By Lisanne Ophoff
UCR Class of 2016
On September 21, armed Al-Shabaab militants stormed the Kenyan shopping mall Westgate. Armed with AK-47’s and grenades, the conflict caused enormous chaos and resulted in dozens of fatalities. They asked Muslims to leave and sometimes checked if people were really Muslims by asking them, for example, for the name of Mohammed’s mother. In the following days, thousands of hostages were either rescued or escaped themselves. Al-Shabaab demanded Kenyan troops to leave Somalia and stated that Kenya would not know peace until this happened.
There are said to have been at least 16 attackers, of whom 11 were taken into custody and 5 were killed when the attack ended on September 24th. International (mainly British) media soon started focusing on the possibility of Samantha Lewthwaite, a.k.a. The White Widow, being part of the attack due to several eyewitnesses stating that there was a white woman with the attackers.
Her involvement has not been confirmed or denied, but on September 26th, the Kenyan authorities issued an arrest warrant for her. She is being charged with possessing explosives and conspiracy to commit a felony in December 2011, and no links with the Westgate shooting have been confirmed so far. Even though this is all very interesting and suspiciously timed, other things are much more worrisome.
There had been several security warnings concerning the Israeli-owned mall, and its security reminds one of a US airport. Cars are checked for bombs, individuals were frisked and there are about 40 security guards. The risk was not only known, Kenyan authorities had already been warned in January that Al-Shabaab had singled out Westgate and that there would be an increased risk anywhere from September 13-20.
NIS (National Intelligence Service) agents had already been present at the mall hours before the attackers arrived. A pregnant woman even received a warning by her brother who works for the NIS, that she should avoid the Westgate Mall that Saturday because she “would not be able to run with her bulging tummy.”
Similar things have happened before. On August 6 2001, US president George W. Bush received a document with the heading ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’. Germany had been warned about attacks against Jewish athletes a month before the 1972 Olympics in Munich. European governments had been warned about Hezbollah attacks months before the 2012 attacks in Bulgaria.
Yes, people make mistakes. Governments are faulty, as they consist of people. Still, it should not be possible for attacks like this to happen. Especially when there have been such clear warnings beforehand. There is no excuse for this kind of failure, the kind that costs thousands of lives. Westgate was as well secured as a US airport, and because of warnings there were NIS agents present before the attackers had arrived. The NIS was warned, and some of them took precautions to protect their relatives. As for the rest of the population…
If the Kenyan government had done better job of protecting their citizens, dozens of people would still be alive, hundreds wouldn’t be hurt and thousands would not have been traumatized. Since the way in which countries currently fight terrorism is clearly insufficient, changes need to be made.
One option for improvement is to make sure that known danger areas are better secured. If terrorists are expected, officers should be waiting for them. They could stop the attackers, or at the very least decrease the amount of people that gets hurt. It might even scare terrorists off if the security at their planned crime scene is increased substantially. However, there are significant downsides to this approach.
Firstly, it is extremely expensive. Heightened security means heightened costs. In many cases the security might even turn out not to be necessary. It would be very difficult to estimate which spots are and aren’t at risk and the taxpayer would have to sponsor all this. Secondly, a big increase in security measures just might turn a country into a police state. The balance between freedom and national security would tip in favour of security. Are we, as ordinary people, willing to limit our freedom significantly for something that may or may not be a serious security threat? Would everybody’s discomfort weigh up to the chance of saving a few lives?
Another way to change the counterterrorism policy is simply sharing national security concerns with the public. By publishing all the information they have, governments would tell terrorists how much they know. This is clearly not something one can reasonably wish for. However, if they would warn people just a few hours early, possible attackers would have no time to change their plans. They would either have to give up in advance or continue with the plan the public now is aware of. If the risk is clear enough to the National Intelligence Service for its officers to warn their relatives, then it should also be clear enough for its officers to warn the rest of the population. Another possibility would be to just evacuate high-risk locations. A day of discomfort for some could be lifesaving for others.
The current system clearly needs reform. Even if possible improvements come with significant downsides, they still could save thousands of lives. Governments should increase security, warn the population and/or evacuate high-profile risk spots. Even if this would prove redundant in 99% of cases, the other 1% would be worth it.
Lisanne Ophoff, class of 2016, is a Cognitive Science, Chemistry and Biomedical Science major from Zwolle, The Netherlands.
