President Bush has warned of a "different type of war" on terrorism. Wired News asked Stephen Sloan, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma, what a 21st century war might mean.
Sloan's books include Simulating Terrorism and the Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. He has also served as a consultant to the U.S. military.
Wired News: President Bush called the Sept. 11 attacks a "declaration of war against the United States." Who have we declared war against? If we're fighting Osama bin Laden, how does the government fight a war against an invisible enemy?
Stephen Sloan: The type of war we are dealing with ultimately is a protracted form of warfare in which there won't be decisive victories. It's often called "dark war" or "war in shadows," because we don't have an identifiable enemy or battlefield. It's not the type of war the United States is used to waging.
The United States and its allies will have to have the resolve to engage the enemy over a long and protracted period. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be immediate strikes. But these strikes, unlike the cruise missiles of the past, shouldn't be merely symbolic. They need to be targeted and strategic. It is far more than solely a military conflict. There will be an absolute need for effective intelligence operations and Internet warfare. It will require our ability to engage in sophisticated warfare technology including a wide variety of clandestine and covert operations.
WN: What are the effects of Bush declaring war against what is, essentially, an unknown enemy?
Stephen Sloan: The positive effects will be that instead of essentially reacting to incidents and viewing them, for example, as more of an enforcement issue, we now can and will consider engaging in offensive operations. When we use the military, as compared to the police, we will use the maximum amount of force. We won't face the constraints with police, which is the minimum use of force. That will open up more-prepared operations in the long haul.
WN: What about the impact on civilian life?
Stephen Sloan: As you can see now, the National Guard and military are being activated under the concept of "homeland defense." There are serious debates -- should the military be involved in a role in law enforcement or have an expanded mission? This has already taken place in one way, earlier with the war on drugs, and later with weapons of mass destruction.
With the tragedy just taking place, homeland defense is moving on at a very rapid rate. But as time goes on, there will be serious issues of civil and military relations as to what shall be (the) level of military involvement. If it is involved, it would require intelligence for planning, and will it be involved in intelligence collection?
WN: Are we going to have a loss of liberty?
Stephen Sloan: The Civil War period saw what was called a constitutional dictatorship. There was a suspension of civil liberties, including habeas corpus. World War II saw a crisis government. When under massive assault, a democracy will recognize the fact it will have to take measures it would not ordinarily use in peace times, lessening civil rights and suspension of due process. When the crisis is over, the liberties are returned. The problem with this is: Who decides when the crisis is over, or will it be over?
WN: What type of toll will waging this war take?
Stephen Sloan: The American public can anticipate additional incidents against Americans overseas and in the United States. If we get into this battle, which we are, we will be increasingly targeted. We have to recognize that it will be a test of the American public resolve. We will be seeing soldiers subject to casualties and the American public subject to casualties. Also, as a result of these operations, innocent civilians will be killed overseas as a result of the conduct of our military.
WN: What do you think of potential "blowback" as a possible result of our actions in this war? Was this recent act "blowback" from our 1980s involvement in Afghanistan?
Stephen Sloan: Not simply there (in Afghanistan), but for example, in the Balkans, where we chose to support the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Front. We have to be very, very careful who we support, because it indicates something very significant in the future. When you are engaging in these types of conflicts, we are making short-term tactical alliances with both governments and individuals to run down terrorists. But we need to be careful that we don't provide intelligence or arms so they can't do what the Mujahedeen did as (a) form of blowback.
There are those who engage in terrorism as a criminal enterprise to raise money. I'm concerned we will begin to see alliances between terrorist groups and criminal groups who use terrorism to raise money. In the end, terrorism becomes a form of organized crime with a level of violence that one would not see in the past. We are really concerned about that issue in the former Soviet Union, such as the Russian mafia and other groups who are more than willing to sell high-tech weapons, including nuclear weapons, to make money.
WN: What type of a role will electronic surveillance play?
Stephen Sloan: There is no question in terms of our technological capabilities in regards to electronic intercept and sensing. It is a remarkable ability we have to collect out of the air. But increasingly, you are dealing with small free-floating independent (terrorist) cells that do not deal with electronic networks. Therefore, how does one collect information on a network that is discussing plans to bomb a building in a safe house in Milan? In that case it's important to have human intelligence to collect information on that level. When you need to know their capability and targets, you can't get that out of the airspace or out of cyberspace.
WN: Congress moved quickly last week in lifting some restrictions on wiretapping and eavesdropping. What do you think about the increased use of the FBI's Carnivore system?
Stephen Sloan: I understand the need for more electronic surveillance on the Internet, but it can become very intrusive in regards to individual privacy. For example, if someone has an interest going back in time or has critical views of government policy and all of a sudden his or her words are picked up and ends up being on a watch list, it raises serious issues over the long run. I think, and I'm emphasizing this, I've had strong feelings about the need to combat terrorism but I've recognized that democracies have been recognized as targets because of our openness, and because terrorists have political ideologies they want to change us. In the long run, are we now entering the Age of Surveillance? What Orwell said in 1984 seems basically to be kindergarten in terms of what is being used now.
WN: So why is this war different?
Stephen Sloan: I think technical intelligence has a vital role to play. One of the problems we have is that we are being flooded with data, not knowledge. The Internet is providing a tremendous amount of noise, not a clear signal. To cut through that noise will be very difficult. Terrorists now know they can engage not only in horrors of real terrorism but also virtual terrorism by using the Internet to magnify the threat, confuse the public, and be picked up by media. With my students, I have to constantly deal with the fact that they not totally rely on what they get on the Net, and also that they use hard copy -- books -- in their research. We're going to be overwhelmed by a lot of conflicting, erroneous data, and not knowledge.
WN: What will be the role of public opinion?
Stephen Sloan: Ultimately, what we are talking about is national will or resolve. Clausewitz, the military professor, talked about the enemy's "center of gravity" or (point of) weakness. The north Vietnamese knew our weakness was public opinion. The Tet Offensive was a military failure, but it helped to change the U.S. public opinion. We have to recognize there will be casualties and losses. We are in this for the long haul. There needs to be public support or it can be turned into a liability.
One thing that has been a concern is the concept of asymmetric war, where a very smaller, inferior power converts the strength of a much superior power into a liability. By conventional means, they use other means, such as destroying aircraft and infrastructure. We are witnessing very much asymmetrical warfare. Unfortunately the terrorists are very good at this. We used to look at the world as a so-called state-centric system. We now see the emergence of a wide variety of non-state actors, including corporations and terrorism. In the United States, we see the privatization of violence.
WN: How is bin Laden's group organized?
Stephen Sloan: States, militaries, police and large corporations use basically a classic hierarchy, whereas terrorists from over the years have used a flatter hierarchy. (In the flatter hierarchy) the separation between support staff and line function doesn't exist. So ultimately, the very organizations (that) the traditional ladder hierarchy must develop are counter (to) terrorist cadre and the capabilities to meet this.
WN: So law enforcement and the military will have to reshape themselves into entities resembling autonomous terrorist cells?
Stephen Sloan: Yes. And the Catch-22 is, if you're going to have this, how are you going to hold these people accountable?
