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
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Frank Clemente
The GOP Tax Bill is Creating Jobs…But Not in the United States
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants
Mel Gurtov
Weaponizing Humanitarian Aid
Thomas Knapp
Lame Duck Shutdown Theater Time: Pride Goeth Before a Wall?
George Wuerthner
The Thrill Bike Threat to the Elkhorn Mountains
Nyla Ali Khan
A Woman’s Selfhood and Her Ability to Act in the Public Domain: Resilience of Nadia Murad
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
On the Killing of an Ash Tree
Graham Peebles
Britain’s Homeless Crisis
Louis Proyect
America: a Breeding Ground for Maladjustment
Steve Carlson
A Hell of a Time
Dan Corjescu
America and The Last Ship
Jeffrey St. Clair
Booked Up: the 25 Best Books of 2018
December 13, 2018
John Davis
What World Do We Seek?
Subhankar Banerjee
Biological Annihilation: a Planet in Loss Mode
Lawrence Davidson
What the Attack on Marc Lamont Hill Tells Us
James McEnteer
Breathless
Ramzy Baroud
The Real Face of Justin Trudeau: Are Palestinians Canada’s new Jews?
Dean Baker
Pelosi Would Sabotage the Progressive Agenda With a Pay-Go Rule
Elliot Sperber
Understanding the Yellow Vests Movement Through Basic Color Theory 
Rivera Sun
The End of the NRA? Business Magazines Tell Activists: The Strategy is Working
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Historic Opportunity to Transform Trade
December 12, 2018
Arshad Khan
War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned
Paul Street
Blacking Out the Yellow Vests on Cable News: Corporate Media Doing its Job
Kenneth Surin
The Brexit Shambles Rambles On
David Schultz
Stacking the Deck Against Democracy in Wisconsin
Steve Early
The Housing Affordability Crisis and What Millennials Can do About It
George Ochenski
Collaboration Failure: Trump Trashes Sage Grouse Protections
Rob Seimetz
Bringing a Life Into a Dying World: A Letter From a Father to His Unborn Son
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail