SHOULD U.S. STRIKE BACK AT TERRORISTS?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000201720001-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 6, 2010
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 1, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/06: CIA-RDP90-00552R000201720001-0
117^1 A??EA ED U.S. Nl_,rS E WORLD REPORT I co 10 Q'+ PPLt July 985
Should IS. Strike Back at Terrorists .
Interview With Lawrence Eagleburger, Former
Under Secretary of State, Now President of Kissinger Associates
Q Mr. Eaglsburger, why. do-you favor retaliation against ter-
rorist groups that attack American targets?
A First, I am totally convinced that our failure to strike
back will encourage more and more attacks on us.
Second, the U.S. owes its citizens-here or in any other
part of the world-protection to the degree it can give it.
Retaliation would make it clear to everybody that Ameri-
cans traveling abroad are nobody's free targets.
Third, we have an obligation to punish murder of Ameri-
can citizens in places where courts of law cannot reach.
My conviction is that we will save a lot more lives in the
tong run by being tough and steady.
Q What makes you so sure that reprisals will succeed in
deterring terrorists?
A No one can be certain. But there is at least a chance
that retaliation will make terrorists think harder about it
before attacking Americans.
Q Isn't it also a matter of simply getting revenge?
A Revenge under certain circumstances is a perfectly
legitimate act of state.
Q Even If Innocent people's livesperhaps those of Ameri-
YES-
"Our failure to strike
back will encourage
more and more
attacks on us"
cans-are lost in the process?
A If you do everything
you can to reduce the chance
of innocent deaths and if the
provocation is substantial, it
is still an action that needs to
be undertaken. These are
general principles that must
be analyzed in each case.
Q Now do you know which
people to attack?
A We won't always know
the exact perpetrators. But
we will usually know-if
not immediately, then over
time-at least who supported
them and the connections
they have.
What we should do is an-
nounce that attacks on Amer-
ican citizens by terrorists will
bring retaliation at a time
and place of our choosing. It may take 6 hours or 6 months.
The timing is not as important as the certainty.
Q Should the U.S. strike at nations that support terrorism?
A If it's state-supported terrorism, yes. When Iran stands
by and lets aircraft hijackers kill two Americans, as they did
earlier this year, I think the Iranians should feel the lash.
Q Wouldn't that be an act of war?
A No more than the action taken against us.
Q Won't retaliation invite a new cycle of violence?
A My answer is: Isn't it a cycle of violence already? If we
are attacked and we fail to reply for fear of a new "cycle of
violence," that is paralysis. We may be hit even if we are
active. But we have responsibilities to our citizens and
responsibilities to our own self-respect.
Q What are the chances that reprisals would spark a terrorist
campaign within the U.S.?
A It is not obvious that's what will happen. Even if true,
it is no excuse not to act. We would in effect be saying that
Americans abroad are fair game. We can't accept that. ^
STAT
Interview With Robert Kupperman, Senior Adviser,
Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies
Q Mr. Kupperman, why shouldn't the U.S., as a matter of
policy, retaliate against all terrorist attacks?
A Look, this is a complicated subject in which simple
answers must not prevail. Terror attacks can occur any-
where. A simple-minded policy of retaliation would invite
equally simple-minded counterretaliation.
Q Even in the Beirut case?
A That's not the issue. The NO-
main goal is to get our people ,~
out of there. If we simply lash If We lash out blindly,
out, we'll likely find our- the terror overseas
selves with very deep domes-
tic problems. There are or- Will almost surely
so " go
i
i
h
gan
zat
ons t
at exist in the
U.S.-for example, the pro-
Khomeini Iranian groups.
They are not only apparently
willing to engage in terror-
ism overseas but against U.S.
interests he4e as well: If we
lash out blindly, the terror
we see overseas will almost
surely migrate to the U.S.
Q Why would it come here?
A We know our society is
vulnerable. To assume the
dangers don't exist is non-
sense. The issue is prudence
in the face of a substantial chance that we'll end up in trou-
ble. Our infrastructure-the electricity grid, natural-gas
lines, communications, water-is extraordinarily vulnerable.
We could have several key facilities hit and the Northeast
would be without electricity for weeks. If we go berserk over
a tragic but comparatively small incident such as the Beirut
matter, what are we going to do if we get hit hard here?
Q Wouldn't American retaliation deter future attacks?
A It certainly hasn't done it for the Israelis, who have
been retaliating for years. They're in a constant war of
reprisal and counterreprisal.
Q What about pure revenge? Isn't that a legitimate aim?
A I don't know what the term legitimate means here.
My interest is in protecting this country. I don't want us to
be put onto the track of reprisals and counterreprisals that
force us into situations we can't handle. Remember the
Libyan hit squad supposedly sent to the U.S. a few years
ago? The White House, the whole government at its highest
levels went into a steel cocoon. What's going to happen if
we face people who are really angry with us?
Q Doesn't that attitude mean the terrorists win?
A No. We can put more emphasis on preventive mea-
sures. For example, U.S. airlines ought not land in Greece.
Americans have to be alerted that there are dangerous
places in the world. We need better intelligence collection,
including surveillance of pro-Khomeini Iranian groups in
the U.S. to stop terror operations_beforethey start.
I don't argue that all these attacks should go unanswered.
I'm not saying: "Never retaliate." In some instances, we
may have to do it. What I'm saying is: The U.S. shouldn't
lash out in blind emotion but should be a little bit more
cold-blooded. We ought to do some thinking for a change.
What we are seeing now, to my mind, is nothing but raw
emotion and the tip of the iceberg.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/06: CIA-RDP90-00552R000201720001-0