Counterterrorism and Homeland Security: The International Perspective

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about counterterrorism.

I think I have a unique perspective on the interagency cooperation to fight the war on terror. I am a former military officer who also served as the Ambassador for Counterterrorism at the State Department, where I was part of the policy deliberations within the interagency to build what we now call the Global War on Terror. While I was in that role, I was asked by the Secretary to take over the 32,500-person organization called Diplomatic Security, which defends our embassies and is on the front lines in our fight against terrorism. From the perspective of these different roles, I would like to talk about the global war, how it is developing, and what I think it demands from us in terms of a national strategy.

Some have asked about the national strategy in the Global War on Terrorism and I would refer you back to the President’s speech on the 19th of September 2001. The President was very simple and eloquent in his discussion before the Congress and the American people. He said two things. First, that this would be the most unique war that we have ever fought in the history of our country—unique in the sense that the enemy did not wear uniforms and was not located in a fixed spot on the globe and therefore there was no geography to give bounds to whom this enemy was. Second, he said that we would have to unite our military, economic, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic capability—and those of our allies—in a global effort to defeat an enemy who has used terrorism as a political tool.

I didn’t say it as eloquently as the President did, but that was his message. Uniting our capabilities is what we have striven to do in the interagency arena for the last three years. We have had some success and we have had a whole lot of bureaucratic fights on how that strategy should be executed.

I want to emphasize the fact that the President also said on that day that our efforts would not be limited to U.S. power. To defeat this enemy, we would need a global coalition working with us. Secretary Powell and others in our Department worked very hard with you (in the Department of Defense) and other U.S. and foreign colleagues to build that global coalition against terror because terror is a global phenomenon and we don’t have the military force, the economic force, the law enforcement force, and the intelligence force to do this alone. We must do it with our partners.

From our department’s perspective, the preparation of the battle space in which this fight is being waged is the responsibility of our American diplomats. Diplomacy prepares the battle space for all of our warriors to operate in, be they military, be they treasury, be they intelligence, be they law enforcement. All of those elements are fighting this war today in very effective ways in virtually every corner of the world.

Another thing that the President talked about in that speech was the notion of capacity building. Capacity building is something that we don’t like to talk about, because it seems at times to be related to nation building, which I think is a controversial term these days. Coalition building is about improving the capacities of our friends and allies around the world to be able to do what they need to do to defend their borders so that we don’t have to go and defend their borders. For example, we cannot do in Mali what we can do in New York. We want the government of Mali to have the ability to control its borders and know who is coming and going, to interdict terrorists, to have information systems that enable their immigration people, to be very effective in identifying terrorists and bringing them to justice. It takes time and investment to be able to do that. What we at the State Department try to do every day is to create the capacity for our neighbors and friends around the world to fight this war with us as effective partners.

Another thing comes to mind as I stand before you. In my Air Force days growing up, we used to talk about who were the real “warriors.” We used to talk about those who flew as being the warriors, because at that time, we were preparing to confront enemies such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. People in investigations or counterintelligence like myself were not considered the warriors. But I would submit to you that we are all warriors today. If you work for this government, if you’re a contractor for this government, your contribution to this war on terrorism is as important as any that of any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine and the work they are doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe. It is all of our partners in government and in partner nations who are making our mission goal of victory possible.

I was just in Baghdad with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. When we reviewed the security situation in the Green Zone, I saw we had infantry, armor, and artillery forces working along with Military Police, with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, with the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of State in a coordinated effort to help the Iraqi people in the fight against terrorism in Iraq. Not in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought that we would be at that level of integration today, but we are. It is amazing what you can accomplish when it doesn’t matter who gets the credit. It was heartwarming to see all those people—including Ambassador Negroponte and his team and General Casey and his team—working together and not worrying about who would get the credit. We need to work on that kind of cooperation back here in Washington and improve the interagency process. One of our biggest challenges in the Global War on Terror is getting the information to the people who need it in time to make a difference.

Let me shift a bit and talk about three fundamental changes from our perspective at the State Department that have occurred in the war on terrorism that make this a challenge for us.

The first is what I call the “ism” of Islamic extremism. It’s my view and that of many in our department that while al-Qa’ida certainly was behind the attack of 9/11 on our country, al-Qa’ida as an organization is no longer the threat that we face. Yes, al-Qa’ida does exist; it exists in many forms around the world and has many allies. But the underlying political philosophy of Islamic extremism—the nihilistic view that one has to create a new caliphate—is growing more adherents than one can simply attribute to al-Qa’ida. Those adherents are in places where we aren’t fighting yet. Think about the Sahel. Think about the Madrasas in the Sahel and what’s being taught in those Madrasas. The same people who were teaching in Pakistan are teaching in the Sahel today.

