Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1497523
Harbours allows the Armed Forces to undertake action aimed at preventing the threat caused by the use of a vessel used by the terrorists. The sinking of that vessel is possible. The anti-terrorist activities are, however, regulated, by the anti- terrorism act. To make matters even more convoluted, the aforesaid acts define different sets of command rules and different ROE frameworks. In the former case, the Operational Commander of the Armed Forces can command the military, and he can work with the Border Guard vessels. In the latter case, all operations would be handled by a policeman. If that is not convoluted enough, not to mention the academic analysis of legal acts and resources remaining at the hand of the state services, who are not working under the pressure of responsibility and time. When the actual threat is detected, or if the attack is underway, the decision-making process would be far more challenging, while the convoluted legal framework may hamper the use of adequate assets. One should, however, remember that declaring a state of emergency does not automatically deploy forces or assets. It just facilitates the decisions, and some decisions are independent of that state. That may lead to a situation in which important assets that remain at hand in the national security system are unused, with a disproportionate burden placed on other means. Summing up, no simple solution exists, when responding to hybrid threats. The only effective method would be aimed at minimizing friction between different elements and entities working in the defense domain, increasing the state resilience, and simplifying the procedures, to minimize the aforesaid friction. HYBRID DEFENSE ANALYSIS