*** Prepublication Edition *** Force Protection: Antiterrorism 1997

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command - Fort Monroe, Virginia

From the Commander

   This black book provides an overview on the subject of force protection, specifically antiterrorism. Recent events have emphasized our responsibility to protect TRADOC soldiers and civilians and their families. While we in TRADOC have been very fortunate and have not been victim of a terrorist attack in recent history, other military and government facilities have not been as fortunate. We are taking a lesson from those unfortunate incidents.

   As the United States expands the role of her military through peacekeeping, stability, and humanitarian relief operations, the numbers of those individuals or groups that oppose her policies increases. Adversaries that cannot win against America or her allies on the battlefield can turn to terrorism as an alternate means to advance their cause.

   This book is specifically written for the TRADOC commanders and leaders. I consider this serious business — protecting our people and facilities should be a way of doing business, something we all do consciously and carefully. There are prudent steps every TRADOC leader can take to mitigate the threat. These will be reviewed in this booklet and are presented in great detail in a number of useful publications which are referenced in the enclosure. While the probability of a TRADOC facility being attacked is low, attacks such as that on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City tragically demonstrate that even one random attack is too many.

   I urge all of you to understand your regulatory requirements, learn the threat unique to your locations, make a risk assessment, develop a plan tailored to your specific situation, and train your people.

		Closely review the contents of this booklet and use it as a springboard for your own initiatives. Without positive proactive antiterrorism measures we put our fate in the hands of terrorists and are safe only as long as they elect not to attack. The responsibility for our safety rests squarely on our shoulders, and I am confident that together we can meet this challenge.
		General William W. Hartzog Commander United States Army Training and Doctrine Command

Introduction

   AR 525-13 defines terrorism as “The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

   Terrorism has been with us throughout history. Usually directed against innocents, it was a tactic by which those not otherwise empowered hoped to influence governments and societies. Their goal was to generate fear, horror, and disgust so that succumbing to their demands became palatable in the eyes of the public. The public would then demand changes to government policies that would satisfy the political, religious, or ideological demands of the terrorists.

   An upsurge in terrorism in the late 1960’s, particularly in the Middle East and central Europe, had the opposite effect. Governments refused to accede to terrorist demands and developed expertise in targeting and eliminating terrorist organizations. Protection against the terrorist threat was understood to require both an offensive counterterrorism (CT) capability and a defensive antiterrorism (AT) program.

   The combined success of CT and the dissolution of the Soviet Union forced the terrorist to change his tactics. Hijackings and hostage-taking had been favored; however, as CT expertise increased and safe-havens disappeared, terrorists resorted to bombings and assassinations, limiting their exposure to CT. Simultaneously, terrorist expertise increased significantly in operations security (OPSEC), intelligence gathering, and detailed planning. As the terrorist minimizes his exposure to counterterrorism forces, the relative importance of antiterrorism increases. Whereas counterterrorism requires special expertise and extensive training of elite units, basic antiterrorism measures can be learned and implemented by virtually anyone.

   CJCS Handbook 5260, 1 Dec 96, defines force protection as "A security program designed to protect soldiers, civilian employees, family members, facilities, and equipment, in all locations and situations...."

   The Army’s force protection program, as described in AR 525-13, is built upon five pillars (see page VI). Today, we are faced with a real and growing threat of terrorism in the United States. We can no longer rely on physical security and crime prevention programs to provide protection as a by-product of their focus. Combatting terrorism deserves—indeed requires—attention and command emphasis.

   The United States Army succeeds through the application of thoughtful, flexible regulations and doctrine applied by dynamic and innovative leaders at every echelon. This application has historically given the Army the powerful combination of unity of action and local flexibility. Its antiterrorism mission is no different. We are armed with current, well-crafted regulations and doctrine that provide clear, workable guidance that can be applied throughout every TRADOC facility.

