Terrorist attacks cause mass panic, destruction of property and worst of all, loss of life and limb. For many governments, like the US, preventing such attacks requires a substantial amount of intelligence and resources, and they apply themselves quite well. However, with the growing technology age, the same resources used to fight terrorism are the same one involved by terrorists to propagate their propaganda. In the case of the 2000 USS Cole attack, it was not entirely unexpected that such a devastating attack was carried out so quickly on a US missile destroyer. Even more shocking was the revelation that it was done in Yemen by Al-Qaeda terrorists who are non-natives of the region. This essay answers some of the questions related to that attack with references made to the statistical destruction the suicide bombers did to the USS Cole. It is clear that if the intelligence of an imminent attack and security protocols were taken seriously, the 2000 USS Cole Attack would have been prevented.
Describe the attack (where, when, what was used to conduct the attack, casualties, injuries, structural damage, etc.)
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The USS Cole, a US guided-missile destroyer, was attacked by Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers as it refuelled in Aden Port in Yemen on 12 th October 2000 in broad daylight (Callaway, 2009). When the USS Cole approached the harbour, small vessels usually helped it manoeuvre. At this time, a small motorized rubber boat commandeered by two men approached the destroyer from its side. Unknown to the US servicepeople, it was filled with explosives which detonated next to the warship's centre. The explosion ripped off a vast forty-by-forty-five hole by its centre, killing seventeen US sailors (fifteen men and two women), the two suicide bombers, and wounded more than forty others. Given the extent and location of the explosion, the destroyer's structural damage was quite significant (Callaway, 2009). The 505-foot destroyer had considerable damage to her hull, and it cost approximately $ 240 million and more than a year to repair it to a functional state. Yemen was considered a safe zone compared to other hotbeds like Bahrain as the Yemeni government was also friendly with the US. Furthermore, the Aden port was deemed ideal for fueling, and an attack on any US vessel considered unlikely. Therefore, the terrorist attack was considered a most likely “surprise” with devastating effects on life, structural property, and US-Yemen governmental relations.
Explain why your chosen attack classifies as a terrorist attack
A terrorist attack is one the intentional use of violence, perceived or actual, to cause a loss of life of structural damage to promote social, political, or religious ideology. This attack on the USS Cole qualified for an act of terrorism because the two suicide bombers were associated with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda group, a known terrorist network (Orhan, 2010). It is also classified under terrorism as intelligence sources concur on the executive planning the terrorists took to find out the USS Cole route. A port attack was surprising given the Al Qaeda context to attack on land rather than on sea. The Aden port terrorist attack was considered part of an international Al Qaeda offensive against US soldiers abroad.
Furthermore, the devastating loss of seventeen sailors, grievous bodily and psychological harm on others and the destruction of a destroyer fulfils the agenda for a terrorist attack (Gartner, 2004). Furthermore, there are substantial claims of Al Qaeda claiming responsibility for the attack and the two suicide bombers who perished in the attack. Therefore, it is reasonable to say the offensive on the USS Cole was an active act of terrorism.
Identify the group responsible for this attack and analyzes their motives behind the attack, detailing what the group hoped to achieve.
The group responsible for this attack was the Al Qaeda, whose leader was Osama bin Laden at the USS Cole terror attack. It was part of a preparation offensive launched in the US in the next years. The motives behind the attack were mostly political as the US was blamed for suppressing the freedom of the Islamic regions associated with the terrorist group. For decades, Al Qaeda was said to groom many fighters to take on their agendas by attacking the US's symbols and its allies strongholds (Orhan, 2010). An action group was groomed for martyrdom to ensure a maximum taking away of life if the attackers did not consider running for life. The group hoped to strike fear in the American citizens by launching surprise attacks but with devastating impact (Nasky, Hines & Simmer, 2009). Fighters in the group were mostly radicalized using erroneous religious belief before they were groomed for political take-downs (Orhan, 2010). Al Qaeda took advantage of the technological advancements to plan for global attacks with their supporters and sympathizers. The Yemen attack was a classic example of terrorist cells abroad, as the group was not considered to have a heavy presence in the region. Therefore, the US's lax security protocols in an otherwise “safe” zone were mainly because of the interconnection in terror networks between Pakistan, considered Al Qaeda’s birthplace, and Yemen. Unfortunately, in this scenario, the surprise element with maximum casualties resulted from Al Qaeda, who fully claimed responsibility for the start of their war on the US.
