War on Terror: Something for everyone?

By Jon Silverman

The security forces have never been stronger as they try to tighten their grip on the threat of terror attack. But do people see the War on Terror as something for just the politicians and authorities to be worried about?

The chief prosecutor of the War on Terror, George Bush, is about to visit the UK. But as his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has expressed scepticism about the long-term chances of winning, it is perhaps a good time to ask how effective the counter-terrorist agencies have been.

It is a truism that security failures are often cruelly exposed - none more so than the disaster of 9/11 - whereas the successes go unheralded. According to a senior officer who was in Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch until December 2001, detectives and MI5 officers have foiled at least two terrorist plots unbeknown to the public.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, is more often quoted warning that another attack is inevitable but he, too, says there have been a "large number of successes".

Additional manpower

He adds : "Perhaps the visit of George Bush is the time to announce some of them."

By and large, the British public feels remote from the War on Terror Security analyst Glenmore Trenear-Harvey In Depth: UK on terror alert

Certainly, with an additional 680 officers, the anti-terrorist branch (SO13) is better staffed even than at the height of the IRA mainland campaigns and with the regular deployment of surveillance teams, extra foot patrols, helicopters and boats, the security agencies cannot complain of under-resourcing.

But can they expect more help from the public than they get? One of the great successes of the fight against Irish republican terrorism was the amount of information which came in from members of the public.

Some of it proved vital. The breakthrough in arresting one of the Real IRA team which bombed the BBC, Noel Maguire, came when a landlady tipped off the police that a man resembling a photofit of the bomber was living in a house in Edmonton, north London.

Complacency

Garth Whitty, of the Royal United Services Institute, calls this kind of co-operation "public engagement" and says it has not, so far, been conspicuous in the fight against Islamic militants.

Sentenced to 22 years, Maguire's detention was aided by a helpful landlady

"The UK was complacent at the time of 9/11, believing that 30 years of Irish terrorism had fully equipped us for counter-measures. But we are now facing something different and there's catching up to do."

That is also the view of other security and intelligence experts and many in MI5.

"By and large, the British public feels remote from the War on Terror because the spectacular attacks - 9/11 and Bali - have happened elsewhere and to other people," says Glenmore Trenear-Harvey, a security analyst.

"People had 30 years to get used to the IRA - not just to the threat but the reality of devastating bombs."

He says that until and unless there is an atrocity committed on the British mainland, people will remain sceptical.

It is also true that those who sympathise with Islamic militants are more deeply embedded in their communities than those bombers sent by the Provisional and Real IRA. That also makes intelligence information harder to obtain.

Suffering from sarinitis

For governments, the public is not the only essential ally. The costs of protection are so enormous that the private sector - business, industry - has to play its part.

Britain has yet to see an attack similar to New York or Bali (above)

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, Israel's Secret Intelligence Service, points out that the cost of issuing gas masks to Israel's citizens before the Iraq war came to $300m. "Protecting the utilities - gas, water, electricity - from attack is even more expensive. No government in the world can do it all alone. It needs private initiative and investment too."

In the UK, there has been much planning for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack on a major city. In September, there was a simulated chemical assault on the London Underground at Bank station.

Ever since the Tokyo sarin episode of 1995, the Tube has been regarded as the soft underbelly of security in London. But Mr Whitty says fears have been exaggerated.

"The Tube network is equipped with more CCTV cameras than virtually any other public space so any suspicious activity is fairly easy to spot. And the air filter system is pretty effective at dispersing noxious substances.

"In Tokyo, there were 12 deaths from the attack but many more people suffered from 'sarinitis' - the psychological terror induced by what happened. That's what we have to guard against."

---

Some of your comments so far:

I believe that any sucessess against terrorism should be made public. I realise that secrets have to be kept to ensure future sucessess, but going public with them would encourage the public to buy into the concept of fighting terrorism together as a group.
Mark, UK

The "War on Terror" is characterised by it's total lack of "terror". After the IRA bombing campaigns of the 1980s we know what a terror campaign is, and right now there isn't one. "War on Cynical Opportunist Politicians" would be my preference...
Mark, England

It has to be borne in mind that if the landlady had been wrong in the Maguire case, she would still have been lauded as a vigilant citizen. Nowadays, she is likely to be vilified as a racist or "Islamaphobe" until whoever she reported was convicted.
Steve Mc Ginty, England

The "Tanks Around Heathrow" episode is partly to blame for the public cynicism surrounding the War On Terror. Indeed many take the view that what we are actually dealing with is a War On Dissent. People remember with clarity the words spoken by George Bush when he said, "You are either with us, or against us"
Malcolm, Dundee, Scotland

I think people in the UK are also sceptical about the war on terror as we see it as not our war. Most people tend to think of this as a US problem which Britan was dragged into
Jay, UK

We have enough experience of terrorism to feel the pain of Bali and New York/Washington all too well. The reason I feel detached from the "War on Terror" is that it is the same old war that has been going on for centuries, but now it has been given a name.
Jo, UK

As an American I can't speak for UK residents, but for many on this side of the pond the phrase "war on terror" has lost it's meaning because the Bush administration keeps trying to use it as a synonym for the war in Iraq. The reasons for the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, so the phrase has turned into another meaningless American political sound-bite.
Nathan David Teegarden, USA

You quote an analyst as saying "By and large, the British public feels remote from the War on Terror". No we don't! We just don't get hysterical about it!
Mike , England

Send us your comments on this story:

Terms & Conditions