A major maritime terror incident is inevitable; it is merely a matter of where and when. Why is this? The answers are fairly simple.
First, let us not be naive about Islamic terrorism; its aims are to destroy Western society, destabilize the Western economy, and instill terror in the citizens of Western countries. To the terrorists, we are fundamentally evil and their aim, which they see as completely legitimate, justifies any means to bring it about.
You cannot negotiate with these terrorists and, contrary to popular belief, deterrence will not work. The terrorists have already made their peace with their Maker and are now intent on bringing about the downfall of the West without further regard for themselves or their families. Their cause is a crusade leading to a noble death. How can you reason with people who have absolutely no regard for human life? You cannot.
The counter to such fanatical terrorism is to root it out, kill the terrorists before they can carry out their aims, and cut off their sources or finance and support. Doing this does not follow the tidy patterns of any previous war and calls for not only a degree of ruthlessness bit also a great deal of determination and political courage.
Today, the terrorists are winning part of their quest. With the help of the Western media and its relentless drive for the headline, every act of terror is reported in detail and this helps intensify the sense of fear in many westerners. The images of death and destruction are being clearly imbedded in the minds of Western society with resulting calls to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This leads to the second point.
Thanks to the Western media, and to an degree the political "left" in the West, the terrorists are winning the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as long as they are winning there is no need to embark on alternative terror campaigns. When Western political leaders try to explain that keeping the terrorists, by any name, engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan helps prevent the spread of terror, they are absolutely right.
Should the West be foolish enough to concede either Iraq or Afghanistan to the terrorists, not only will those countries be plunged into chaos, but the terrorists will be given breathing room to plan new outrages on the West and our economy. The recent bombing in Britain and other European countries would appear minor in comparison to the likely scale of a new wave of terror.
Terror can easily be instilled in a community though attacks on population centres, as we saw on 11 September, 2001, with side effects on the economy. Fortunately, the Western economy is fairly resilient and can rebound from such shocks, but it would be unlikely to withstand a concerted assault on several fronts.
Today, the container industry has become one of the arteries of the Western economy and, unfortunately, is vulnerable to destabilisation in many places. A degree of redundancy does exist in some places, as became evident in the 1992 Kobe earthquake when trade was shifted quickly to other ports, but there are many places where this does not exist. While a single highly vulnerable port, like Halifax, could be crippled with ease, the effects would be felt by the local economy rather than the global economy which could quickly shift to another port, such as Montreal of New York. Multiple attacks on, say, all the major ports along the eastern seaboard accompanied by select attacks on inland transportation systems would have a significant global effect and a massive impact on the North American economy.
Industry in North America and much of Europe still depends on the steady flow of oil, especially from the Middle East. Also, as a collective society, we have developed an almost unsustainable thirst for oil products. This is a huge potential vulnerability in national security.
The other major artery of the Western economy is the electronic data transfer system that uses both satellites and land lines to transfer financial information and related management information. Destroy or even disrupt those systems and the Western economy grinds to a halt. While some redundancy exists, one has to wonder if it is adequate. For instance, are the land terminals for the new undersea data transfer cables adequately protected? I doubt it!
Another venue for maritime terrorism is the cruise ship industry. We have already seen a couple of relatively small terrorist attacks against passenger shipping, but few people have actually considered the implications of an attack against a major cruise ship either under a hostage situation or as a total destruction of the ship, its passengers and crew. Such an incident while the ship is alongside in a major port would be devastating and be a huge boost to the terrorist's aims of instilling fear and wreaking havoc.
Do not underestimate the planning skills or the financial and other support available to the Islamic terrorists; they are huge and come from sources we might prefer not to think about As we have already seen, support now comes from "home-grown" sources under the guidance of radical Imams in European, North American, and Australian cities. Perhaps these have only been nuisance incidents so far, but that does not mean they cannot grow in intensity.
Are we taking adequate steps to reduce the risk of attack by terrorists? No, because we have not yet begun to take the threat seriously. Taking precautions doesn't mean that we have to adopt a fortress mentality, which ironically would only assist the terrorists as we tried to defend ourselves. Rather we have to do several things.
- Keep the terrorists engaged in places like Iraq and Afghanistan despite calls for withdrawal. This makes it harder for them to open a "second front" against the West.
- Convince the Western media to play down, rather than play up, the details of acts of terror; in other words, don't give the terrorists the headlines.
- Continue to close down the terrorists sources of funding and other support, especially from within Western countries. Put the terrorists and their friends on notice that their unlawful invasions into Western society will be addressed resolutely.
- Build a far higher degree of redundancy in the container industry with a much greater degree of interoperability between ports and transportation systems. This will run contrary to the present profit incentives, albeit slim, for this industry, but survival should come first.
- Break the Western dependence on Middle East oil.
- Break the "just-in-time" delivery philosophy that has come to drive industry; return to a production and delivery system that has a little flexibility in it.
- Impose even greater security on the use of ports by cruise ships.
These are obviously not total answers, but are logical steps on the road to reducing the vulnerability of the Western economy to terrorist attacks. Although general in nature, each has a distinct maritime aspect. Taking these steps will take political courage, and such courage is a function of a clear vision of national security rather than a clouded view of how security and perceptions of rights and social benefits have to be played against one another. It may also require a little self-sacrifice in some of the luxuries we presently enjoy - survival should be reason enough to make those sacrifices.
The message needs be come clear: without security there are no benefits or rights. In this, national security has a maritime dimension that we cannot afford to overlook. Those who quibble over the details of government plans to do something to improve our maritime security clearly do not understand the larger picture!
