There are no safety guarantees in settings like the Boston Marathon, especially with terrorism adapting to security protocols, Russian 'Alpha' Special Forces team-veteran and vice-president of its International Association Aleksey Filatov told RT.
And since this tragedy, the worst terror attack in the US since
9/11, has revealed major domestic security gaffes, and it would
become hard for anyone to speak against whatever anti-terror
initiative President Obama comes up with, Filatov also
indicated.
RT: Can you give an overall expert assessment of what has
happened, from a security standpoint? Could this terrorist act have
been averted?
AF: I think what happened in Boston was definitely a terror
act. And despite the fact that expert analyses showed the
explosives to be of quite low yield, I think the terrorists have
achieved their objectives. The American public, and world public as
a whole were struck by the news and the pictures of what took place
in Boston. So, in terms of the terrorists’ desire to strike panic
into everyone’s hearts – they were successful. To discuss the
negligence of the American special services in this situation would
be unbecoming, unprofessional and, frankly, stupid. We know that
the last serious terrorist attack on American soil had happened way
back in 2001. Such a long stretch of time since, given the number
of enemies and the attitude toward the US in many parts of the
world, shows how effective US security services are at what they
do. I’d just like to say that giving a 100 percent guarantee of
safety in such a situation is virtually impossible. Terrorism
changes, it adapts with time to the norms and security protocols of
its targets. To secure a 1-2 kilometer track completely in this
scenario is next to impossible.
RT: Could you comment on the standard operating procedures,
or the preventive measures normally in place under the given
circumstances?
AF: The most effective intelligence and security agencies
are those that work to prevent such things from happening. This is
normally done by inserting agents into the suspected terrorist
group, which in the end normally leads to an operation to arrest
multiple members of the group before an attack is carried out –
usually on the very day. Such cases are commonplace, but they are
not advertised much. Major resources are spent on preparations for
such undercover missions. As far as events like the Marathon go,
there is normally a human shield of officers, coupled with sniffer
dogs. But despite the manpower, these measures may not always be
effective: dogs may not pick up the scent from distance as well as
they do up close. The technical arsenal here is quite primitive,
and to evade these cordons and avoid being picked up by dogs or
detectors, is not an impossible feat for a trained terrorist.
RT: Could you speak a bit more about the kind of terrorist preparation that goes into something like this?
Well, from the simple construction and low yield of the
explosives, I can tell you that we should be looking out not for
the skill of the person carrying out the attack, but at the
intentions of its organizers. We shouldn’t take for granted the
fact that no one claimed responsibility. These things were meant to
detract attention from its true purpose and its real organizers. A
very low quantity of explosive was used – but the political impact
of the crime was absolutely huge. The entire world was watching.
Thankfully, not many casualties emerged, but that was not the
point. The explosion was planned to perfection; it happened at the
exact time and place as was intended. The organizers are clearly
very serious professionals who know what they’re doing.
RT: Could you personally speculate on who might have
carried out the attack?
AF: Of course, the number one suspect, according to many
experts, are radical Islamists, having been actively clamped down
on worldwide by American forces. Many correctly point to North
Africa and the Middle East. However, the chain of events gives
credence to another hypothesis – one I think has its rightful place
in the discussion. On the one hand, we hadn’t seen a terrorist
attack on US soil for 12 years. This may have led to a relaxing of
efforts on the part of the US agencies. On the other hand, however,
American society has long been harboring a feeling that, while they
live in relative peace, their soldiers are coming home in body
bags. The people themselves feel discontented with the fact that
they don’t come in contact with the much propagated threat of
terrorism while that takes place. The White House has recently been
countering this dilemma by announcing their withdrawal from direct
military confrontations with terrorism on foreign land, instead
opting for a less involved financial and training backing they now
offer to foreign governments in their own fight against terrorism.
All of a sudden, we get this terrorist attack for which no one
claims responsibility… this begs the question, “what will happen
next?” I think American society will eagerly change their mind
again, choosing to view the last 12 years of peace and quiet as
credit to the security services and agencies that protect them. The
agencies come out as having shown that active involvement of US
forces in the fight against terrorism abroad works, basically. So,
I think that President Obama and the White House may need to go
back on their promise of a lesser, direct foreign involvement, and
instead revert to sending troops abroad once again, spending big
sums on operational costs and so on. We know for a fact that
Americans show this incredible potential for bonding in the face of
adversity. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who will be
willing to disagree with anything the US president says or does
next regarding terrorism.
RT: Do you think that what happened might then be beneficial
to Obama, or only create more problems?
AF: I think the US government, the Democrats, will be able
to pull out of this one successfully and relatively painlessly.
Despite the agencies’ failure to prevent the attack, it will only
serve to increase American presence and military involvement
worldwide.
RT: Do you think this will raise or lower the tensions in
the international arena? What might this entail?
AF: Well, I’ve never been a supporter of the Libyan
strategy; we can also take a look at Syria and the arming of the
opposition there, which is fueling a civil war…. All of these
things have and will continue to be presented in such a way as to
step up the so-called war on terror. It will effectively untie the
US government’s hands and allow them more freedoms in military
operations that only yesterday might have aroused major criticism
from the American public. Unfortunately, American politicians will
only gain from all this. We may see a new Libya, a new Syria, and
so on. The pursuit of US national economic and financial interests
on foreign territory will continue unhindered.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.