| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Al Qaeda’s Next Strike |
| 2004-05-22 |
| No link yet, so posting it all Summary Al Qaeda likely has a number of sleeper cells still embedded in the United States, and logic dictates that Houston, Texas, is high on their target list. Analysis In our last Terrorism Intelligence Weekly, Stratfor discussed improvements in intelligence-gathering efforts that have aided the ability of Western governments to predict or pre-empt attacks. At the same time, however, the threat within the continental United States -- where al Qaeda is likely to attempt a major strike before the presidential elections -- also has intensified. Logic dictates that Washington, New York, Dallas, Houston or Austin, Texas, could be targeted in an attack that quite possibly would involve a "dirty bomb." Continuing with this line of reasoning, Houston appears to be the most likely target. Sleeper Cell Tactics Concerns over the safety of U.S. citizens are legitimate. Well- placed U.S. government counterterrorism sources have confirmed the presence of al Qaeda "sleeper cells" within the country. Although it is not known how many cells could be in place, intelligence indicates that militant operatives are in place, to be deployed for the next Sept. 11- or Madrid-style attacks. Analysis leads us to believe that a cell could be in place in Houston. Sleeper cells are difficult to ferret out -- with profiles that do not differ greatly from those of the rest of the public. Like the Sept. 11 attackers, militant operatives do not hesitate to violate Islamic custom by shaving, dressing and behaving so as to blend into their temporary communities. As a group, they are overwhelmingly male, they are typically physically fit, and they often practice martial arts -- sometimes in formal school settings. Their identities may be false, but not always. However, it is their actions -- not their appearance, ethnicity or religion -- that can expose sleeper cells and help intelligence and law enforcement agencies to disrupt attacks. First, these militant units are not totally independent: Courier services are used to send money and orders to operatives, whose leaders frequently have had contact with members of other cells. If one operative is arrested, pocket litter and phone records can lead authorities to other cells. And there certainly are opportunities for arrests. Sleeper cells fund some of their activities through credit card and financial fraud, and members often use false identification documents. Elements of these crimes are much easier than terrorism charges to prove in court, which gives police and federal officials some traction in disrupting attack planning. Other activities also provide clues: The premier example, of course, is that the Sept. 11 team had to learn how to fly airplanes -- but more universally, virtually all terrorist attacks follow a period of eyes-on surveillance of the target. At the tactical level, counterterrorism experts have observed that members of al Qaeda’s sleeper cells carry out many duties within their units -- which increases the chances that an arrest could throw off a planned attack. For example, analysis of past attacks has revealed that the same members tasked with carrying out preoperational surveillance for a strike also work on the logistics and attack teams. Operationally, this places them at greater risk than groups who use highly trained, specialized cells for each function. Moreover, a study of past al Qaeda attacks and training manuals reveals that the group carries out extensive preoperational surveillance. This renders militants vulnerable to detection by countersurveillance teams, who could trail them back to the rest of their cells -- the bomb-makers and attack teams. For intelligence and law enforcement agencies, this is the best time to pre-empt a terrorist attack: If one militant can be caught conducting preoperational surveillance, the entire cell can be uncovered and destroyed. In the two-and-a-half years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the efforts of the FBI and CIA to root out these cells have paid dividends. FBI Director Robert Mueller asserts that federal officials have disrupted dozens of planned attacks, and sleeper agents have been uncovered and deported. However, we do not believe that all of al Qaeda’s sleeper cells have been identified or crippled. In addition to pre-existing cells, al Qaeda also has had plenty of time to infiltrate more operatives into the United States. In the span since Sept. 11, al Qaeda also has had opportunities to conduct surveillance of its next target, plan out the attack and fine-tune operational details. In the past, al Qaeda attacks have occurred at a particular pace: Stratfor on several occasions has noted a two- to three-year span between major actions by "al Qaeda prime," interspersed with numerous, smaller strikes that likely are carried out by affiliated groups, with or without al Qaeda’s support. Within those operations, there also are predictable patterns of activity. The pre-operational surveillance period is the most effective phase in which to interrupt an attack -- but few law enforcement and corporate security agencies have the expertise to take advantage of this weakness. Why Houston -- and How? For the next major al Qaeda strike, preoperational surveillance is likely under way. The timing for an attack within the United States is nearly perfect: while Americans are engrossed with Iraq, presidential politics and the rising price of oil. Logic dictates that cells are in place and awaiting a signal to act; as in the recent attack in the Saudi city of Yanbu, operatives could have had time to infiltrate the potential target, observing the lay of the land and the routines of security forces. Although Stratfor believes that strikes could be carried out against multiple targets of opportunity, certain factors -- including time and al Qaeda’s targeting criteria -- lead us to conclude that Houston, Texas, is near the top of the list. Not only is it home to much of the nation’s oil infrastructure, which carries significant economic implications, but it also is a city of 5 million people -- and the home of former President George H.W. Bush. A strike here would lend a personal nature to the attack that would send a clear message across the desk of President