It is a quandary as old as Aesop and as fresh as the morning's news: When should a threat prompt a warning? And how many warnings without either disaster or a confirmed defusing does it take to make even the worst threat seem somehow less urgent, or credible or real?
Almost every time the administration of US President George W. Bush has issued an elevated-threat warning over the last two years -- often as a result of menacing but imprecise intelligence -- it has faced such questions. Administration officials from the president on down say they have little choice, and they believe that such warnings have a deterrent, disruptive effect on plotting by al-Qaeda.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
On Sunday, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge not only issued a public warning for financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, but also took the unusual step of conducting a conference call with network anchors and newspaper editors to alert them that the warning was coming. As he had before, Ridge pledged increased vigilance, then urged even those workers most directly affected by the threat to say, "Well, we know what you know, and we're going to go about leading our lives."
But how?
"In a society such as ours is becoming, it is intolerable that officials might know about an impending attack and not make this knowledge public," said Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas who is an expert on international security affairs.
"On the other hand, it hands the terrorists a costless if minor victory by terrorizing the population. If officials try to minimize that impact -- `Go on about your business, et cetera' -- they dilute the effectiveness of the announcement and encourage a complacency they were trying to pierce with the announcement in the first place," Bobbit said.
Bush himself was emphatic, telling reporters in the Rose Garden on Monday: "We have an obligation. When we find out something, we got to share it. And what we're talking about here is a very serious matter based upon sound intelligence. And I would hope the people affected in New York realize that by sharing intelligence, we can better prepare in case something were to happen.
"In other words, if we were just silent on the subject, I think people would be a lot more nervous," he said.
Would they?
Ridge has raised the color-coded threat level from yellow to orange on five previous occasions, often as a result of threats that were relatively specific as to time but not to place. Previous confidential warnings to local law enforcement agencies alerting them to possible attacks on specific sites, from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sears Tower in Chicago, have leaked out, sometimes prompting more confusion than clarity.
Just last month, Ridge endured some criticism for announcing that the nation faced a heightened threat from al-Qaeda in the period leading up to the fall election while also saying there was not enough detailed information to warrant increasing the official threat level.
On Sunday, Ridge did just that, with a public notice unlike any that had come before.
He warned of threats against specific buildings in at least three cities, yet offered no real sense of whether active plots were under way or when such attacks might be planned to occur, "beyond the period leading up to our national elections."
One obvious goal of such warnings is to prompt increased vigilance by everyone from top law enforcement officials to everyday civilians. Such vigilance has paid off in the past.
A plot to bomb Los Angeles during the millennium celebrations may well have been foiled by a single alert customs agent who spotted a suspiciously nervous Algerian named Ahmed Ressam trying to cross the Canadian border at a remote ferry terminal in Washington state.
"The general approach of empowering millions of people by putting them on the lookout is no doubt a good one," Bobbitt said.
Another goal is to shake up al-Qaeda, by making plotters aware that the government is watching.
"If anything, what this kind of thing does is cause disarray within al-Qaeda," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"The administration has not given away anything about its sources or methods of intelligence. Nobody in al-Qaeda knows who said what, or how much, or how deeply they're penetrated. This basically creates disruption," Cordesman said.
But do such repeated warnings run the risk of producing "terror fatigue"?
"I think there may be a dulling effect," Cordesman said.
"But the alternative is not to stop issuing warnings and wait for people to be killed," Cordesman said.
Ridge's spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said that the secretary had informed Bush about his intention to issue the elevated warning at about 10am Sunday, and that there had been no debate or second-guessing by the White House.
"The intelligence in this case was very specific," he said.
"The president and the secretary have said when we have this level of specificity, we will be able to come out with an elevated warning," he said.
Roehrkasse said Ridge had taken pains to reach out to the television anchors and editors because "he has developed relationships with some of the anchors" and they had asked him to try to give them some context when he got some specific intelligence.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, a veteran of the intelligence committee and a former mayor of San Francisco, said she favored the broadest possible warnings about specific threats. She said secret warnings to states and localities would seep out anyway, creating confusion and recriminations.
"This is a Hobson's choice," she said in a telephone interview.
"If you don't warn people and something happens, and you knew about it, you have a real problem. The other thing is by warning people and causing them to be alert, you may very well pick up somebody who has been skulking in a doorway around the World Bank or the Stock Exchange. We're all in this in one boat, and we recognize that in the world of terror, it can happen to anybody, anywhere," she said.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS