The would-be Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, might have been successful in blowing up a plane over Detroit* if his equipment had not malfunctioned. Terribly, terrifically, terrifying terrorism? Well yes, in one respect certainly: Had he succeeded (and even when he didn't), the incident brings home to us again the reality of terrorism in today's world, the frightening thought (if we bother to think about it) that lives - possibly including our own - could be snuffed out unexpectedly.
(* Why Detroit? I hope investigators will look closely for clues as to Abdulmutallab's choice of target. Had he bought a Chevy in the past couple of years? Was he a Lions fan?)
But that's not what terrifies me. My philosophy on terrorism is that it exists; incidents will inevitably occur, including here in the U.S., in spite of anything Bush, Obama, or even Oprah may have done or failed to do; and we can't provide absolute security against it.
That being the case, let's not completely alter our everyday lives (which means the terrorists win), nor react stupidly, in the hopes of preventing the unpreventable. Of course with appropriate measures we can and should try to minimize the risks of terrorist attack. Certainly we don't want to make it so easy that we end up with every third plane being blown out of the sky.
But too often, the preventive steps we take seem to be lowest-denominator steps with limited effectiveness. After the Twin Towers attack, we forbade travelers from carrying anything sharp or pointy, even a toothpick or a knitting needle. After several years of that silliness, some of the more ridiculous rerstrictions were finally lifted, and with good reason -- not only were some of the banned items basically harmless, but after the example of 9/11, did anyone really believe an airline steward or pilot would allow him/herself to be threatened into giving up control of the plane when confronted by a penknife? Now we all take off our shoes before boarding an airplane, and we have to give up most liquids even when they're "declared" and carried in plain sight.
No, it's not the prospect of being blown out of the sky that is most frightening to me; it's the prospect of still more un-thought-out, ineffective countermeasures that will only serve to weigh us down psychologically, commercially, and in other ways. Within hours of the failed Detroit attack, journalists and security officials had begun to preach the new gospel of the ridiculous: passengers would be forbidden to have blankets (Abdulmutallab hid his device under his blanket), or would be required to stay in their seats during the last hour of a flight before landing (because Mr. A. went to the toilet to rig himself up during that last hour). But if restrictions forbid movement during the last hour, wouldn't even the dumbest terrorist just figure out a way to go "live" sooner than that?
So let's exercise some common sense in our approach to counterterrorism. We could begin by not publishing the complete details of the TSA's exact screening procedures and specifications on the internet, for example. Let's be more analytical about what may be effective, and what's just window dressing. I don't have a lot of confidence that we're operating that way now, or at any time in the past 8 years.
Comments