George W. Bush. In our view, the strike would be sophisticated and spectacular. It likely would involve either a dirty bomb deployed within the city, or a conventional attack against oil infrastructure, carried out on the scale of Sept. 11. In this case, we believe a truck bomb is the most likely delivery mechanism -- perhaps a stolen delivery van, helping to mask the driver’s intentions. This scenario was discussed by a sleeper cell in New York City before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and al Qaeda has shown a tendency to return to previous attack plans. The assailants might use a ramming car to break through perimeter fences while either shooting or running over security guards. However, it also is feasible that they could use legitimate company identification cards in order to slip past the guards. Once near the target, the explosive would be detonated, killing the attack team. A truck bombing would succeed in taking out only a small portion of an oil complex, whereas a stolen or hijacked airplane could cause much greater damage. At an oil processing facility, this type of strike would have a psychological impact on the American public -- creating a smoky explosion that would be broadcast far and wide. Strikes against supertankers also are plausible. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden recognize that oil drives the U.S. economy. Returning again to proven tactics, they could choose to strike at platforms in the Houston Ship Channel -- much like the successful strikes against the French tanker Limburg and the USS Cole, and the failed attempt against the USS The Sullivans. This scenario is a classic asymmetrical operation: The sleeper cell, roused to activity, will operate as a military unit and will overcome the immediate response by police or security forces. A short time is all the militants will need. Because it is asymmetrical, the strike will target and overcome security forces at their weakest point. It would be over before a strong response could be mounted. This forecast is not cheerful, but if corporate security forces can learn new skills -- quickly -- that allow them to disrupt attacks early in the surveillance stage, this outcome could be thwarted. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #20 Yeah. This one is pretty simple. Islam is going to attack us again on the homeland. We will begin eviscerating muslim cities until Islam is beyond any doubt, standing down/made completely incapable of functioning let alone making war. It is sad, but the muslim suicide murder-bomber is but a microcosm to the macro muslim death spiral. Islam seems to be wearing a bomb vest, and the #11 bus is pulling up. I hope the bus isn't packed when islam blows. |
| Posted by: Victory Now Please 2004-05-22 3:27:19 PM |
| #19 If they really want to cause serious trouble, the attack will come on West Coast harbors. You can count the number of good harbors on the Pacific coast on one hand and have fingers left over. Blow up a tanker and shut down shipping in LA or the Bay for a month or two and watch the economy tank. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-22 4:11:05 PM |
| #18 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted] |
| Posted by: Victory Now Please TROLL 2004-05-22 3:27:19 PM |
| #17 - Does anyone has the slightest idea of how the USA would/should respond to a non-conventionnal attack such as a dirty bomb? The US would attack to a non-conventional attack the same as we would to a conventional attack. We wouldn't go nuclear but we would see a sudden stop to the harrassment of the President as he tries to fight the war. You might see war bonds appearing to help pay for the war and you might see some serious pressure applied by the American street upon Bush to do something about Saudis, and immigration, and oil in general. I would also expect formal declarations of war against Syria and Iran. - In case of an attack on Us soil, especially if major or non-conventionnal, how would that affect US political life? (ie would that be the deathblow to GWB, would that force Kerry to change his approcach on WOT, etc, etc...?) GWB would win in a landslide after an attack on US soil and most blame would be placed on those that have tried to hamper the war effort in one way or another. - How would the international community (Tm) react to such an attack, especially EU, given the level of anti-americanism going on here? (And subsidiary question : would you care?) Just to indicate the level on hatred & resentment toward the US in genral and GWB in particular, it suffices to say that Moore's "Farenheit 911" is one of the favorites for la palme d'or at the Cannes film festival. Those in charge of Europe have helped America's war on terror from an intel and police point of view, that would continue. Europe wouldn't help us militarily but they would help us politically in the UN, and by sanctions on anyone that was found to be supporting whomever planned the attack which is really all we ask. They may help out in Iraq with peacekeepers if things are quiet there by then. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-22 3:13:31 PM |
| #16 My gut instinct is that if Al Queda could have attacked the US they would have long ago. They've made big noises about attacks and then nothing happens. I think what they have managed to do is determine how to up the chatter levels and lay false clues to spread terror where they cannot. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-22 3:05:41 PM |
| #15 And p.s., no matter what happens or where, it'll be George's fault. The Greeks will blame him if the Olympics get bombed. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4972 2004-05-22 1:51:27 PM |
| #14 One measley bomb at a chemical plant ain't shit. There was a huge explosion down there a few months ago & nobody blinked an eye. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4972 2004-05-22 1:49:47 PM |
| #13 If the Oleolympics gets seriously attacked this summer, and the EU does not hit the problem head on, then Madrid-sytle capitulation will accellerate and Europe is lost. It will be an interesting summer and fall. The civilized world better watch its collective six. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-05-22 1:34:59 PM |
