Yesterday, I took a swipe at a couple of scientists who usually do analysis of WMD programs for states, when they decided to assess the dangers of Botox and blew the danger out of proportion. Today, I'll flip the coin and point a finger at a respected terrorism expert who wants to conflate al Qaeda's interest in CBRN hazards into a national security threat - which it isn't. Well, let's say we ought to be concerned, but the report is actually a good collection of research that (to me) actually makes the case against him. This in the Boston Globe:
A new research paper by a retired Central Intelligence Agency officer assesses years of work by Al Qaeda terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and to devise the deadliest ways to put them to use.
The study, published today, is by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government. Mowatt-Larssen retired last year after a career including service as Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy, and before that 23 years as a CIA intelligence officer in various domestic and international posts.
He provides a detailed chronology of relentless efforts by Al Qaeda from 1988 to 2003 to get and use chemical and biological weapons including ricin and anthrax, and, most worrying, nuclear weapons. Most of the details he cites have been reported before, but Mowatt-Larssen assembles the evidence in a fashion that leaves little doubt that Al Qaeda operatives would not hesitate to launch attacks that could kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans if they could pull off such an attack.
Actually, there's a lot of doubt that al Qaeda would have the talent, opportunity, and skills to develop NBC weapons into a capability that would cause any level of mass casualties, and again, I'd say read the report - it pretty much explains itself. First of all, the foreword was written by Graham Allison, and if there's ever been someone who exaggerated the potential for nuclear terrorism, he's the one I would pick. The report covers 1988-2003, a broad spectrum of time, but certainly not reflective of what al Qaeda could do today. Still, it's illustrative by its examples.
You find the famous bin Laden 1998 quote about WMDs, references from George "slam dunk" Tenet's book on al Qaeda intentions and actions in the desert, meetings between Muslim scientists and suppliers, statements by terrorists that were obtained under "interrogations," and yes, even Jose Padilla's "dirty bomb" - a charge which people may remember the US government dropped because it had no evidence on this point. And no discussion about AQ would be complete without the "mobtaker" device that never really emerged in any plot against the West. That is to say, we have a collection of weak evidence of intent without any feasible capability and zero WMD incidents - over a period of fifteen years, when AQ was at the top of their game, they could not develop even a crude CBRN hazard, let alone a WMD capability.
Mowatt-Larsen doesn't attempt to answer the obvious question - why didn't AQ develop this capability by now? He points to a June 2003 article where the Bush administration reported to the UN Security Council that there was a "high probability" that al Qaeda would attack with a WMD within two years. The point that the Bush administration could have been creating a facade for its invasion into Iraq must have occurred to Mowatt-Larsen, but he dodges the issue. This is an important report to read, but not for the purposes that the author intended. It demonstrates the extremely thin thread that so many terrorist experts and scientists hang on when they claim that terrorists are coming straight at the United States with WMD capabilities.
And of course, Joby Warrick at the WaPo has to give in to the alarmists - again. Come back tomorrow when we get to talk about the Graham-Talent comedy team releasing their report card today on the upcoming bioterrorist incidents and our current "vulnerabilities."
UPDATE: Once again, George Smith has my back and offers valuable discourse on the issue.
Comments