The Threat

   The terrorist threat to TRADOC is real, varied, and not clearly understood. Defining the enemy is the first step toward identifying the threat; this is by no means a simple task. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines the threat as:

• International terrorism, involving groups or individuals whose activities are foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside the United States or whose activities transcend national boundaries.
• Domestic terrorism, involving groups or individuals whose activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction.

   These groups range across the ideological spectrum, often have little in common, and reflect the fragmented threats to the United States found throughout the world following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Both have demonstrated their ability to launch deadly, effective attacks with little warning.

   The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) estimates that more than 15 foreign terrorist groups have both the ability and motivation to operate in the United States. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 by an organization loosely affiliated with the Islamic Group based in Egypt was the most dramatic, but not the only, example of international terrorism perpetrated here. Recent incidents of letter bombs originating from Egypt demonstrate that foreign terrorists will continue to launch attacks within our country. Well-known international groups such as Hamas, Hizballah, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad continue to express their opposition to the United States and retain the ability to strike with little warning.

   Most terrorist incidents in the United States involve individuals or small extremist groups that strike once and are quickly apprehended. A lack of popular support for terrorism and efficient law enforcement limits the number of repeat offenders. Unfortunately, this otherwise positive trend results in most terrorist attacks coming from little-known, first-time assailants.

   Because Americans have little sympathy for terrorists, virtually no domestic terrorists groups exist per se. What exists is an eclectic array of extremist organizations, which do not officially condone terrorism but may serve as breeding grounds for terrorist activities. Extremist groups are organizations that—

• Espouse supremacist causes.
• Foster discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, or national origin.
• Advocate the use of force or violence, or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

   These organizations range from militias to “single-issue” groups espousing specific causes. Although most individuals within these organizations live within the law, the common ingredients of terrorism—such as zealotry for a particular cause or belief, dissatisfaction with the US Government, and skills with weapons or intelligence—are often present. According to unofficial estimates, so-called “patriotic” organizations may number more than 800. Among the more than 200 militias in the United States, it is estimated that more than 40 may be armed. However, our nation’s protection of personal liberties and First Amendment rights precludes taking proactive legal measures against groups or individuals based solely on profiles or distasteful personal beliefs that are legally expressed.

   Despite the wide array of personal beliefs and backgrounds, terrorists have several key similarities that can lay the groundwork for understanding and dealing with the problem. According to CJCS Handbook 5260, terrorists are typically “intelligent, well-educated, obsessed with initiating a change in the status quo, reared in middle-class or affluent families, 22 to 25 years of age...and motivated by religion, prestige, power, political change, or material gain.”

   Many terrorists have also lived on the fringes of extremist organizations and have had prior encounters with law enforcement agencies. They operate in a murky world where extremism, terrorism, and “common” criminal activity frequently cross. They are often known to law enforcement agencies, even if not immediately identifiable as terrorists.

   The terrorist’s weapon of choice is the bomb. Most terrorists operating in the United States recognize that other forms of terrorism, such as kidnappings and hijackings, will seldom achieve the desired results and usually result in their immediate capture. A bomb provides the safety of distance and an immediate, dramatic impact.

   The future of terrorism may follow any of several disturbing trends. The nerve agent attacks in Japan’s subway system alerted us to the relative ease with which a terrorist can obtain and employ weapons of mass destruction and to the apparent vulnerability of the public. Several studies have cited the difficulty of accounting for and controlling nuclear materials—both refined and waste—generated by the former Soviet Union. Though constructing a nuclear device requires precise, sophisticated technology, spreading nuclear contamination does not. A member of a domestic hate group reportedly was arrested for illegally attempting to obtain bubonic plague virus by mail. Increasingly frequent and sophisticated intrusions into our nation’s computer networks sensitize us to the potential threat of cyberterrorism. Though we cannot be certain which of these paths, if any, tomorrow’s terrorists will take, the AT program fundamentals we establish now will be equally effective against the future threat.