Combatting Terrorism: Some Policy Implications
Abstract
The current administration in Washington has officially recognized the problem of terrorism as an issue of paramount importance. These official statements must now be followed by concrete measures. It is a breathtaking plunge from speeches against terrorism to effective action against it. Governments are almost always at a disadvantage in dealing with terrorism. Terrorists create dramas in which they and their victims are the central figures. Except for the occasional successful commando rescue, governments seldom get to play the roles of heroes. More often, governments are seen as reactive, incompetent, impotent. Intelligence has failed, security has been demonstrably breached, the government is now forced to make concessions to save the lives of hostages or appear callous and indifferent to human life if it does not. It is unable to satisfy the public's appetite for action against terrorists. Between spectacular incidents, the measures that governments can take against terrorism seem prosaic. If terrorists seize embassies, governments may allocate funds to increase security at diplomatic facilities for the following fiscal year, a logical and useful step, but somehow dissatisfying. As terrorism affects the United States now, or as terrorism may affect the United States in the future, we face three discrete problems yet related from the standpoint of their policy implications: (1) terrorism directed against American officials and other citizens abroad; (2) a possible campaign or campaigns of terrorism in the United States; and (3) a terrorist event of great magnitude involving a major direct or indirect threat to public safety.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Aug 01, 1981
- Accession Number
- ADA511839
Entities
People
- Brian Michael Jenkins
Organizations
- RAND Corporation