| #12 In the case of a dirty bomb, it's possible not many people would die, depending on the size of the conventional explosive used, you would just have lots of people evacuating the affected area. The initial shock wouldn't be as great as 9/11, and the realization of what had happened would only set in slowly as people realized that no one was going to be allowed back to the evacuated area, as happened in Chernobyl area. It is unlikely that anyone other than Al Qaeda or its affiliates would do something like this, and we are already pursuing those folks at a high tempo, so I am not sure what more could be done by way of retaliation. There would probably be increased pressure on the Prez to step up the tempo in the WoT. I think it would affect Kerry's campaign negatively more than Bush's. Nothing would change in the Europeans' generally negative view of us. I was in Europe shortly after 9/11, and heard lots of whining about Bush even then, long before the Iraq war. The European attitude is a longstanding psychosis, going back decades, as I observed first hand over there in the early 60's. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-05-22 12:27:47 PM |
| #11 I hate to say this but maybe an attack is what is going to save the country. America has a very large Muslim-American fifth (americans by birth and naturalized ones) column that, if it is not taken care of soon, it will destroy the country from within. Here in Saudi Arabia, we have hundreds of muslims who carry american passports who will like nothing better than to see the US destroyed, even if it means their own destruction. These people stupidity is bottomless! |
| Posted by: Anonymous4617 2004-05-22 12:25:06 PM |
| #10 Austin? Now that would be weird! |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-05-22 10:31:19 AM |
| #9 has Stratfor ever been right about anything since 9/11? Yes. They correctly assessed idiot market in the US. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-22 10:21:38 AM |
| #8 AzCat saved me the trouble of writing out my thoughts. One prediction: If/when there is another attack within the U.S., CAIR and the Arab community both here and abroad will immediately begin whining about their fears of retribution and their loss of freedom before the dust even settles AND before we even confirm who did it. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-22 10:20:24 AM |
| #7 1) I agree, the gloves are off at that point but the source of the material used in the attack would dictate the available responses. For example, if the source were a Russian criminal enterprise you might well see increased cooperation between the US and Russia as political showmanship is pushed to the back burner in favor of a more direct reseponse to Islamistfascist terrorism. On the other hand, if the source were Iranian you might well see a non-conventional response against portions of that nation's nuclear program. The options are simply too wide and varied to account for completely here. 2) We're split almost evenly as a nation right now. Any attack on US soil will push political dialogue and the electorate to the right. The Democrats lost the majority's confidence on national defense during the Viet Nam era and have never recovered. A hypothetical large pre-election attack puts Bush back in the White House in a landslide. 3) I don't care what the international community's opinion is today and I won't care in the future. The goal of the Islamofascists is the destruction of western civilization. They began the war, they are continuing the war, and they will escalate the war until either we, or they, perish. The international community seeks to maintain an unacceptable status quo in which the borders of nation states that sponsor ever-more-violent Islamofascist terrorism are sacrosanct, thus their opinion is irrelevant. If the international community wishes to become relevant to US opinion again, they need to stop mouthing platitudes and proceed with action against nation states that sponsor Islamoascist terrorism. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-05-22 9:05:56 AM |
| #6 Not to suggest there's no risk of such an attack, but . . . has Stratfor ever been right about anything since 9/11? |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-05-22 8:18:34 AM |
| #5 1) Off comes the gloves, here and in Iraq and elsewhere. 2) No idea. 3) As they always have -- The USA had it coming since it reacted to the first attack militarily and 'unilaterally.' No. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-05-22 8:03:17 AM |
| #4 The lefties and Mike Moores of this earth would be so keen too see this happen they'd probably openly celebrate such an attack. I can see the headlines on the next days copy of Al Gaurdian now 'George Bush Caused this', watch them revell over the death totaliser.Its gonna be another one of those excuses too set up commisions and inquirys and all sorts of other crap after too to try and pin the blame on someone while all the time the media ignore those who actually carried out the attack,we will also of course see Arab media personalitys trying to explain to us westerners that we have to alter our ways if we want to stop this sort of thing happening again. Esentially its all our fault. :( |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2004-05-22 7:59:39 AM |
| #3 And has in fact won one. |
| Posted by: Evert V. in NL 2004-05-22 7:51:34 AM |
| #2 3 questions for the knowledgeable and/or pundits (that's meant as a compliment): - Does anyone has the slightest idea of how the USA would/should respond to a non-conventionnal attack such as a dirty bomb? - In case of an attack on Us soil, especially if major or non-conventionnal, how would that affect US political life? (ie would that be the deathblow to GWB, would that force Kerry to change his approcach on WOT, etc, etc...?) - How would the international community (Tm) react to such an attack, especially EU, given the level of anti-americanism going on here? (And subsidiary question : would you care?) Just to indicate the level on hatred & resentment toward the US in genral and GWB in particular, it suffices to say that Moore's "Farenheit 911" is one of the favorites for la palme d'or at the Cannes film festival. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4134 2004-05-22 7:47:53 AM |
| #1 Austin? Keep your eyes open Mucki. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-22 6:39:11 AM |