Media

January 19, 2007

News Release

Contact:
Stephanie L. Tennyson
703-525-0770
stennyson [at] potomacinstitute.org
www.PotomacInstitute.org

 Arlington , VA —Non-state microactors working in the global battlespace will have a macro impact like never seen before. As we engage in this new terrorism paradigm, we must employ the tools of state craft to guide our counterterrorism strategies. Within the realm of counterterrorism, praise worthy examples of positive change include Libya, Southeast Asia, and Afghanistan. On the negative side, examples include Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

These are some of the ideas proffered by Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton as he addressed a standing room only audience at the National Press Club. He spoke to the group of approximately 100, representing over 20 foreign embassies, highlighted by the Saudi and Sri Lankan Ambassadors to the United States, as well other members of the think tank community and the private sector. Amb. Crumpton, Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State, spoke as part of the Institute’s Distinguished Diplomat’s Forum on “Counterterrorism Strategies for the 21 st Century” on January 18, 2007.

The event began with welcome remarks from Potomac’s President, Dr. Dennis McBride and initial comments from the event’s co-host, Professor Yonah Alexander, Director of the Institute’s International Center for Terrorism Studies. Dr. McBride thanked the audience for attending this important event, noting the high level of participation and interest in the topic and its timeliness. Dr. McBride also emphasized the contributions of Potomac’s International Center for Terrorism Studies work. After a brief introduction by the President, Dr. Alexander reiterated the value of open dialogue and the ongoing impact of terrorism on our society.

Amb. Crumpton began with a discussion on the exponential growth of technology and the impact that it is having on our society. He noted that technology has changed everything—the way we do intelligence, the way we wage war. He commented that the way we forge counterterrorism policies is not changing at the same rate, but must.

He said that there are four variables at play in developing counterterrorism strategies for the 21 st century. First, enemy forces are becoming smaller in size—microactors. These microactors are changing the face of warfare and can have a macro impact. Amb. Crumpton commented that they are resourceful in their ability to recruit and their ability to destroy, i.e., September 11 th. Second, global security is increasingly inter-dependent and fragile. The world is open to these microactors. Third, the United States and other nations are operating in a global landscape. The world is flat and the global battlespace is flat. “Microactors can act with great speed, agility, and stealth in the global community and have an unprecedented impact on the world.” Fourth, we must consider not just the geophysical landscape—the geography, the land—but also the institutions, the people, the economies, and the environment. Most of our enemies today are non-state actors. In the same respect, some of our greatest allies are non-state actors.

Amb. Crumpton noted that bioterrorism is an example that encompasses the foregoing four points. The pathogen, a microactor, would have a macro impact. He discussed the recent table top exercise— Black Ice—that the U.S. Government sponsored in coordination with the Swiss Government. The exercise addressed at the roles and responsibilities of major international organizations in responding to a biological incident. The after-action report outlines the lessons learned from the two-day event and the unique variables that would come together if such an incident occurred.

Importantly, Amb. Crumpton summarized the six specific challenges of addressing conflict and terrorism in a global environment that the exercise highlighted. He said the first challenge would be intelligence. Was the incident a natural event or a terrorist action? This might take days to determine and if it was a terrorist event, how would one go about finding the microactors? Before these events take place we must start learning the plans and intentions of the enemies and the instruments they might use. In the global environment, we must also understand the consequences of our retaliatory actions. He emphasized that intelligence will become increasingly more important.

Ambassador Crumpton also observed that the terms of engagement are of central importnace. The tools of diplomacy, the instrument of state craft are crucial as is military, law enforcement and economic powers of persuasion. Too much of one, or one tool not deployed correctly, could back-fire on the United States and our allies. Two other challenges or elements in dealing with an incident are law and doctrine. Legal instruments within the global framework and engaging our enemies using their strategies are both challenging and useful. The sixth and final element that the Ambassador outlined was that it is essential that we embrace the fundamentals of conflict. Citing the history of the Peloponnesian War and great military strategists of history, he noted that we must give prestige and honor to the battlefield.

The Ambassador provided ample “good” and “bad” examples of putting the above six fundamentals into practice in the counterterrorism arena. The first good example was that of Libya. For many years, the United States and other nations employed the elements of state craft and economic penalties as well as the rule of law (e.g., Pan Am trial). Today Libya is a good ally in the counterterrorism fight. The bad counter example is that of Iran. This nation-state continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction in defiance of accepted global norms and use Hezbollah for its own pursuits. Two regional examples are Southeast Asia, which has made remarkable progress versus Iraq, whose own internal conflicts are being fueled by neighboring countries. The Ambassador’s final example of positive and negative was Afghanistan. On a positive note, the country has a fully elected government, four million Afghanis have returned home, and schools have opened to all children, including girls. In the same respect, Afghanistan has some of the negative attributes including Al-Qaeda camps in the Pakistan border, and enemy networks that continue to survive.

In summary, Ambassador Crumpton noted that microactors with macro impact are continuing to act in the global battlespace. The line between concepts and connections has blurred in international security. Large armies will be less prominent and cyber space will become a new frontier for battle. In turn, the United States and our allies must place emphasis on small, defined targets with great precision and we must attack with great speed and ability. “We must not let old mindsets conflate the sizes of our enemies,” he stated. Continuing, Amb. Crumpton said, “This will only enable the enemy and jeopardize ours and our allies’ security. Globalization and the free market will assist us in our fight against the dark anti-liberal forces, and the United States will continue to forge a global network.”

The forum ended with Ambassador Crumpton answering questions from the audience on the current situation in Iraq, the Kurds and Turkey, the United States’ relationship with the European Union on counterterrorism and many other timely topics. Closing the session, he noted that “In dealing with our enemies the bigger picture is important—it is not only them, but the environment, the people in the region in which they operate are also important—you have to work at both. This is the enduring lesson of counterterrorism, and we must bear this lesson in mind.” Frank Cilluffo, Director of Homeland Security Policy Institute at The George Washington University, ended the session with thanks and admiration to Ambassador Crumpton for his years of remarkable public service.

Ambassador Crumpton was sworn in with the rank of Ambassador-at-Large on August 2, 2005. Ambassador Crumpton began his impressive career in counterterrorism when he joined the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1981, serving as an operations officer both at headquarters and abroad. During his career, he has held senior management positions, including a one-year assignment at the Federal Bureau of Investigation as Deputy Chief of the International Terrorism Operations Section (1998-1999).  Ambassador Crumpton was also Deputy Chief (Operations) of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (1999-2001), and led the CIA’s Afghan campaign (2001-2002).  Ambassador Crumpton is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Intelligence Commendation Medal, the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism; the Sherman Kent Award, in recognition of an outstanding contribution to the literature of intelligence; the Donovan Award; and the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, the CIA's highest award for achievement.

The International Center for Terrorism Studies at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies, and the Homeland Security Policy Institute at The George Washington University were co-sponsors of this event. Please note that these remarks do no necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies is an independent, 501(c)(3), not-for-profit public policy research institute. The Institute identifies and aggressively shepherds discussion on key science and technology issues facing our society. From these discussions and forums, we develop meaningful science and technology policy options and ensure their implementation at the intersection of business and government.

###