FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What Happens When They Change Targets?

The failed in-flight bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day 2009 is a reminder that terrorism is still with us. And, just as with the failed in-flight bombing of a US airliner by Richard Reid in 2001, once the 2009 event was foiled, a wave of ‘enhanced’ aviation security measures were announced to protect the traveling public. These measures ranged from preventing passengers from using pillows during the final hour of the flight and locking lavatories to preventing flight crews from making cabin announcements of geographic points of interest along the flight route.

In other words, the response ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. Thankfully, some of the more idiotic ‘enhancements’ were softened once it became obvious that both passengers and aircrews believed such lunacy did not ‘enhance’ anything but their discomfort and confusion while aloft.

We know how little it takes to spook the public and lawmakers about aircraft and airport security, even in cases when the vulnerability in question has been remedied. Yet after the Christmas 2009 bombing attempt, pundits and fear-inspiring Congressmen still discuss how easy it would be to commandeer an aircraft in-flight despite reinforced cockpit doors, passengers willing to fight back, and in some cases as a last resort, armed pilots. There is no limit to the real or perceived what-ifs that can drive homeland security policy decisions, it seems.

Our adversaries — be they al-Qaeda or others — realize this. As such, my question is: Despite the high-profile attraction of passenger aviation, what happens when they change their target?

After 9/11, I gave a briefing describing several terrorism scenarios in the United States and the possible outcomes. These examples ranged from ‘traditional’ ideas like chemical plant attacks and schoolyard shootings to more sinister and subdued schemes. The latter category included synchronized pipe bombs going off in mall garbage cans on the Friday after Thanksgiving, introducing small bombs into commercial office buildings or city busses concealed in consumer electronics and laptops, planting small bombs around key roadway intersections, bridges, or interchanges (think present-day Iraq), and other ‘doable’ (i.e., simple) possibilities. In each case, I emphasized that wide-scale damage or death was not required to cause significant damage to the American economy and national psyche, and that even failed attacks would yield tangible results for our adversaries by forcing us to spend vast sums to counter those threats and change significantly our mindsets and daily routines. The failed and foiled Christmas 2009 bombing attempt reminds us of this fact.

But given the erratic and schizophrenic security responses to terrorism involving aircraft since 9/11, what will be our national response when our adversaries shift their focus towards other non-aviation targets? Here, I refer to things closer to our homes and families, such as schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls.

My primary concern is not just the adverse significant impact on the economy or sense of public well-being resulting from such hypothetical events, but the national reaction to these events and their impact on American society and psyche. I worry that such responses will be inconsistent, overly aggressive, and rooted in a fearful, risk-adverse philosophy … which in turn facilitates and sustains a fearful and risk-adverse society. Such is what Ron Suskind refers to as the ‘One Percent Doctrine’, or how the previous Administration viewed threats: specifically, that if a threat is believed only to have a one percent chance of occurring, countermeasures to that threat must be enacted as if the threat had a one-hundred percent chance of occurring. Unfortunately, when an adversary can devise new tactics quickly, that’s a lot of One Percents requiring defense, even if the actual chances of them occurring are infinitely remote. And that’s what is happening now at our airports and on our aircraft. It’s both time-consuming and costly, too

For aircraft, first it was guns and grenades, then knives, mace, and box-cutters. Then it was liquid explosives in shoes and crotches. Thus we pass through metal detectors and have restrictions on carry-on liquids and gels, shoes being removed and scanned, and now, calls for full-body scanners to detect crotch-bombs. One only wonders what the security ‘enhancements’ will be for our schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls if they become terror’s next target within the American homeland. How will our lives be disrupted then in the name of security?

In the security world, we accept risk and realize that Total Security does not exist nor is achievable. However, while Washington politicians might agree with this sentiment in their media interviews (and some have made such statements, ironically) the efforts of the homeland security industrial complex supported by these politicians, is the exact opposite. Thus, again we witness the ‘One Percent Doctrine’ being used to promote new, ‘enhanced’ measures that suggest Total Security indeed is doable. It is not — but for some, it certainly will be profitable. Such is the nature of politicians’ logic during times of crisis: something must be done: this is something, so therefore we must do it.

Sadly, America must accept a certain amount of risk in its daily life, and recognize the reality that our adversaries can, and will, change tactics and targets to accomplish their nefarious tasks of sowing terror. Certainly, we can, and should, raise the bar where possible and prudent, but not in a knee-jerk manner based on fear rather than objective risk analysis and management. We cannot afford, socially or economically, to let every single failed incident serve as a ‘wake up call’ that leads to further inconveniencing of the law-abiding citizenry under the rubric of ‘enhanced’ security.

Therefore, the question remains: What Happens When They Change Targets?

RICHARD FORNO can be reached through his website: www.infowarrior.org

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail