Yemeni soldiers search a car at a
checkpoint on a street leading to the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa on Aug. 4. (MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images) |
Summary
Global, nonspecific threats such as those that prompted recent U.S. embassy
closures and travel warnings have rarely proved credible. These precautionary
measures appear to be the result of two separate threats, one attack against an
unspecified U.S. embassy and another against travel infrastructure -- presumably
an airliner. In response to the embassy threat, the U.S. government announced
Aug. 4 that it had extended the closure of several embassies in the Middle East
until Aug. 10 and that African posts would now be among the embassies closed. In
response to the airline threat, Washington issued a global travel alert running
from Aug. 2 to Aug. 31. The travel warning and the closures have commanded the
media's attention and have led to much speculation about the source and the
credibility of the threats, but more often than not these threats fail to
materialize.
Analysis
Most attacks against embassies have involved a large
vehicle bomb, an armed assault or a combination of a vehicle bomb and armed
assault. Such was the case with the
U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, in September 2008. To mitigate the impact of a
perceived threat, the United States will close an embassy, increase security and
request that the host country bolster its security presence at the compound.
Many of the posts that were closed in response to
the August threats happen to have very good physical security measures in place
due to their locations in the Middle East, which poses higher threat levels to
U.S. facilities. For example, the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa was built in accordance
with the security
standards established by the Inman Commission. Therefore, it is designed to
withstand bomb attacks and armed assaults. Still, even well constructed
buildings are vulnerable to mob attacks like the one directed
against the U.S. Embassy in Tunis in September 2012. Only the host country
security forces can provide protection against such threats.
The threat to embassies has been a persistent
feature of the age of modern terrorism, and so has the threat to airliners and
travelers. As for the threat to aviation, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has
a history of failed attacks against commercial
and cargo
airliners using cleverly disguised explosive devices. While these devices
have failed in the past, it is likely that the group's bombmaker, Ibrahim
al-Asiri, has been able to solve the problems that afflicted his past designs.
In fact, in a thwarted underwear bomb plot in May 2012, the alleged suicide
bomber turned his device over to Saudi officials, and the device was reportedly
of a different design from the one used in the failed Christmas 2009
attempt.
Threats to embassy buildings and airliners
have been a persistent feature of the age of modern terrorism. While the tactics
and tradecraft used to attack these targets have changed in response to
evolving security procedures, diplomatic facilities and airliners have
nonetheless remained desirable targets. Jihadists will continue to be drawn to
them even as the jihadist threat continues to shift from one posed by the al
Qaeda core to one centered on regional militant groups that have adopted the al
Qaeda brand name, such as al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula and al Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb.
Not Another Benghazi
As the threat persists, however, that fact remains
that many warnings are issued for threats
that never actually materialize. Warnings can be invalidated by bad
information, deliberate disinformation or postponed or canceled plots. This is
especially true of global, non-specific warnings, such as those against U.S.
embassies in the Middle East and Asia in mid-2001.
Terrorism is an
enduring reality. There were people planning attacks against U.S. embassies
and international aviation before these alerts were issued, and there will
continue to be people planning attacks well after the warning expires on August
31. The U.S. State Department has maintained a "worldwide caution" since 2001
that is updated every six months or so. This means that people must not allow
themselves to be caught up in the hype that surrounds such warnings. Rather they
should keep
terrorism in perspective and practice
prudent situational awareness.
Font: Stratfor
No comments:
Post a Comment