How Do You Know an Attack Is an Attack – And How to Respond to It?

Last weekend, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia were attacked by missiles and drones in what was, in effect, an act of war.  Houthi forces in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack, but they were not widely believed.  More likely suspects include Iran (or groups within Iran, if not the Iranian government itself) or Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.  The point of this post, however, is not that Saudi Arabia was attacked last weekend, but that a week later, people can’t agree as to who did it.  And even if a likely attacker is identified, they’ll just say they didn’t do it, and at least some people will believe them.  Or at least they will say we don’t know for sure, and we need to wait for further investigations before we do anything. 

I realize some people will say that Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East: How can we tell who is attacking whom in that part of the world?  Plus, they are all dictators or religious fanatics (or both), so who cares.

But the ability of people and countries to lie and get away with attacks isn’t limited to the Middle East.  Vladimir Putin’s Russia invaded Crimea with little green men and denied it – until they annexed Crimea.  Russia still denies that Russian soldiers have participated in the fighting in eastern Ukraine, at one point going so far as to say any soldiers there were on vacation.

Which raises questions about how countries will respond in other situations, where immediate action is really needed.  For example, NATO.  The key to the success of NATO is the mutual defense commitment in Article 5:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

But Article 5 requires more than just recognizing that an armed attack has occurred.  You also have to identify who the attacker was.  Given the inability, a week after the attacks in Saudi Arabia, to identify the attacker there, and the inability, or unwillingness, of some to recognize the Russian participation in the fighting in eastern Ukraine, one has to wonder about how effective Article 5 will be in the kind of hybrid/undercover warfare we face today.  You aren’t going to always get a clear signal like when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor or Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11.  But that doesn’t mean you get to not do anything.

Instead, while NATO works on readiness issues,¹ it also needs to put procedures in place to quickly identify the source of any attack.  Even more important, however, the leaders of NATO member countries need to be ready and willing to look through the lies and obfuscations that any attacker would throw up after an attack.  Countries need to realize that, even if they don’t know things with a courtroom level of certainty, they can’t put off a response until “the investigation is complete” or the attacker has admitted it.  Because a delayed response can mean a failed response.  If Article 5 is to be effective in the world of today, countries need to make sure they have the ability – and willingness – to identify an attacker in the “fake news” world we live in.  Because ultimately, the survival of countries like Estonia, et al, as independent countries, and NATO itself as the most successful defense alliance in world history, depend on it.
-----------
¹ The hope, of course, is that if you are ready, the other side won’t attack in the first place.