U.S. less likely to be attacked, experts say
WASHINGTON – On the heels of the second terrorist strike in two weeks on the London mass transit system, terrorism experts had some words of comfort for jittery Americans: It’s less likely to happen here.
“I wouldn’t say it’s inevitable in the United States,” said Juliette Kayyem, co-director of Harvard University’s project on U.S. legal strategy to combat terrorism and an expert on counter-terrorism and homeland security.
“Part of it are the homegrown elements abroad, with the militancy of the clerics, which are allowed to flourish in ways they’re not allowed to flourish in the United States,” said Kayyem, who has advised the federal government on terrorism and national security.
Jim Carafano, a homeland security analyst and 25-year Army veteran who testifies frequently to Congress on countering terrorism, also sees Americans as safer than Europeans. He said that “terrorists perceive the United States as a harder target, and the terrorists are going after the things that are easier, just to show they can commit terror.”
“It’s primarily occurred in Europe and the Middle East because it’s easier to get from the Middle East to Europe, and they have an infrastructure there – the communities, the cells. It’s easy to hang out there. And terrorist travel within Europe is easier than it is to the United States,” Carafano said.
While they are quick to say that the threat of attacks on trains and buses – like those recently in London and last year in Madrid – exists here, people with expertise in terrorism and homeland security add that America poses a tougher target because of other factors as well.
Muslim populations in Europe tend to be large and concentrated, helping newcomers or homegrown militants blend in.
Large numbers of Muslims in Europe feel disenfranchised and European governments tend to tolerate calls for radicalism and even jihad, phenomena rarely seen in the United States. That can produce both recruits and aid in carrying out plots.
The blow dealt to al Qaeda by the war in Afghanistan and other actions has forced the terrorist group to rely on locally sponsored attacks by loosely affiliated groups, as opposed to strikes planned by al Qaeda leaders, and such groups are at the very least less visible in the United States.
Over time, terrorism expert Daniel Byman warns: “This sort of mid-level attack is likely, just because it’s easy to do, there’s an open set of targets, it’s very hard to prevent and America remains at the top of the list for terrorists around the world.” Byman works at the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University and has worked with the government on intelligence and terrorism issues.
But what works in America’s favor at present in Byman’s view “is that there doesn’t seem to be a local group to do the attack itself or to provide logistics or support.”
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, the country’s largest Muslim advocacy group, says the attitudes of American Muslims make it unlikely they will assist terrorists.
“If American Muslims were familiar with people who wanted to carry out such attacks, we’d be the first to report it. But we’re not seeing that, which I assume is a good thing,” Hooper said. “I haven’t heard extremist rhetoric or calls for violence in any of the dozens of mosques I’ve visited around the country.”
Yet some experts believe that terrorists have the capability to launch attacks on mid-level U.S. targets such as shopping malls or mass transit systems and see their absence up to now as ominous.
“I believe al Qaeda could carry out bomb attacks similar to London if it chose to do so inside the United States,” said Heritage Foundation terrorism analyst Jim Phillips. “But I believe it’s holding back because it wants to make its next attack inside the U.S. a big one so it can’t be accused of growing weaker since 9/11. I believe it’s saving its best punch for the U.S.”