I hate to beat a dead horse, but some of the reactions I'm hearing to the Christmas bomber incident in the 12 hours since my last post drive me to revisit the issue of how we should react to such news.
First, I'd suggest that the "balanced" approach being attributed to President Obama in the press -- ordering some immediate measures (even if the efficacy of some of them is dubious); considering stepping up the use of better screening technology despite the resistance of "privacy" advocates; and generally refusing to make a huge fuss over the whole affair -- is a reasonable one.
Terrorism is a bit like bank robbery; banks have been seeking ways to prevent robberies for - what, maybe a century and a half? - but people are still finding ways to rob banks, sometimes getting caught by preventive measures, sometimes by their own mistakes, and sometimes not getting caught at all. We don't generally blame the bank managers or the CEO; we don't declare the entire banking system to be in crisis; and we don't strip search the bank customers. A similarly measured response is called for in the case of a terrorist act.
One Congressman, Peter Hoekstra, doesn't seem to understand that point; he is being quoted heavily in the press today as follows:
Michigan's Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that the Obama administration should be held accountable for the near-catastrophe aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Hoekstra said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's presence on the flight was part of a pattern of administration neglect on preparedness questions, stemming from a failure to recognize essential dangers. "The threat to the United States is real. I think this administration has downplayed it," he said on Fox News.
(Incidentally, I assume from this that Hoekstra also holds the Bush administration "accountable" for September 11; did he argue for impeachment back then?)
Now, as a senior member of the House Intel Committee, Hoekstra ought to understand the bank-robber nature of the threat that we face, and he ought to know, better than he appears to, how intelligence works (i.e., no single report like that which Abdulmatallab's father made can ever be a basis for action). So either Hoekstra is ignorant of some basic facts about intelligence or (my guess) he's just using the recent incident for political advantage. Neither explanation of his motive reflects well on him; either he has not taken his duties on the committee seriously enough to learn the subject matter, or he has chosen to play politics with national security (as have other Republicans this year). Either way, he seems to be acting out of fear when none is justified.
Fear also underlies the Washington Post's editorial today, "Unconnected Dots." This overreactive piece seems to have been dashed off in a hurry - a frightened hurry - and it takes the same unrealistic approach to terrorism and counterterrorism as Hoekstra. The Post talks about failures of the screening system (yet it goes without saying any such system - especially one dependent on human inspectors -- will have flaws that terrorists will eventually learn to exploit); it suggests the single report from the terrorist's father should have "catapulted" Abdulmutallab to a higher level of scrutiny (yet there may be 500, or 5000 such reports a day, and only one in six months that really means anything); and it calls the administration response "defensive" (yet it's entirely appropriate to the bank-robber model).
So many talking heads, so little understanding.
Comments