Enemy at the Gate

Who and What

The target of Al Qaeda’s next terror attack against the United States may very possibly be the Golden Gate Bridge.

Why

George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are like two shores connected by a bridge. One shore is the land of the globalizing world, of material plenty, democratic traditions, and secular values. The other shore is the land of the left behind, of poverty, political repression, and religious dogma. Of course this is an ideal type, not a perfect metaphor, for Bush also throws God at us, and bin Laden uses airliners and cell phones--implements of the Global Godless Machine--against us. However, Bush and bin Laden are in a symbiotic relationship. They need each other as the great villains against which to marshal their forces. Bush needs the “War on Terrorism” to legitimize a presidency devoid of electoral mandate that was decided by a politicized Supreme Court. Not only does Bin Laden need the “Great Satan” in general, he needs the Bush administration in particular, which while doing little to “drain the swamps” of despair and oppression in the Islamic world, is--as the recent actions in Fallujah and Najaf demonstrate--furiously filling up new swamps, new breeding grounds for terrorists, where none previously existed.

Where

As for the East Coast, Al Qaeda has been there and done that. The next logical move would be to spread its terror to the West Coast, to make the point that it can strike anywhere in America. Just as New York City is the most cosmopolitan city on the East Coast, San Francisco is the most cosmopolitan city on the West Coast. Just as New York City is the present home of the United Nations, San Francisco is the birthplace of the United Nations. It is city that is loved the world over for its beauty and gentility. An attack on San Francisco would be an attack on global civilization, for it would be an attack on the cradle of the vision of postwar security and stability.

San Francisco is also the most progressive and most anti-war city in the United States, and although an attack here wouldn’t instantly turn a city of doves into a city of hawks thirsting for vengeance, it would certainly create more pro-war sentiment.

The Golden Gate Bridge is San Francisco’s most famous landmark. Moreover, destroying the Golden Gate Bridge would do significant, long-term damage to the Bay Area economy and disrupt the lives of millions of people for many years. As evidence of Al Qaeda's interest in the Golden Gate Bridge, on July 16, 2002, Spanish law enforcement authorities arrested three suspected Al Qaeda members who possessed homemade videotapes of several American landmarks, including the Golden Gate Bridge.

How

A September 11-type attack would have a low probability of success against the Golden Gate Bridge. First of all, air security has been considerably approved since 2001, so Al Qaeda is unlikely to attempt a repeat performance. Secondly, an airliner is basically a light, fragile shell full of breathable air for its occupants and wings full of fuel. An airliner impact produces some explosive force, but it is mainly an incendiary device. The kerosene fuel does not all flash at once, it burns slowly. The airliner attacks on the World Trade Center succeeded because the burning fuel was confined inside a few levels long enough to melt the metal support structure of the towers. This scenario does not apply to the open environment of the Golden Gate Bridge. An airliner impacting one of the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge would make a spectacular splash but would not likely result in structural failure. The burning fuel would not be concentrated on the tower, but would spread rather harmlessly over the waters of the Golden Gate Strait.

As for targeting the deck of the bridge, this would be more difficult to pull off. An aircraft is easier to steer in terms of heading than in terms of altitude, especially for an inexperienced pilot. An error of only a few tens of feet and the fuel-laden wings of the aircraft would pass under or over the deck of the bridge, even if parts of the fuselage or tail grazed the span. Also, while it is possible that a direct impact on the deck would severely damage a small section of the span, the rest of the span would still be supported by its cables. As with the damage to the Bay Bridge from the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, localized damage to the Golden Gate Bridge ought to be repaired fairly quickly. However, the vibrational response of the Golden Gate Bridge to a side impact of this magnitude ought to be addressed in an engineering analysis, if this has not been done already.

