14 June 2007

State’s Shore Discusses U.S. Strategy for Countering Terrorism

USINFO Webchat transcript, June 14

Rhonda Shore, public affairs adviser at the U.S. Department of State, answered questions in a June 14 USINFO Webchat on the U.S. strategy to counter terrorism and U.S. progress against the terrorist threat.

Following is the transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript

Guest:     Rhonda Shore
Date:      June 14, 2007
Time:      10:00 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT)

Countering the Terrorist Mentality: A Strategic Assessment of Progress Against The Terrorist Threat

IIP Moderator: Welcome to our first discussion in the series "Countering the Terrorist Mentality." You may begin sending in your questions anytime before or during the live webchat.

Today's webchat will begin at 10:00a.m. Washington/14:00 GMT

Rhonda Shore: Hi, I'm Rhonda Shore from the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism and I look forward to chatting online with all of you.

Question [Jack1]: I am reading a very interesting book called "the Black Swan". It is about highly improbably events.  The author - Nassim Taleb - mentions 9/11.  Nobody anticipated it (although some people now claim they did). That is the very nature of such an attack. Taleb says that we learn too narrow a lesson from events such as 9/11. We react specifically by strengthening cockpit doors or restricting air travel.  We have pretty much assured that nobody will ever highjack a plane with box cutters and fly it into the WTC. But we cannot really adapt to the unexpected because it is unexpected.

My question is how can you address the highly improbable? Can we, or do we just have to live with them?

Answer [Rhonda Shore]: I haven't read "The Black Swan", but you raise an excellent point. In countering terrorism, it is imperative that we maintain flexibility in our approach because the enemy continues to evolve. Tactical and operational counterterrorism battles will be won and lost, but we wage these battles in a global war within a strategic context. We must fight the enemy with precise, calibrated efforts that will deny the enemy its leadership, its safe havens, and its financial and criminal networks of support.

We must replace an ideology of hatred with an ideology of hope. Over the long term, our most important task in the War on Terror is not the “destructive” task of eradicating enemy networks, but the “constructive” task of building legitimacy, good governance, trust, prosperity, tolerance, and the rule of law. Social and governmental systems that are characterized by choices, transparent governance, economic opportunities and personal freedoms are keys to victory. Ignoring human development is not an option.

Thus, our strategy to counter terrorism is aimed to enhance our partners' capacity to counter the terrorist threat and to address conditions that terrorists exploit, and is structured at multiple levels: 1) a global campaign to counter violent extremism;

2) a series of regional collaborative efforts to deny terrorists safe haven; and

3) numerous bilateral security and development assistance programs designed to build our partner's counterterrorism capabilities and liberal institutions that support the rule of law, and address political and economic injustice.

Our strategy is aimed over the long-term. Over time, our global and regional operations will reduce the enemy's capacity to harm us and our partners, while local security and development assistance will build our partners' capacity. Once partner capacity exceeds threat, the need for close U.S. engagement and support will diminish, terrorist movements will fracture and implode, and the threat will be reduced to proportions that our partners can manage for themselves over the long term.

Allow me to stress that the United States cannot fight counterterrorism alone, but must work with our growing network of partners, within global, regional, and bilateral contexts to find enduring solutions that transcend violence. Because of our collective efforts and our interdependent strength, we will win this fight. Our citizens and global partners expect no less.

Comment [Butags]: Hello, the Web link seems to be experiencing technical hitches since only the moderator's welcome and guest's introduction can be displayed.

IIP Moderator: Dear "Butags" and other participants. We do see your questions coming in.  Questions appear on the screen only after they are answered by our guest speaker.

Q [Butags]: Thank you Rhonda. This week a suspected terrorist exploded a bomb in the Kenyan capital Nairobi killing one person and injuring 37 others.  Nairobi and the Tanzanians were previously shaken by bomb blasts that killed over 240 people.

How is the U.S. government, if at all, helping authorities in East Africa and Uganda in particular to cope with terrorist threats as the country gears to host Common Wealth heads of Government meeting in November this year?

Tabu Butagira, Uganda.

A [Rhonda Shore]: In the Horn of Africa, terrorists continue to exploit poor governance, lack of basic societal infrastructure, and the failed state of Somalia. As I'll probably say continually throughout this webchat, the fight against terrorism is inseparable from the need to address the underlying conditions, as well as targeting terrorists themselves.

In May 2006 we launched an East Africa Regional Security Initiative in Nairobi with the U.S. Ambassadors to Kenya and Tanzania, victims of the 1998 al-Qaida attack that you referenced in your question, and Yemen and Ethiopia, which are both vulnerable to the effects of instability in Somalia, Djibouti, and Sudan. Through the Regional Strategic Initiative, the State Department is working with ambassadors and interagency representatives in key terrorist theaters of operation to assess the threat and devise collaborative strategies.

We have made progress in organizing regional responses to terrorists who operate in ungoverned spaces or across national borders. This initiative has produced greater cooperation with and between regional partners, and improved strategic planning and prioritization, allowing us to use all tools of statecraft to establish long-term measures to marginalize terrorists.

The meeting in Nairobi generated an action plan that includes development and civil affair programs, port security, and rule of law programs. Much work remains to be done and we will remain vigilant.

