Bloodier Standard Set, Experts Fear : Pan Am Bombing May Escalate Terror Trend

WASHINGTON —  The brutally efficient destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 may set a new and bloodier standard for international terrorism, a grim escalation of an already growing trend toward large-scale acts of indiscriminate murder of civilians, counterterrorism experts believe.

It was almost 20 years ago that the first terrorist assault on a civilian airliner fizzled as a bomb aboard an Ethiopian Airways jet exploded on the ground in Frankfurt.

There have been 47 airliner attacks since then, but with the jarring exception of the 1985 bombing of an Air-India 747 in which 329 people were killed, the death toll has been relatively modest until the New York-bound Pan American World Airways plane was shattered in the air above Lockerbie, Scotland, last week. A total of 259 passengers and crew, and perhaps another 11 people on the ground, were killed.

While investigators still have not dismissed the possibility that the Boeing 747 fell victim to a criminal or insane act, most assumptions are that the bombing was related to the political conflicts of the Middle East.

“In most (earlier) bombings, advance warning, the comparatively small size of the explosives or a series of lucky flukes kept loss of life to single digits,” said Brian Jenkins, a specialist on terrorism at the RAND Corp. in Santa Monica.

But, he said, the Pan Am attack seems to mark a new tendency--irresponsible even by the warped standards of terrorists--to kill large numbers of persons who have no conceivable connection to the political motives of the attackers.

Single Biggest Threat

“This trend further erodes the self-imposed restraints that existed even among those we call terrorists,” Jenkins said. “My concern is that this type of incident will now become more common. Bombs on planes now represent our single biggest terrorism threat because of our vulnerabilities and the potentially large loss of life.”

The Pan Am bombing may mark the end of a reluctance by terrorists to engage the United States head-on.

“A lot of groups have held off in the past from this kind of attack because they did not have a sufficient beef with the United States to risk it,” said Neil Livingstone, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism. “This bombing marked a major threshold. Now it has been crossed.”

Some other specialists maintain that American immunity from terrorist attack, if it ever existed, was eroded long ago. They contend that the difference between the Pan Am bombing and earlier attempts is only that the terrorists were either more proficient or luckier this time.

But it seems certain that President Reagan’s repeated pledges to launch prompt and effective retaliation against terrorists has done little or nothing to ward off attacks. President-elect George Bush followed Reagan’s rhetorical lead this week in vowing to “punish severely” those responsible for the attack.

However, the U.S. government has found it difficult to fix blame conclusively for terrorist incidents. And even when the culprits can be identified, comparatively few have been brought to justice. Only once did the Reagan Administration mount a retaliatory raid--the April 15, 1986, bombing of Libya in response to a terrorist attack on a West Berlin nightclub in which two U.S. soldiers and a Turkish woman were killed.

Some experts in terrorism believe that it is a mistake for a government to threaten retaliation unless it is prepared to carry through with the threats. They argue that the Reagan Administration, by its frequent statements, assured the terrorists of the attention they seek.

In truth, American options are severely limited. Even if the perpetrators can be identified with some certainty, terrorist groups are ephemeral targets for conventional military action because they seldom have the sort of bases or other facilities that can be used as targets for retaliation. Of course, military might can be employed against a nation that sponsors terrorism but an attack on another country--in effect, an act of war--is a step that cannot be taken lightly.

“Part of what ties our hands is that we are a global power with global responsibilities,” said Noel C. Koch, a former Pentagon official who operates a security consulting firm. “The good news about state-sponsored terrorism is that we can go after that state. But so far, we haven’t been ready to consider the implications of that.”

Easier to Attack Isolated Nation

From a diplomatic standpoint, it is far easier to take military action against an isolated nation like Libya, with a leader who is widely considered to be a madman, than it is to attack a nation like Syria, which plays a much more substantial role on the international scene.

However, Robert Kupperman, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said: “We’re going have to be in the risk-taking business. If it is shown that Syria or another power was behind the Pan Am attack, where a terrorist group was just the surrogate, then this is a national security problem and should be handled as such. That means diplomatic or military action.”

There is some evidence that Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi retrenched his support for terrorism after the attack by U.S. warplanes on Tripoli and Benghazi. But the track record for attacks on terrorist groups is much less impressive. Administration officials now agree that it was a mistake to fire the 16-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey into Lebanese slums thought to be the base of terrorist groups that were menacing U.S. Marine deployments in Beirut. Despite the shelling, a suicide car bomber shattered the Marine barracks, killing more than 240 service personnel.

Unable to End Terrorism

The experience of Israel has not been radically different. The Israeli army, which has proved its military superiority over neighboring states in five wars in the last 40 years, has been unable to end terrorism by military measures, despite a government policy that generally results in some sort of retaliation for every attack.

Israeli retaliatory raids are usually directed at the headquarters of Palestinian organizations, sometimes apparently without too much concern about whether the group was responsible for the act of terrorism that triggered the raid. But U.S. officials say that Washington must be far more certain in its identification of the perpetrators of an attack before it can launch a retaliation.

For instance, on Feb. 21, 1970, a Swissair jetliner crashed after a bomb exploded in its cargo hold. Nine crew members and 38 passengers, including six Americans, were killed. The incident was the bloodiest act of airline sabotage ever recorded at the time and it remained so until the 1985 bombing of the Air-India jumbo jet. But almost 19 years later, American and Swiss authorities admit they still do not know for certain who was responsible.

Nevertheless, L. Paul Bremer, the State Department’s counterterrorism chief, said the chances are fairly good that the U.S. government eventually will be able to identify the perpetrators of the Pan Am bombing. He said it is less certain that investigators will be able to obtain evidence conclusive enough to stand up in court.

Right Target Is Essential

George Carver, a former CIA official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it would be a mistake for the U.S. government to take action without being absolutely sure that it had the right target.

“I have no objection to using muscle,” he said. “I don’t even insist on a (legally) provable case. But I don’t think we should be snookered into retaliation before we know exactly whether we are playing into someone else’s game.

“The Middle East is a very tricky part of the world,” he added. “The idea of trying to set up something that embarrasses or brings retribution on one of your enemies is very attractive.”

Whether the Pan Am case is solved or not, the subject of terrorism has pushed its way to the top of the agenda for the incoming Bush Administration. It clearly is not an issue he would have chosen for his first crisis.

“This has no solution, no long-term fix,” a State Department official said. “You can’t cure this at its source because of the variety of motives that prompt people to engage in terrorism. You can’t hermetically seal everybody and every form of transportation.

“All we can do is try to reduce our exposure,” he added. “We’re too lax in our security. People don’t like waiting in lines but they are going to have to start.”

The Federal Aviation Administration already has ordered increased security measures for overseas flights by U.S. airlines. Officials estimate that passengers may be required to turn up at the airport at least two hours before flight time so that their baggage can be thoroughly checked.