The media has been full of stories over the last few days about an increase in the British threat level, specifically for major areas of transportation areas and notably for Heathrow Airport and some major rail stations.
The alerts show an increasing sophistication in the interpretation of threats, with recognition of the limitations of a one-size-fits-all system. The threat of terrorism is not the same for Exeter St. David’s as it is for London Victoria or for Bristol Temple-Meads as it is for London Paddington. This is the point that the US missed post-9/11 when, mainly because politicians wanted to grab the "pork" of benefits for their states, Montana found itself receiving almost as much in counter-terrorism spending per capita as a much more inviting terrorist target such as New York.
This alert also represents further acknowledgement that some form of terrorist attack in the UK is inevitable. A new survey by Foreign Policy magazine of terrorism experts, gave a 74% rating to a "probable" attack in the next year in Europe or the United States. In Britain, an alleged terrorism cell has just been arrested. In Sweden, there was a failed suicide attack in which only the bomber died. Denmark and Sweden have combined to break up an alleged terrorist operation against the newspaper that published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad (more on this in a future blog). The alleged attackers and the failed suicide bomber have links, suggests the Daily Telegraph, to the UK. Sooner or later, some form of attack will get through.
Although officials have denied that there is specific information about an attack on the transportation system, apparently there has been enough conversation in the ether to raise the possibility of just such an occurrence. Al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-inspired groups need to show that they still represent a threat, something an attack like this would establish. Even if small-scale, it would cause panic, a major disruption to thousands of people. It could wreak considerable damage to the British economy.
So the combination of “chatter” and an inviting target equates to a heightened threat and thus a heightened threat level. But there is a further reason: publicity
This is undoubtedly a reminder to the travelling public to be vigilant (although authorities have to be careful: frequent alerts arguably have the opposite effect). However, there is another audience for this alert. In this case the threat is posed not by known terrorists under surveillance --- about 2000, according to the British intelligence service MI5 --- but the terrorists who are, in the parlance of Donald Rumsfeld, the “known unknowns". It is a small group or even an individual who has managed to remain under the radar that create concern for obvious reasons.
The message to them is “we are on to you”. Although some terrorists may not be terribly bright, they generally tend to be rational and thus can be deterred from their plans by a superior show of force or greater vigilance.
Or so the state may hope.