Al Qaeda operatives are suspected of having participated in the recent ship-bomb attack in the Iraqi port of Basra. A tower of the Golden Gate Bridge might be brought down by the impact of a large ship. In 1980, a large freighter collided with a pier of the Sunshine Skyway at the entrance to Tampa Bay. The impact collapsed the pier, and brought down half of the cantilever section as well as part of the inclined section of one of the twin spans. Since the Golden Gate is a suspension bridge, bringing down one of the towers would bring down most of the span.

The Coast Guard has extended a security zone to 12 miles outside the Golden Gate. All ships are boarded by sea marshals, who then accompany the ships to port. Terrorists would need to overpower this Coast Guard presence before deliberately ramming of the Golden Gate Bridge. Even if this were this accomplished, however, deviation from the shipping channel would become apparent several minutes before impact. This would probably be enough time in which to launch an anti-ship missile from either a surface vessel or an aircraft, assuming such assets were pre-positioned.

The explosion of a truck-bomb could sever the deck of the bridge. However, as with an airliner attack, damage would be localized and most of the span would remain intact. More critical damage might be sustained if the bomb detonated with sufficient force under one of the towers to cause the tower to collapse.

Given the current level of air and sea security, the truck-bomb may be the most likely means of attack. It is feasible to monitor the movements of the dozens of ships and hundreds of aircraft that operate in the Bay Area on any given day; and any deviation from expected behavior ought to be noticed and responded to rapidly. In contrast, thousands of trucks cross the Golden Gate Bridge every day, and it would not be possible to identify one of them as a threat before it was a couple of minutes or possibly even seconds from its target.

When

Bin Laden understands that when America is attacked by a foreign enemy, Americans rally around their president. The best way for bin Laden to ensure the reelection of George W. Bush is to attack sometime during the month prior to the presidential election. In particular, an attack in California might well deliver our state’s 55 electoral votes to Bush. Adding to the credibility of this scenario are the recent Al Qaeda attacks in Madrid prior to Spanish elections in March 2004. The attacks tipped the political balance in favor of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who subsequently announced the withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq. While the Madrid attacks solidified public opinion that Iraq wasn’t Spain’s fight, another attack on the United States would likely have the opposite effect, driving public opinion to further support American military involvement in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world. We can therefore look for an “October surprise,” compliments of Osama. His objective is to drive all foreigners out of Iraq except the Americans, so that we stand alone, stripped of our allies, the sole focus of rage and hatred.

As for the time of day for the attack, there are two obvious choices for maximizing loss of life, as well as maximizing the number of eye-witnesses to the disaster: morning or afternoon rush hour. All factors considered, an afternoon hit is more favorable to bin Laden’s objectives. First of all, an afternoon strike in the Pacific time zone would occur during prime time in the Central and Eastern time zones, maximizing the size of the American television audience, maximizing the effect of terror. Secondly, darkness would fall a few hours after the attack, and not only would this inhibit rescue efforts, it would further maximize the public horror. We fear most the imagined terrors we cannot see in the night. Envision the video camera shots from orbiting helicopters as searchlights scanned across the twisted wreckage crumpled in the choppy waters of the Golden Gate, with the shining City of a Hundred Hills as a backdrop.

The best afternoon of the week to strike would be Friday, when there is heavy traffic in both directions. In addition to the usual commute traffic returning to Marin and Sonoma counties, thousands of San Francisco residents are leaving town for a weekend getaway, and Marin and Sonoma residents are converging on the City for an evening of dining and entertainment.

The Friday afternoon timing applies only to the airliner or ship scenarios, which are less likely. There is a slight complication with the idea of the truck-bomb attack occurring at rush hour, since "rush hour" is a misnomer, as we all know. Traffic congestion would severely impede the truck-bomb's ability to reach its target before defensive measures could be employed to "take out" the threat. So, if the attack were to occur at rush hour, the truck-bomb would have to travel in the reverse commute direction.

