The Shifting Front of a New War

The recent bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia is merely the latest in a string of bombings against what the media and military have labeled “soft” targets. Though highly decentralized and fought across the globe, these attacks are the battles that will continue in a new war with no clear end in the immediate future.

While 9/11 violated the consciousness of America more than any event in generations, two years later our nation has still failed to grasp many of implications of that catastrophic attack. Buzzwords like “asymmetric warfare” and “unorthodox attacks” saturate the national dialogue. The unfortunate truth, however, is that those engaging in terrorism have concluded that since victory against tanks, jet-fighters, and modern militaries is nearly impossible, that their best strategy is to avoid direct military conflict. Yet this formula, which in the past usually produced localized guerilla movements, has today created a vastly different series of attacks against civilian targets.

What then has changed—why have private companies replaced governmental and military facilities as the primary targets of attacks?

Terrorism is as much about CNN as it is about TNT. With few, though notable, exceptions, terrorist attacks are principally effective not because of any immediate strategic effect, but more for their symbolic nature, media attention, and the psychological repercussions of a nation watching the events live on television. While few people witness even the most dramatic of incidents directly, globalized technology allowed millions to watch the second plane crash into the World Trade Center as it occurred or the demolition of the skeleton of the Oklahoma Ci ty Federal Building.

Not only did the recent bombing in Jakarta symbolize an attack against Western presence overseas, but with military forces on high alert to prevent another Beirut nightclub bombing or USS Cole, civilian targets are extremely alluring. Media coverage sensationalizes this attack against innocent civilians rather than soldiers—a distinction that the terrorist does not make—and the terrorist has only to breach relatively low securi ty. If opportuni ty plus motive equals terrorist potential, then the best way to limit the threat of terrorism for an individual target is to reduce opportuni ty by increasing securi ty.

And while governmental actions to reduce the threat of terrorism are indispensable, many aspects concerning the physical securi ty of a hotel, arena, shopping center, or any facili ty are inherently left to those managing these gathering places. Most facilities have some securi ty mechanism in place, but today securi ty must go beyond merely punishing criminal behavior.

Amotz Brandes
Managing Partner
Chameleon Associates LLC

<< Return to Newsletters | Print this page