

Myths about keeping America safe from terrorism - jamesbritt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101159.html

======
CWuestefeld
I wonder if the TSA airport security is all just misdirection.

It's so clearly theater, and particularly the most recent set of regulations
being so obviously ineffectual and just stupid, that it can't be serious. At
the same time, there are so many better targets that remain unprotected:
energy and communication transmission hubs, bridges and tunnels, malls and
arenas, etc.

Can it be that Homeland Security is fully aware that what they're doing to air
travel is stupid, but it's all designed to keep attention tuned there? Like a
magician that's directing attention away from the real trick, DHS wants to
keep the terrorists from thinking about the "better" targets. They keep all of
the debate focused on air travel, so alternate ideas aren't discussed and
incubated.

I'm start to believe that DHS has chosen air travel as cannon fodder,
intentionally concentrating terrorist attention there, in order to keep
everything else safe. It's kind of like the wildebeests at the watering hole.
As long as the lion is eating the one weak animal (air travel) the rest of the
herd (American infrastructure and industry) is safe.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
I have a hard time believing this, as it isn't just US air travel which is hit
by the stupidity. All over the world we are suffering from this and I can't
see the air industry taking to being a sacrificial cow, without protesting
about it.

------
bjelkeman-again
As usual, missing is from this is any analysis about causes of terrorism,
which seems to have gone missing in most/all(?) discussions about terrorism
these days. They are only talking about how to deal with the symptoms not the
causes. That will never solve the situation, only dampen some of the symptoms,
at best.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
Terrorism is a tactic. It is nonsensical to talk about the causes of superior
firepower, the causes of ambush, or the causes of propaganda.

Islamic Fundamentalism is an ideology. It is likewise nonsensical to talk
about the causes of Buddhism, socialism, or libertarianism.

