Back to basics a sound anti-terror strategy
The observations made this week by a US commission investigating the September 11 attacks are only preliminary findings, but they do raise some interesting questions about the way in which America is seeking to prevent future terrorist outrages.
The commission has highlighted a litany of fairly basic errors made by immigration officers as being responsible for allowing the hijackers to enter and stay in the US. These shortcomings, combined with botched intelligence and a failure to react to warning signs, point to a conclusion that the attacks, which claimed more than 3,000 lives, might have been avoided. It is all too easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to say what should have been done. But close attention ought to be paid to the findings of the commission, as they provide a valuable insight into what needs to be done in future.
So far, they suggest the best way in which the US can guard against similar attacks is to improve the overall operation of its intelligence agencies and, in particular, its immigration services. According to the commission, between two and eight of the 19 hijackers possessed fraudulent visas. Six of them had overstayed and failed to comply with other immigration rules imposed on them. There was a failure to properly investigate suspicious behaviour. And Mohamed Atta, believed to have been the ringleader, had the wrong student visa. Nevertheless, the terrorists were allowed into the country and were able to stay - and carry out their dreadful deeds.
Measures aimed at sharpening immigration officers' performance of relatively routine procedures and providing the resources to make this possible should, perhaps, be the focus of the Bush administration. This might prove a more effective means of protection than the more visible, headline-grabbing moves to fingerprint visiting foreigners and install gun-toting sky marshals on planes.
For example, the gut instinct of one customs agent may, as the commission noted, have helped prevent the White House being hit on September 11. That officer refused entry to a Saudi Arabian citizen who gave him 'the chills'. There is evidence to suggest the man who was turned away would otherwise have become the 20th hijacker, joining four others on Flight 93. This was the airliner which failed to reach its objective when passengers tackled the terrorists. It crashed in a field, causing no loss of life on the ground. Maybe the absence of a fifth terrorist allowed the courageous actions of the passengers to succeed. It is, at the very least, a possibility.
The high-profile steps being taken in the name of US security might have more to do with the presidential election campaign than with effective means of keeping out terrorists. Getting back to basics could prove a more appropriate strategy.
