GETTING IT RIGHT ON THE TERRORIST THREAT

by

Larry C. Johnson

The recent lame attack on my reputation by the likes of pseudo journalist, Jeff “Gannon” Guckert and his intellectual bedmate, Richard Schmitt of the Weekly Standard, claims that an op-ed I wrote in the New York Times in July 2001 demonstrated how wrong I was on the issue of terrorism. Oh really?

What this band of smear merchants did not tell you is that they were drawing from an attack first launched against me in October 2003 on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. All of these folks forgot to look at the op-ed I co-authored with Milton Bearden, a distinguished CIA operations officer, on November 7, 2000. Our key point in the op-ed states:

The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.

As you can see below, we warned the Bush Administration about the threat in much the same way that Richard Clarke did. President Bush and his advisors chose to ignore us. The facts are the facts.

A New Piece in the Terrorist Puzzle

By Larry C. Johnson and Milton Bearden

November 7, 2000

New York Times

A remarkable piece of intelligence, made public in late October, drew little notice, but is likely to force President-elect Bush to re-focus U.S. policy on combating terrorism. The new information demonstrates that the United States must do more than launch cruise missiles at camps in Afghanistan in order to bring justice to the victims of past terrorist acts, punish the perpetrators of those crimes, and ultimately protect its citizens and its interests. Confronting the threat requires a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations.

On October 20, the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, accepted a guilty plea from Ali A. Mohamed, an Egyptian-born former US Army green beret sergeant, and one of six men indicted in the U.S. for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. Mohamed not only confessed that he took part in a conspiracy to murder US citizens in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and East Africa, but he tied the assaults directly to Saudi exile Osama bin Laden. More subtle, but perhaps equally important, Mohamed’s confession also linked bin Laden with another terrorist-at-large — a murky man whose American victims over the last two decades far outnumber bin Laden’s — Hezbollah security chief, Imad Mughniyeh.

Half of all Americans killed by international terrorists since 1980 have been murdered by groups led by Mughniyeh and bin Ladin, with the former being credibly implicated in the lion’s share of the killings. Two hundred sixty Americans and 116 foreigners died in the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, operations believed to have been carried out by Mughniyeh. He was also behind the 1985, hijacking of TWA 847 and the murder of U.S. Navy diver, Robert Stethem, a passenger on that flight. And Mughniyeh is believed to have masterminded the kidnapping of more than 50 hostages in Beirut, including CIA Chief William Buckley and U.S. Marine Colonel Rich Higgins, both tortured and murdered while in captivity.

Mughniyeh hasn’t limited his terror to American targets. He has been implicated in the bombings of the Israeli installations in Argentina in 1992 and 1994, and more recently, in a terrorist rocket attack against the Russian Embassy in Beirut.

The importance of Ali Mohamed’s confession is not just that it represents the first credible, public evidence that Mughniyeh and bin Ladin have been collaborating, but that Iran has been backing them. Mohamed has given sworn testimony that between 1991 and 1993, he handled security arrangements for a meeting between Mughniyeh and bin Ladin where they established their common goal of forcing the U.S. to withdraw from the Middle East. According to Mohamed’s testimony, bin Ladin was inspired to replicate Mughniyeh’s success in compelling the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon in 1984, following the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut. Mohamed’s testimony also adds authority to a media report that Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security convoked a terrorist conclave in Tehran in 1996 that included Mughniyeh and a senior aide to bin Laden.

It remains to be seen if the bin Laden-Mughniyeh connection will be implicated in the attack on the USS Cole, but preliminary evidence seems to point in that direction.

Mohamed’s sworn testimony highlights shortcomings and next steps of U.S. policy in battling terrorism. The Clinton Administration has done a good job of arresting and putting in jail terrorists responsible for the World Trade Center bomb, the plot to blow up 11 US jetliners, and the murder of CIA officers outside the entrance to the Mclean Headquarters. But, it has made little progress in putting together a coherent, powerful policy to pressure state sponsors like Iran and Syria to stop hosting terrorists like Imad Mughniyeh.

Mughniyeh and Bin Ladin are the two most prolific mass murderers currently at large. A new administration will have to take on the fundamental task of bringing to American justice the two men who have killed so many Americans. The full range of options, including military force, covert action, clandestine operations and diplomatic pressure must be brought to bear.

The experience of the last two decades has shown that putting terrorists in American prisons is a very effective policy, but we must be prepared to take other steps if that option is not feasible. Ramsi Yousef and the Blind Sheikh, both convicted in the World Trade Center bombing, and Mir Amal Kansi, convicted murderer of three CIA employees in Virginia, have stood before American justice and are quickly fading memories in the world of militant Islam. By contrast, U.S. attempts to blast Osama Bin Laden out of his Afghan redoubt have elevated him to levels of mystical power in the Islamic world by him. Between law enforcement and military force, there is a middle ground of covert and clandestine operations yet to be exploited.

The Bush administration must strive for a consistency to its application of diplomatic and legal pressures to the states implicated, even passively in these acts of terror. Putting pressure on Afghanistan is pretty straightforward. The United States has enlisted the UN in isolating Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban diplomatically as part of its demand that they hand over bin Laden for trial. Although the Taliban have questioned the U.S. charges against bin Laden, Ali Mohamed’s testimony may provide the proof the Taliban need to move bin Laden out of Afghanistan and at least to an Islamic court in a third country acceptable to the United States.

Putting pressure on Iran, Syria, and Lebanon to stop hosting terrorists is a more daunting challenge. Under Clinton, restrictions on travel to Lebanon have been lifted. Iran and Syria, meanwhile, remain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, but there have been efforts afoot to normalize relations. President-elect Bush must be clear that there can never be normal relations as long as these countries give terrorist like Mughniyeh and Bin Ladin a place to sleep or train.

The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.

Milt Bearden in an author and a former senior official of the CIA; Larry Johnson is a former State Department counter terrorism official.