The thickly wooded hills of western North Carolina and the arid mountains of Afghanistan would appear to have little in common, but they serve as lairs for a new and increasingly lethal breed of terrorist.
Eric Rudolph, the suspected bomber of an Alabama abortion clinic, continues to evade the FBI in the hills outside Murphy. Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind twin U.S. embassy bombings and financier for a jumble of dusty terrorist camps south of Kabul, is just as elusive. Although they come from vastly different Christian and Muslim traditions, both men share warped fundamentalist religious views. They despise Jews and see current governments all over the world as either U.S. puppets and infidels or dupes of a "New World Order" that should be violently dispatched.
They also represent a growing domestic and foreign threat America has yet to come to grips with: religious terrorists, many of whom are trying to arm themselves with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.
For more than a decade, the United States has often talked about a war on terrorism, a term on the lips of grim-faced Clinton administration officials as they made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows after the deadly embassy bombings in Africa.
We now know a lot about how terrorists operate and are funded, and a recent plethora of books provide both insight into their activities and useful roadmaps for terrorist fighters. While the United States has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to myriad anti-terrorist programs, there remains a lack of focus, commitment and overall strategy for dealing with this growing scourge.
The question is, will the U.S. government follow the lead? Successive administrations have not had the will or the wallet for the necessary multi-faceted response: repeated military actions, arm-twisting of nations that support terrorists, greater use of spies, appeals to moderate religious elements, adequate homeland defense, tapping a terrorist's riches and aggressive diplomacy to resolve regional disputes that incubate terrorism.
Bruce Hoffman, director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland tells us in "Inside Terrorism" (Columbia University Press, 288 pages, $24.95) that a connection between religion and terrorism is not new.
After all, the word "thug" is derived from a seventh-century religious cult that terrorized India and "assassin" was the name of a radical offshoot of the Muslim Shi'a Ismaili sect that sought to repel Christian crusaders from present-day Syria and Iran.
But the number of religious terrorists groups has grown appreciably in the 1990s, accounting for nearly one-third of all active terrorist groups in 1994 before rising to one-half in 1995, he notes. Warped fundamentalism has become the battle cry of the terrorist in the post-Cold War era as communist ideology lies discredited and the promised benefits of a liberal capitalist state have yet to materialize in many countries - or are rejected by religious zealots.
It was the driving force behind terrorist acts that range from 1995's sarin nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway by the cult Aum Shinrikyo to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Christian Patriots. The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and last month's deadly attacks on two U.S. embassies (( came at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.
Religious imperatives also lead to more intense acts "that are not constrained by the secular terrorists moral or practical constraints. To die for a religious cause one becomes 'blessed'," Hoffman points out.
The same is becoming increasingly evident in this country as right-wing militia groups grow in numbers and fury. Many are beginning to experiment with the dreaded weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, in each of the last two years, the FBI has opened 100 investigations into chemical and biological weapons threats, compared to a few dozen annually in each of prior years. Though most turn out to be hoaxes, the sharp increase has concerned officials.
Kerry Noble was among these home-grown terrorists. A directionless one-time Bible student, he rose to become a leader in CSA, the Covenant the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, before cooperating with the FBI. In "Tabernacle of Hate" (Voyageur Publishing, 240 pages, $19.95), Noble takes us into the twisted and paranoid world of the Christian Patriots, who believe the United Nations and the World Bank are bent on taking over America and transforming it into a Godless nation.
"The religious belief system of the terrorist right is not to be underestimated," Noble writes, "any more than the religious beliefs of those in the Middle East. What individuals believe determines what they do. And those who are in authority in the movement are making sure that the followers feel cornered to force them into action."
Both Noble and Hoffman contend that mainstream society must find ways to build bridges to these groups before it's too late, employing religious allies to counter those with warped views of the Bible and the Koran.
But a "come let us reason together" approach is only a small part of the fight against terrorists.
"What is needed is a rich strategy that cannot be summarized in a single slogan," says Philip B. Heymann, a professor at Harvard Law School and a former deputy attorney general, in "Terrorism and America, A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society" (MIT Press, 179 pages, $20).
Heymann calls for greater cooperation between governments in fighting terrorism, in areas ranging from intelligence on terrorist activities to tracking the movement of key components that can create chemical and biological weapons.
The United States must recruit more human spies to infiltrate terrorist networks, a challenge in the insular world of terrorism but the best barometer of action. He also urges more cooperation between the FBI and CIA, often too covetous of their secrets. Finally, America must be willing to retaliate militarily as it did in Libya - and most recently in Sudan and Afghanistan.
Any discussion of terrorism inevitably turns to civil liberties. Are the X-ray machines and metal detectors that dot the landscape a precursor to a more insidious Orwellian future?
On the homefront, Heymann argues that the government must monitor organizations that urge political violence, a move that will "inevitably inhibit free speech and political organization at the outer borders." But Heymann says that is "a cost worth bearing."
Glenn E. Schweitzer goes even further in "Superterrorism: Assassins, Mobsters and Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Plenum Press, 317 pages, $28.95), saying the freedom of democracy "may need modification" if we are to fight terrorism on our shores.
He suggests that all law enforcement agencies - from the FBI to state troopers and from customs inspectors to municipal police - be held to a higher standard through the expansion of random drug tests, financial disclosures and other character indicators. Such pristine officials can then argue far more effectively for "broader powers" to fight the terrorist scourge.
Heymann's view seems to make sense, while Schweitzer's suggestion is both excessive and misplaced. Current laws are sufficient. If we "modify" our democracy those who preach terror will be the victors.
Heymann and Schweitzer rightly call for more investment in the battle against terrorism. Heymann admits that while no one knows the scale of terrorism's risks, "we would be wise to invest in precautions that we deeply hope will never be needed." Schweitzer lauds both the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration for funneling new resources and highly skilled personnel into the fight, making particular note of the $1 billion counter initiative in 1996.
But $1 billion is a mere pittance in this war. Neither the Clinton administration nor Congress has been willing to spend the money necessary to protect U.S. embassies from car bombs, as called for in the 1985 report by retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman. At times, Washington has the attention span of an adolescent.
If Washington can spend $350 billion on three types of attack aircraft that face no credible threat and more than $450 billion on a specious missile defense plan that so far can't shoot straight, it can devote more money and serious effort to combat a more virulent form of terrorism.
Since March 1997, Tom Bowman has covered military affairs for The Sun. Before that he covered the U.S. Naval Academy and the National Security Agency. He holds a master's degree in American Studies from Boston College.
Pub Date: 10/04/98