Getting Tough on Terrorism

By William R. Doerner

Washington weighs pre-emptive acts as well as reprisals

The latest buzzword in security circles is "pro-active," a bit of jargon coined from a term with the opposite meaning, "reactive." It is used to describe a major change in Washington's approach to the scourge of terrorism directed at U.S. targets. Rather than react after an attack, the U.S. plans to adopt a much more aggressive policy that would establish in advance the likelihood of reprisals and would even permit pre-emptive strikes against suspected terrorists. Said Secretary of State George Shultz at the White House last week: "I don't think that purely defensive postures are adequate. We must think through other aspects of this problem, and we're doing that."

Within weeks of the bombing of U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut last October with the loss of 241 American lives, a shaken Reagan ordered an interagency task force to study ways of preventing terrorism. As a result of this intensive review, Reagan on April 3 signed the still secret National Security Decision Directive 138. It ordered 26 federal agencies, ranging from the FBI and CIA to the Coast Guard, to draft specific proposals for enforcing an antiterrorism policy. No options were specifically excluded, but the Administration has already decided not to seek any change in the 1978 Executive Order prohibiting Government complicity in assassinations.

Reagan plans to submit to Congress a package of legislative proposals. One would create a "blab" fund offering rewards of as much as $500,000 to informers who finger conspiring terrorists. Shultz is especially incensed at what he calls "state-sponsored terrorism," and has accused four nations of practicing it: Libya, Iran, Syria and North Korea. He thinks the U.S. and its allies should regard such conduct as "a form of warfare" and respond accordingly. The State Department recently warned six East bloc nations that they cannot hope for improved relations with the U.S. if they continue to provide support to "international" terrorist groups.

In collecting ideas, the Secretary sought advice inside and outside the Government, sometimes at meetings that resembled bull sessions. At one Saturday steak-and-eggs breakfast at the State Department last month, Shultz, professonally dressed in a tweed jacket and Argyle sweater, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and other top officials heard from Brian Jenkins of the California-based Rand Corp., who is an authority on worldwide terrorism. Jenkins stressed that officials must face the essential question: Are you prepared to use force?

For Shultz and Reagan, the answer is yes, but with great caution. For example, the U.S. declined to join France, which also suffered casualties in the Beirut massacre, in a retaliatory raid against the truck bombers' suspected headquarters because Washington did not feel sufficiently confident in its intelligence. Furthermore, the celebrated failure of an antiterrorist mission could cost the U.S. dearly in prestige. Yet, with random violence increasing, the U.S., as a senior State Department official put it is determined to send an unmistakable message: "We don't allow terrorism to go unpunished."

--By William R. Doerner.

Reported by Douglas Brew and Johanna McGeary/Washington

With reporting by Douglas Brew, Johanna McGeary