by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 21, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

tung with criticism about concealing terrorism alerts, FBI Director Robert Mueller went overboard with his current "increased noise" warning. Whipping up bloody images of Israeli discos and pizza parlors, Mueller told members of the National Assn. of District Attys. that suicide bombing was "inevitable" in the U.S., prompting another sell off on Wall Street. But just as critical voices were raised about "nonspecific" FBI alerts before 9-11, Mueller jumped the gun. Recent revelations about the notorious "Phoenix FBI memo"—failing to warn authorities in July 2001 about suspicious Middle Easterners attending U.S. flight schools—has Mueller overreacting. Potential terrorists attending flight schools seem far more "specific" than Mueller's "increased noise," about Bin Laden targeting the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge. It's unclear what's fueling Mueller's doom and gloom, other than dubious reports from low-level Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

      Speculating about suicide bombing on American soil, "I think we will see that in the future," Mueller told his audience. "I think it's inevitable," hedging his bets. New concerns center on unconfirmed reports that as many as 25 Al Qaeda suicide bombers slipped into the U.S. from Central America. Playing bogeyman, "There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it. It's something we have to live with," said Mueller, dampening expectations that the FBI can stop future attacks. Mueller's comments were especially unwelcome, since most Americans count on agencies like the FBI and CIA to protect national security. Despite Mueller's warning, Homeland Security didn't upgrade its current yellow alert rating. Simultaneously, the White House, Justice Department and Pentagon also expressed new concerns about suicide bombings. "We don't know when," said an unnamed DOJ official. Regarding the chance of walk-in attacks, "All we know is it is consistent with patterns we have seen overseas and with the information we have been receiving over that last few weeks," failing, once again, to identify specific threats.

      Vice President Dick Cheney indicated on NBC's "Meet the Press" that walk-in suicide bombings in the U.S. were "a real possibility," though he gave no specifics, either about targets or intelligence. Raising more anxiety, Cheney said that a new attack on the U.S. is "almost and certainty," adding that it's "not a matter of if, but when." While Mueller went further saying an attack was "inevitable," Cheney cloaked his remarks in the murky jargon. Without knowing the "probability," it's difficult to hazard accurate guesses, especially about endless "possibilities." Reacting to criticism that the White House didn't go public with an Aug. 6 CIA briefing, Cheney now thinks that announcing vague warnings lowers political exposure. If another attack occurs, the White House can't be blamed for failing to alert. Unlike forecasting hurricanes, the science of predicting terrorism isn't yet there. Criticism doesn't hinge on failing to connect the dots, it involves waiting eight months until leaked by the press. Alerts don't stop terror, but they send a strong public message—America is still at war.

      Intelligence intercepts, including e-mails and cell phone calls, don't give the whole picture behind predicting terror. Sophisticated terrorists know the game, generating false signals to throw off investigators. Phony cell phone calls are no more reliable than misleading reports taken from desperate prisoners looking for preferential treatment. Security officials know the damaging nature of making vague threats. Sowing public panic doesn't reduce the chance of terror, it discourages the public from leading normal lives—including helping a teetering economy incapable of tolerating another blow. Beyond the obvious, today's warnings keep Americans off balance, allowing the White House to calculate its next moves. With Saddam Hussein on the back burner, making "nonspecific" alerts keep the country on a war footing. Talking about dangerous weapons, "They inevitably will get their hands on them and will not hesitate to use them," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, making his case against Iraq before President Bush's European trip.

      Connecting the dots, the White House, Defense Department, FBI and Homeland Security are all on the same page when it comes to terrorism. While most people don't yet see the connection between global terror and rogue states, the White House makes its best case to Europeans. Rumsfeld points out that the U.S. can't wait for Saddam to supply Bin Laden with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Speaking White House talking points, "This is a government that's gassed its own people," said Bush, seeking European support for his plan to finish off Saddam. "They may have weapons of mass destruction, we just don't know," reminding Europeans that Saddam represents a global threat. Pieced together, Mueller's admission that his agency can't prevent future attacks, makes a strong case for military action against rogue states. Though skeptical, Europeans can be brought around by showing U.S. resolve and offering economic and security incentives.

      Mueller sent the wrong message telling Americans that more terrorism is "inevitable." It's one thing to issue warnings, it's still another to breed anxiety and despair. Americans must have confidence in law enforcement and intelligence agencies commissioned with the job of protecting national security. When officials throw up their hands, citizens lose faith in their government. Few Americans need more convincing that Saddam must go. Bush now needs to convince Europeans that it's time for a management change in Iraq. "As an alliance, we must continue to fight against global terror. We've got to get tough," Bush said on ARD TV, asking Germans to join his effort to rid the world of the Iraqi dictator. On the home front, the White and security agencies must do a better job reassuring Americans, not just exaggerating threats based on suspect intelligence. Getting warnings from Guantanamo Bay or federal prisons won't preempt terrorism now in the works. Before public officials hazard their opinions, they should consider the repercussions and look at the bigger picture.

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 tank specializing in corporate consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.