their governments. The impact should be long lasting, like closing down a much needed train line or perhaps an insurmountable threat to potentially kill many people, rather than actually killing people.
A successful example of such an objective was the Philippines government's withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. Immature, unthinking or reckless minded people (non-Filipino, of course) condemned the Philippines government for the ‘cowardly’ action.
But when one is in a seat of presidential responsibility, knowing that there are virtually half a million Filipinos working in the Middle-East, one would not hesitate one single second in withdrawing the small number of Filipino troops - in Iraq more for solidarity with a world-renegade USA than serious combat significance - in order to protect a considerably larger number of Filipino citizens working in the Middle-East. It's a no-brainer.
But I suppose, for someone who sits comfortably and cosily safe and far away from such areas, it’s brave talk all the way – acting tough with other people’s blood, like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and company.
The Spanish withdrawal of its troops from Iraq doesn't fall under this because that policy decision was a followup of the victorious Socialist government's pre-election promise, made long before the Madrid train bombings.
The murderous attacks on people per se are more for shock effect or out of sheer crazy and mindless retribution, but the far greater impact for a superior political outcome would be to paralyse the ordinary public's movements, livelihoods and thus lifestyles. The bomb attack on the double-decker bus seemed to be an aberration if the objective was to affect public opinion. Bus bombings have more to do with causing deaths and harm per se, thus it’s usually motivated by hatred, as the cases in Israel, rather than the hope of any political-strategic outcomes.
Maybe the case in London was a mix of objectives – politico-strategic objectives and expression of hatred. But the terrorists shouldn’t be surprised if the latter brings about a different outcome - the London Blitz, Dresden and the US 'shock & awe' bombings, including its heinous assault on Fallujah, had demonstrated that people could be resiliently defiant.
Next – what is the next likely target ………….
No comments:
Post a Comment