But just for kicks, in your view, what exactly _are_ the "causes" of
terrorism? They are central to the claim you are making, but you don't say
what they are. Why?

~~~
e40
Since no one else wants to, I'll take a stab.

Meddling. We meddle in other people's affairs (in the Middle East). Iran and
the Shah, where we supported a brutal dictator. We give money to many
oppressive governments in the Middle East.

Of course, the thing that increase terrorism the most was invading Iraq when
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. The second thing was invading a country
(Afghanistan), rather than just sending in a squad to arrest Bin Laden.

We are seen in the Middle East as bullies that only care about oil. This is
grist for the mill of terrorism, where we setup ourselves as an easy target.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
_the thing that increased terrorism the most was invading Iraq..._

9/11, USS Cole, Kenyan/Tanzanian Embassies?

Also, while the war in Iraq has not made the US popular in the region, it has
given the people of the Middle East a very good look at the practice of
terrorism. Surveys show that groups like Al Qaeda have suffered an even
greater loss of esteem than the US has:

<http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/saudi.poll/>

 _We give money to many oppressive governments in the Middle East._

This was the theme of GWB's second inaugural address. Thanks to him, Iraq's
government is now the most liberal in the region. The idea was to create
pressure for change in neighboring countries like Syria and especially Iran.
That nobody was ecstatic about the Stalinesque Hussein regime's ouster and
subsequent replacement with a constitutional democracy is a bright sign that
"oppression" is a lot more complicated than the victim-villain narrative that
predominates in the media and public discourse.

Did I mention that Israel is one of the world's most open societies if you
ignore all the stuff they do to the Palestinians?

The point is that this issue is full of contradictions. But it's hard to see
how the oppression of the Middle East's huddled masses would elicit murderous,
self-immolating rage from the son of a Nigerian bank chairman living at a tony
London boarding school (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab), or an Egyptian studying
architecture at a German university (Mohammed Atta).

 _We are seen in the Middle East as bullies that only care about oil. This is
grist for the mill of terrorism, where we setup ourselves as an easy target._

Superpowers are not nice. But they are even less popular than they are nice.
They get blamed for all the good they could do but don't, doubly blamed for
their screwups, triply blamed for their vices. And when they do something
right, nobody pays attention:

[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1211/Iraq-
oi...](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1211/Iraq-oil-fields-
European-Asian-firms-win-first-contracts)

So I absolutely agree that the US has a big PR problem in the Middle East that
to some extent is structural and can't be gotten rid of. But that doesn't
really tell us much. Any project undertaken by an actor as big as the US is
going to be a mixed bag. Because of the PR problem, people will see the bad
and not the good, making the US less popular and giving it more of a PR
problem.

I think people stop thinking about problems like terrorism too early. They
quit in a funny way though. Rather than just declaring the problem impossible,
people tend to settle on some really unrealistic solution that will never fly
in the real world, and then complain that it isn't happening.

So for example, people go on about how the US should consume less oil (which
would add major unemployment to the region's problems), stop backing Israel
(which would destroy trust of other allies, threaten a high-tech trading
partner, free up Syria and Hezbollah, and piss off a chunk of the Florida
electorate), or stop being a superpower (Riiight).

There have to be better solutions, though.

------
DanielBMarkham
Can I weigh in with "myths about the myths"? Cause this article is loaded with
them.

 _Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people -- Americans are
at far greater risk of being killed in accidents or by viruses than by acts of
terrorism_

Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people today because small
numbers of people acting violently have the ability to sway a populace to do
irrational things. That's why it's an existential threat, not because you
count up dead people one way or another (damn, I get tired of this old
chestnut)

* When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a good offense. -- But offense has its limits...an emphasis on offense has often come at the expense of investing in effective defensive measures, such as maintaining quality watch lists,"

The problem here is that the magical amulet that keeps bears away is really
beyond questioning. Or in other words we don't know what _didn't_ happen
because we took certain actions. Obviously strategies that are both totally
offense or totally defense are going to miss attributes from the opposite
tact. But nobody has suggest or is implementing strategies that are one way or
the other. Best you can say is that there is an opinion call involved here,
one way or the other, and that there's probably not a right and wrong in the
traditional sense.

I could go on, but the article is just bad. Bad, bad. I got to this point and
dang if he isn't digging out Bush as a strawman to kick around some.

Terrorism is a complicated subject. In a lot of ways it's just rough-and-
tumble politics taken to the logical next stage -- blowing up kids in a bus to
get politicians to do what you want. Articles that have the words "myth" and
"terrorism" are almost guaranteed to contain exaggerations and
oversimplifications.

~~~
dstorrs
_Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people today because
small numbers of people acting violently have the ability to sway a populace
to do irrational things._

Just to be sure I'm reading you correctly, I think you're saying that you
_agree_ that yes, terrorism is the gravest threat facing the US right now.
Furthermore, the reason that it's the gravest threat is because a few
terrorists "have the ability to sway a populace to do irrational things".

If so: horse hockey.

As to the first part, a person's odds of being personally affected by
terrorism are infinitesimal, especially if you don't live in NYC, Washington,
LA, or San Fran.

Yes, it only takes a few terrorists to commit an attack. But how we react to
it is entirely up to us; they have no power to "sway" us into irrational acts
--that has been purely the choice of our leaders and media, who have used the
fear of terrorism as a way to build their own powerbase and advance their own
agendas. I do not know ONE SINGLE private citizen who is actually afraid of
terrorists, despite having zero confidence in our TSA and security procedures.

~~~
jamesbritt
"As to the first part, a person's odds of being personally affected by
terrorism are infinitesimal, especially if you don't live in NYC, Washington,
LA, or San Fran."

The OP was claiming that it is incorrect to state, as the article does, that
"effects of terrorism" == body count.

Any time I fly I suffer the effects of terrorism because I'm now forced to
spend an extra few hours engaged in security theater. I get additional delays
driving along the US southern boarder as well. I have politicians looking to
restrict my means of expression because of supposed fears of terrorism.

Now, even granting all that, I don't know that this is the _gravest_ threat
facing the USA, but the opportunistic reactions to terrorism certainly is a
major problem that affects people daily.