From which direction is a truck-bomb likely to come? At present, the California Highway Patrol is positioned on US Highway 101 at the Spencer Avenue/Monte Mar Drive ramps on the Marin side, and requires all trucks to check in there before proceeding. This position is two miles from the North Tower, so were a truck to pass this checkpoint without stopping, there would be about two minutes in which to react and take action before the truck reached the bridge. On the San Francisco side, however, the CHP is stationed at the toll plaza, which is only 40 seconds at the 45 MPH speed limit (30 seconds at 60 MPH) from the South Tower. This short distance does not allow sufficient time to react and take effective action; therefore an attack from the south is favored. A truck-bomb attack during rush hour would thus occur in the morning, when northbound traffic is relatively light, and the attack could take place on any workday.

Aftermath

Even at rush hour, the loss of life would be a tiny fraction of the September 11 attacks. Fatalities would number in the hundreds rather than the thousands. However, destruction of the Golden Gate Bridge would have a greater and more enduring economic impact than the collapse of the World Trade Center. The driving time from southern Marin County to San Francisco would explode from 20 minutes to many hours. With commute times comparable to Cotati, property values would plummet to about the same level. Beyond the few hundred lives that would be lost, hundreds of thousands of life savings would be destroyed. The remaining routes to the City--around San Pablo Bay or across the San Rafael-Richmond Bridge and back across the Bay Bridge--would be choked beyond capacity, and the ripple effect would slow traffic for millions of commuters to the point where it would become beyond human endurance to get to and from work and put in a full day on the job. The loss in worker productivity would be staggering, dragging the entire Bay Area economy into a localized but very acute depression. Many Marin and Sonoma residents would simply no longer be able to reach their jobs elsewhere in the Bay Area, triggering a massive wave of mortgage defaults and business failures. The collapse of the bridge into the Golden Gate Strait would also close the entire Bay Area to shipping, effecting commerce all over the Central Valley. The Rust Belt of the industrial Midwest would be an economic paradise by comparison. A successful attack by Al Qaeda on the Golden Gate Bridge would visit economic catastrophe on the Bay Area of such suddenness and of such intensity as has not been seen in America since Sherman’s march to the sea, and the Bay Area’s privileged and affluent lifestyle would be gone with the wind.

Solution

This doesn't have to happen, and of course, we hope it won't. But preventing this scenario requires the proper placement of defense weaponry that is adequate to neutralize the threat. Naval forces must be positioned with the capability to deal with errant aircraft and ships, e.g., anti-ship missiles. On land, there must be a defense in depth. CHP units need to be positioned far enough from the bridge to allow the threat to be intercepted once it has violated the checkpoint. On the Marin side, the checkpoint on US 101 at Spencer Avenue/Monte Mar Drive appears adequate. However, there also need to be pre-positioned assets nearer to the bridge with sufficient stopping power—e.g. rocket propelled grenades—to take out the threat once it reaches them. It is not clear that such assets are in place. Furthermore, there is no coverage whatsoever of the much-less-traveled Alexander Avenue leading out of Sausalito.

On the San Francisco side, the measures that have been taken appear to be wholly inadequate. A terrorist would barely have time to notice the flashing lights in his rear-view mirror before detonating his vehicle under the South Tower. The CHP presence needs to fan out to positions from which it can sound an early warning to assets at the toll plaza capable of stopping the terrorists dead in their tracks. Unfortunately, this means setting up multiple checkpoints and at not very convenient locations:

• Park Presidio Boulevard and Lake Street

• Richardson Avenue and Lyon Street

• Marina Boulevard and Lyon Street

• Entrance to Vista Access (below the toll plaza)

• The dire consequences of failing to identify and interdict the threat ought to justify this expanded deployment of security forces.

About the Authors

Thomas Gangale is a fifth generation San Franciscan who commutes daily across the Golden Gate Bridge. He holds an engineering degree, is a former air force officer, and is currently a graduate student in International Relations at San Francisco State University, focusing on security and WMD nonproliferation issues.

Dr. Marilyn Dudley-Rowley lectures on the transnationalization of terror at Sonoma State University. She is a member of the Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Committee.