Think about the children and the generation who are learning about the worldview that says the West threatens Islam and therefore the only way to defend the faith is to take up arms against the West. That view is growing around the world. So we must fight al-Qa’ida, but we must also fight the political philosophy of Islamic extremism. This is no small task, given the scope of that philosophy and its means of transmittal via modern communications and technology.

During my time as the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, I talked to many world leaders about Islamic extremism. I gained an interesting insight while talking to an individual from the government of Singapore about the phenomenon of Islam in the South Pacific. He said the region used to consist of different kinds of Muslims; that they used to have a different approach to Islam. They were more moderate. They adhered to the tenets of Islam but they were not zealots. With the arrival of the Internet came the views of some extremists operating in the Middle East. Suddenly, many Muslims in the South Pacific tried to be more Muslim than those exporting an extremist ideology from elsewhere. They began to get the idea that in order to be true Muslims, they had to be militant.

This example of a militant philosophy infused into a moderate practice of Islam is something I believe is taking place globally, and it is what I call the “ism” of Islamic extremism. Overcoming this is the fight we have and indeed our children will have. It is every bit as tough a fight as the fight that we had against Communism, Fascism, Nazism—you name the “ism.” That is the fight that we have today.

The second change that we have in the war on terror is the shift to soft targets. To defend our soft targets, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. Our enemies only have to be right once to prove that they are still effective. Globally, it is hard for us to defend the entire world. You have heard talk in soccer or football about defending the entire field, and that is the challenge we face today when soft targets are involved. This work is tough to do without friends, without a full team effort. We have hardened our embassies, our bases, and our borders. We have made it more difficult for them to attack the traditional targets of our nation and they’ve turned to the strength of the American economy, to our American businesses overseas, individuals traveling overseas, and the NGO community overseas. These are potential targets that evoke the notion of America and that America itself is a target.

The third change is the dimension of immediacy that is the result of tremendous advances in communications and technology. I am preparing to give a speech on Friday at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. I want to tell the new graduates who are joining the ranks of federal investigators and law enforcement officers that they are entering a completely different environment from when I was new at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) 35 years ago. At that time, I was issued my typewriter and a briefcase full of books. These graduates will be issued laptop computers with global communications capabilities. With all the modern tools we use to communicate, there is no comparison to the way we did business back then. The world they are entering as professionals is fundamentally different than any world I could ever have imagined when I began my career or even when I served as the commander of OSI.

The tremendous communicative potential of technology today also means that terrorist incidents and extremist ideology can easily gain global significance. People can reach out to any point on this globe with any philosophy and have that philosophy read, absorbed, and sent out for further dissemination. Because these ideas and events are decreasingly isolated by time and distance, a crucial part of our approach over the long term must be a strong and sustained public diplomacy effort.

Because of these fundamental changes, the Global War on Terror is a particularly unusual battle space for the military. It indeed requires more than a military response. We have to utilize all other aspects of national power. The unique contribution of the Department of State in this respect is diplomacy. It is diplomats who are responsible for sustained international political will and effective capacity building. They prepare the battle space for our various warriors to be more successful.

I have an example of this diplomatic battle space preparation I would like to share with you. Today, Pakistan is one of our most important allies in the war on terror. Soon after 9/11, our government was clear about the need for Pakistani support in the war on terror, and the invitation to Pakistan to cooperate came at the highest diplomatic levels. Soon thereafter, the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf, came forward with an offer of great support to our military efforts in Afghanistan. They also received our financial, military, and technical assistance to raise their own capabilities to the point where they contributed significantly to the fight against terrorism in Pakistan.

This example also highlights the need to bolster the capacity of all states to fight terrorism. Despite our unmatched power, we recognize that the United States will not be able to win without the help of others. This is a global fight that requires a global system to defeat it. Simply put, the United States cannot investigate every lead, arrest every suspect, gather and analyze all the intelligence, effectively sanction every sponsor of terrorism, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or find and fight every terrorist cell.

One final thing I’d like to mention is the importance of the ascendancy of international law as a mechanism to ultimately remove the legitimacy of terrorism as a political tool. The measured application of international law should eventually eliminate terrorism as a viable means to achieve political ends. If we do not, the required levels of involvement across our national power, including not just military strength but all forms of national power, will be too high to sustain over the long term. If this is a fight we are going to win, than international law is key in ensuring victory.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at your very important conference. I should have said this at the outset but I am personally—and on behalf of the Department of State—very grateful for all of your efforts in this war on terror that we are fighting together. My colleagues at State are just as committed to fighting this battle as you are—indeed they are on the front lines with you right now in Iraq. Again, thank you.