Terror Threats to Target Economic Losses
December 25, 2008 by national
Filed under Homeland Security News
The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa, persistent challenges to border security and increasing Internet savvy, says a new intelligence assessment.
Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks are considered the most dangerous threats that could be carried out against the U.S. But those threats are also the most unlikely because it is so difficult for Al Qaeda and similar groups to acquire the materials needed to carry out such plots, according to the internal Homeland Security Threat Assessment for the years 2008-2013.
The Al Qaeda terrorist network continues to focus on U.S. attack targets vulnerable to massive economic losses, casualties and political “turmoil,” the assessment said.
Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction remains “the highest priority at the federal level.” Speaking to reporters on Dec. 3, Chertoff explained that more people, such as terrorists, will learn how to make dirty bombs, biological and chemical weapons. “The other side is going to continue to learn more about doing things,” he said.
Marked “for official use only,” the report does not specify its audience, but the assessments typically go to law enforcement, intelligence officials and the private sector. When determining threats, intelligence officials consider loss of life, economic and psychological consequences.
Intelligence officials also predict that in the next five years, terrorists will try to conduct a destructive biological attack. Officials are concerned about the possibility of infections to thousands of U.S. citizens, overwhelming regional health care systems.
There could also be dire economic impacts caused by workers’ illnesses and deaths. Officials are most concerned about biological agents stolen from labs or other storage facilities, such as anthrax.
“The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated,” Chertoff said in his year-end address on Dec. 18. “This threat has not evaporated, and we can’t turn the page on it.”
These high-consequence threats are not the only kind of challenges that will confront the U.S. over the next five years.
Terrorists will continue to try to evade U.S. border security measures and place operatives inside the mainland to carry out attacks, the 38-page assessment said. It also said that they may pose as refugees or asylum seekers or try to exploit foreign travel channels such as the visa waiver program, which allows citizens of 34 countries to enter the U.S. without visas.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b7b037ad-327f-45c5-b3c5-9f4915a0989e)
It concerns me when such eminent “authorities” spout remarks like “The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa, persistent challenges to border security and increasing Internet savvy, says a new intelligence assessment.
Undoubtedly there is a linkage to heightened tensions to events that unfold in the Middle East but to assume African developments have some bearing on acts of terror is stretching it a bit thin, after all despite decades of bandage surgery, Africa never really has mattered to the International community, so why should it now, need we highlight Somalia, Rwanda, Congo as fabulous examples of we act when it suits our commercial interests not our moral obligations too.
All that good stuff aside, to assume by and large the acts of terror are anything other than religious wars is again naive. We don’t like to utter such things because if might “offend” someone, well I am sorry if it does, but I say it as I see it, prove me wrong. When the leadership of these fanatical terrorist groups stand up and say words to the effect of infidels shall die unless you become Muslim, it really leaves little to the imagination.
Lastly, the assessments that this little ruckus will go on for the next 5 years is a bit far fetched, in the words of a the former British Prime Minister (Tony Blair) this conflict shall be with us for a generation at least. As a nation we must “wake up and smell the coffee”, there a lot of people in the world who all have different agendas and who don’t like us, they are yearning for the opportunity for us to legitimize their struggle by providing them a platform “to have a chat” thereby strengthening their position further.
The new Presidency has many challenges ahead, one hopes he has the political spine to stand adversity square in the face and take tough decisions that will be inevitably presented to him, I sincerely hope he is a man of his words, time will tell. One hopes his inferred solution of giving everybody a hug and a cup of tea to resolve problems was an election promise, in otherwords something to be broken.
Mr. Trow,
I do agree with some of your points. I do not, however, think that the Africa threat is “thin”. In the last couple years alone the “extremists” have had a major surge in a few African nations. There have also been many outside influences supporting this expansion.
I do agree that there has not been enough (or anything) done in Africa to alleviate the suffering and genocide that we have all seen on the news and in print. With this lack of will by the World to help the internal struggles within Africa, we are helping the recruitment of our enemies within these nations. Although the Middle East and Asia are largely responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks we cannot be lax with the threat that is now brewing within Africa
When he says “Africa” he’s almost assuredly referring to Somalia. Osama was rumored to hold out there after 9/11. It’s about to be taken over by an Islamist government. Finally, last month the first American suicide bomber killed himself there http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6fa79eba-ce37-11dd-8b30-000077b07658.html Somalia is worrisome.