Analyze the United States’ response to this attack (If there was no response, provide suggestions for appropriate responses )
The United States’ response to this attack was very predictable in that the establishment of inquiries and commissions to investigate this attack were commenced almost immediately. A week after the terrorist attack, testimony on why Yemen was a preferred refuelling spot was obtained from the superior naval officers. After the navy intelligence reports were taken, witnesses to the attack, presumably the sailors, witnessed the committee in charge of the investigation. Notably, there were two general commissions formed in the aftermath of the Yemen attacks. The first inquiry was to determine why Yemen, considered a US ally, was the site for such a devastating attack. In this investigation, several testimonies which were supposed to answer the Why Yemen? Questions were recorded. The other commission was more of a lessons-learned from the attacks (Callaway, 2009). In this one, the US tried to recoup its losses and strategize on preventing or maybe reducing the impact of imminent attacks. Vulnerabilities for defence mechanisms on the sea like the USS Cole destroyers were exhaustively analyzed and perhaps strengthened.
Also, the destroyer's security protocols were said to have been contravened as only seven out of nineteen measures were followed as the ship was refuelling. According to the commissions, had all nineteen standards been strictly followed, the attack would have a lesser magnitude; much of the loss would have been averted. Intelligence reports of possible attacks at sea before that fateful day in October were thoroughly analyzed (Sinai, 2015). It is unclear whether previous knowledge of a potential offensive was clear enough for enough precaution to be taken by the navy officers. Lastly, two Yemeni nationals were indicted in absentia on charges related to the USS Cole bombing together with a failed attack on another USS destroyer, Sullivans. Finally, the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and his FBI director, Robert Mueller, met with the victims' families. They also had a national “campaign” to alleviate the distress caused by the bombing. With many terrorist attacks, conclusive investigations take years, if not decades, to complete. Some are never finalized, but the response on this specific attack was deemed commendable by any standards.
While it is commendable that the investigations following the aftermath of the 2000 USS Cole attack yielded and sentenced the two suspects, a lot remains to be done. Intelligence reports warned of an attack yet they may have been shrugged off as the destroyer was in safe waters. This offensive on a US destroyer that claimed the servicepeople's lives emphasizes the importance of security protocols for any warship. It is not enough to observe them, but a keener look needs to be taken on the prevalence of terrorist cells and their catastrophic effect. Suicide bombers are increasingly the norm rather than the exception, and there need to be stringent measures to curb this rise. An exceptional network to disable terrorist cells is required between the US and its ally countries so that the USS Cole attack is never repeated.
References
Callaway, J. (2009). Learning the Hard Way. Naval War College Review, 62(1), 107–122.
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36632943&site=eds-live&scope=site
Gartner, S. S. (2004). Making the International Local: The Terrorist Attack on the USS Cole, Local Casualties, and Media Coverage. Political Communication, 21(2), 139–159. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1080/10584600490443859
Nasky, K. M., Hines, N. N., & Simmer, E. (2009). The USS Cole bombing: Analysis of pre-existing factors as predictors for the development of post-traumatic stress or depressive disorders. Military Medicine, 174(7), 689–694. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.7205/MILMED-D-04-3608
Orhan, M. (2010). Al-Qaeda: Analysis of the Emergence, Radicalism, and Violence of a Jihadist Action Group in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 11(2), 143–161. https://doi-org.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/10.1080/14683849.2010.483846
Sinai Joshua. (, 2015). Lippold Kirk S. Burner Front Al Qaeda's Attack on the USS Cole. Perspectives on Terrorism, 9(1), 119. http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.26297342&site=eds-live&scope=site
