What happened during the Men’s Marathon in Greece was a slap in the face of the world: “We are vulnerable! And we are not doing enough”.
The difference is not that big between the peculiar Irish cleric (see below) that had previously disrupted a highly popular and media-covered sports event and a suicide bomber determined to hit a target. They both know what the outcome would be, and they both know how the impact would spread sending shocking and disturbing images to the television sets of millions of people worldwide raising embarrassing questions for politicians and decision makers.
Since 9/11 it has been correctly and repeatedly assessed, that one of the key elements in fighting terrorism is the international cooperation between intelligence agencies. Assuming that the 2004 Olympics in Greece would represent a “quality target” for international terrorist organizations (such as al-Qaeda, Hizballah, etc.), the 2004 Olympics Organizing Committee, Greece, the U.S. and, largely, the international community agreed and spent vast resources and funding in providing “TOP SECURITY” for the 2004 Olympic games. We all witnessed the televised Hollywood-style “Land, Sea and Air Combined Exercises”, including Special Forces, NAVY SEALs and others showing off their capabilities in the Greek islands several months before the games started. There is no doubt that physical security measures and an effective reactive force were essential in the overall security plan for the Olympics. But the fact that Cornelius Horan, a foreigner, passed through immigration without any delay and carried out an eccentric action that disrupted order, could have halted the event and even cause a serious accident, only a year after being held in custody for several weeks for a similar action during the British Formula One Grand Prix, certainly raises a lot of questions about the international sharing of intelligence that was vital to secure the Olympic games from a terrorist attack. What if the Greek customs (and international intelligence community) had failed to spot a well-known terrorist trying to attend the Olympics instead of this well-known eccentric demonstrator? Why is it that the media and public opinion are more interested in questioning politicians and key decision-makers after incidents that produce casualties (where questions often come in too late), and are less interested in raising the same questions in incidents where miraculously no blood was shed but yet many lessons could be learned? The least that can be expected is a thorough international investigation of this fortunately “bloodless attack”. One that will bring light in understanding how the international intelligence community failed in screening a known suspicious character from entering the tight security environment of the Olympics and failed in thwarting his aggression. The findings of such an investigation should be shared between nations and lessons should be learned.