IIP Moderator: Today’s webchat is the first of several webchats tied to the Department of State’s current eJournalUSA “Countering the terrorist Mentality.”

Our next webchat in this series takes place Tuesday, June 19 at 1600 GMT. Join George Washington University professor Jerrold Post for a discussion on Collective Identity: Hatred Bred in the Bone.

Q [Chat Participant]: In your capacity is counter-terror viewed as a political endeavor? A military endeavor or a socio-economic endeavor? What is the approach?

A [Rhonda Shore]: I would answer: All of the above. The approach to countering terror must be a holistic one. The fight against terrorism is inseparable from the need to address the underlying conditions that terrorists exploit, as well as targeting terrorists themselves. Stability is not a static phenomenon, and political systems that do not find ways to accommodate the aspirations of their people for participation will become brittle and combustible.

Systems that are characterized by an absence of political choice, transparent governance, economic opportunities and personal freedoms can create incubators for extremism. Practically, this implies that our most important task in the war on terrorism is not the “destructive” task of eradicating enemy networks, but the “constructive” task of building legitimacy, good governance, trust, prosperity, tolerance, and the rule of law.

Q [Jack1]: Is it possible to create a climate of eternal vigilance against terror w/o also creating a climate of eternal fear and suspicion?

A [Rhonda Shore]: You raise an excellent point, and I believe this issue of balance is fluid. The United States is not alone is grappling with the issue of protecting its homeland and, at the same time, remaining a free open society, that is not forgetting what makes us a dynamic, vibrant nation.

We continue to negotiate this area, but yes, we would like to believe we can be vigilant and still live our lives as our founding fathers envisioned. This is why our strategy in the fight against terrorism is a holistic one, focused in large part on promoting economic development, good governance, education, liberal institutions, and democracy.

Q [cario irc]: Do we need to understand the psychological causes of terrorism? Ali Eid

A [Rhonda Shore]: The intellectual and psychological dimensions of the threat are at least as important as its physical dimension, so countermeasures must be adequately coordinated and resourced. Thus, the military component of national power plays only a supporting role in this effort; the primary focus is on non-military influence.

Because the enemy is a non-state actor who thrives among disaffected populations, private sector efforts are at least as important as government activity. Citizen diplomacy, cultural activity, person-to-person contact, economic cooperation and development, and the application of media and academic resources are key components of our response to the threat. Motivating, mobilizing, and supporting such privately led activities are key leadership tasks in the new environment.

Q [cario irc]: Dear Rhonda Shore. Hi, what is the role of the Internet and communications technology in combating terrorism? Ali Eid CAIRO

A [Rhonda Shore]: The role of the Internet and communications technology is of critical importance. The international community’s success in disrupting terrorist leadership and operational capacity has led al-Qaida to focus greater efforts on its misinformation and propaganda efforts. We noted this trend in "Country Reports on Terrorism 2006".

Q [Butags]: Critics argue that US foreign policy in regard to fighting terrorism centers on exporting war abroad while maintaining only the safety of Americans? How can the US redeem this antagonistic brand and institute a universal appeal, even to Muslim countries like Iran?

A [Rhonda Shore]: I disagree with the assertion that U.S. counterterrorism policy is focused only on the safety of Americans. Our policy is focused in large part on enhancing our partners' capacity to counter the terrorist threat and to address the conditions that terrorists exploit. We work with or through partners at every level (both bilaterally and multilaterally), whenever possible.

To implement this strategy, U.S. Ambassadors, as the President’s personal representatives abroad, lead interagency Country Teams that recommend strategies using all instruments of U.S. statecraft to help host nations understand the threat, and strengthen their political will and capacity to counter it.

As mentioned earlier in this webchat, our strategy to counter terrorism is threefold: a global campaign to counter violent extremism; a series of regional collaborative efforts to deny terrorists safe haven; and numerous regional and bilateral security and development assistance programs designed to build partner CT capabilities, as well as liberal institutions that support the rule of law, and address political and economic injustice.

Q [Jack1]: I remember thinking on 9/11 that the world would never be the same. It is really surprising how much has not changed. The U.S. economy shrugged off 9/11 and the world lives much the same as before. Could it be a better strategy to ensure that our system is robust enough to survive some terror attacks rather than set the impossible goal of demanding zero mistakes?

A [Rhonda Shore]: I believe that the world is much changed. Post September 11 cooperative international efforts have produced genuine security improvements — particularly in securing borders and transportation, enhancing document security, disrupting terrorist financing, and restricting the movement of terrorists.

The international community has also achieved significant success in dismantling terrorist organizations and disrupting their leadership. This has contributed to reduced terrorist operational capabilities and the detention or death of numerous key terrorist leaders.

Working with allies and partners across the world, through coordination and information sharing, we have created a less permissive operating environment for terrorists, keeping leaders on the move or in hiding, and degrading their ability to plan and mount attacks. That said, we must continue living our lives in an open vibrant society and the exchange of ideas helps keep our system, "robust", as you say in your question.

Rhonda Shore: I want to thank all of you for participating in this webchat. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to answer all of your questions, which were uniformly excellent. I hope to be able to chat online with you all again sometime.

IIP Moderator: We wish to thank Rhonda Shore for joining us today. The webchat is now closed. Please visit our USINFO Webchat Station homepage for more information on upcoming events and a transcript of today’s discussion (posted within one business day).

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)