by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 12, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

osting an ominous nationwide terrorism alert, the FBI warned that new intelligence gathered at Guantanamo Bay indicated that the U.S. faced another "credible" threat. With the world visiting the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, the nation's anxiety level racheted up another notch. Fingered for the latest threat was 23-year-old Saudi-born Yemini renegade Fawaz Yativa Al-Rabeei. Though the alert was the 4th since 9/11, it specified no targets and warned that the attack could occur somewhere between the U.S. and Yemen. "The credibility of the threat on this one appears a little stronger than the previous alerts," said an unnamed law enforcement official. "But we don't have any information on any specific events." Without the particulars, there's no way of assessing dangerousness, other than reminding people that we're still at war. When Calif. Gov. Gray Davis went public with threats against key bridges and historic landmarks, criticism abounded for its overreaction. What could be more vague than saying today's announcement "appears a little stronger than previous alerts?"

      Claiming they've collected new evidence in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, the FBI decided it would rather be safe than sorry. But considering the source, tips from the Al Qaeda or the Taliban can't be taken too seriously. Terrorists thrive, after all, on destabilizing populations by promoting unremitting fear. Driving people into hibernation accomplishes terrorists' objectives. Sifting through aborted plans or debris in Afghanistan doesn't warrant the disruptions from dramatic public alerts. With the travel industry suffering, amorphous warnings discourage travelers from getting back in the air. Much of the economic slowdown following 9/11 is directly related to travelers changing plans and staying grounded. Scaling back travel plans hurts a hobbled economy still reeling from 9/11 and an unending bear market. Basing alerts on someone's speculations about "an imminent attack on the 12th," doesn't have the reliability to justify frightening public alerts. Ominous warnings remind people we're still at war, but don't protect citizens against future attacks.

      Issuing alerts to the nation's law enforcement agencies makes sense, but alarming hapless travelers invites unwanted economic fallout. Ordinary citizens have difficulty sizing up dangers and tend to avoid risky situations. Rather than calculate risks, most people just avoid perceived dangers. Nationwide FBI alerts promote unwarranted panic hyped by the media. "Recent information indicates a planned attack may occur in the United States or against U.S. interests in Yemen on or around 02/12/02. One or more operatives may be involved in the attack," states the FBI's latest alert to 18,000 law enforcement agencies around the country. No one faults credible warnings. But when they're based on third hand reports from impeachable witnesses and questionable inferences from unspecified evidence, it's another story. Even fingering suspected terrorists like Al-Rabeei's isn't helplful when his whereabouts remain totally unknown. Without reliable sightings, terrorists become bogeymen, promoting anxiety in otherwise normal people.

      Since Gov. Davis was roundly criticized for his last public alert, his press office now follows the FBI's lead. This time around, it's the FBI who jumped the gun, attributing credible threats to reports from questionable witnesses and evidence. "In the wake of this latest FBI alert, California law enforcement officials continue to be on high alert. Since receiving the notice from the FBI, we have notified all California law enforcement of the threat with the names of suspects via the California Anti-Terrorism Network," said Steve Maviglio, the governor's press secretary, making sure this time that the state followed appropriate protocol. It's not too reassuring that the FBI can't even pinpoint the correct continent for Al-Rabeei. Posting photos on their Web site is one thing, but the FBI and CIA must do a better job of noting the whereabouts of dangerous criminals. Even if Al-Rebeei were connected to Al Qaeda, it doesn't mean that he's ready to strike. "We don't know if the target is in the United States or against U.S. interests or somewhere else," said the anonymous U.S. official, admitting that the last FBI alert was vague and ambiguous.

      Grandstanding about possible attacks alarms the public and tips off terrorists to play it safe. With most covert activities now overt, it's difficult for undercover agencies to do their jobs. Testifying before Congress, CIA Director George Tenet defended his department's track record before 9/11. While Tenet sees nothing wrong, ordinary people can't accept Middle East infiltration, subversion, abysmal airport security and inexcusable hijackings of commercial jetliners. It's one thing to be patriotic, it's yet another to excuse gaping holes in national security. If Tenet's right, then it's not necessary to spend $50 billion a year on homeland security. Clearly, someone was asleep at the switch on Sept. 11. By the same token, firing missiles from predator drones in Afghanistan won't stop global terrorism. With Bin Laden and key Al Qaeda outlaws still on the loose, it's difficult to claim victory in Afghanistan. Crushing the Taliban, dismantling Al Qaeda training camps, and reconstructing wartorn nations also won't end Bin Laden's plans.

      Posting full-scale alerts and making dramatic announcements alarms the public and adds to current economic woes. Managing terrorist threats, the FBI must do a better job coordinating with state and local law enforcement agencies. "We haven't done anything because there's nothing the FBI is giving us that is specific enough to tell us where this is going to occur," said Los Angeles Sherriff's Deputy Ron Bottomlely, acknowledging that federal agencies provided scant evidence for the latest national threat. Everyone wants better security, but no one knows what to do with only vague threats. If threats aren't imminent, they shouldn't be broadcast on the airwaves. Federal authorities must implement a coherent terror response plan, without promoting undue panic. Threats of terrorism—no matter how real or farfetched—shouldn't be used to whip up patriotism or advance political agendas—including the Pentagon's next moves or lobbying for more bigger defense budgets. Unless threats are truly imminent, law enforcement should go about their business quietly without all the fanfare.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think specializing in political consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.