"air security lies in deterrence"

This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

January 7, 2004

Business World
Air Security Lies
In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

That information and intelligence are two different things was amply
demonstrated by the executive branch's difficulty in deciphering
Iraq's weapons progress from a distance. Making sense out of noise
seems again to have been a trouble last week as several governments
cooperated to cancel or delay a dozen flights due to terrorist alarms.

A British newspaper pointed to a police "informant" who had fingered
British Airways, Air France and Aeromexico as targets for
hijack-and-crash plots. U.S. papers pointed to e-mail or phone traffic
for a specific flight number, BA 223. The Journal cited six passengers
on an Air France flight with names similar to known terrorists. All
these tips seem to have come a cropper, or so the news organizations
report.

Oh well. Disruptions were fewer than those caused by a thunderstorm
over Cleveland, though thunderstorms tend not to produce the same
lingering effects on airlines that terrorist scares do. And at least
our willingness to cancel routines based on slight or ambiguous
evidence adds a new complication for terrorist groups already
straining to pull off jobs with slender resources and a shortage of
personnel who are both motivated and competent (the hiring criteria
being especially stiff in the suicide era). This is a silver lining to
what is, objectively, our stronger propensity to panic over al Qaeda
since Sept. 11, even though al Qaeda objectively is weaker.

Still, judgment should play a role, and judgment says Sept. 11-style
hijacking plots have been removed from the terrorist arsenal. Speaking
with the New York Sun recently, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a member of
the federal commission investigating the attacks, made the key
observation: "The hijackers recognized we had the wrong rules on the
airline. We could have taken that means of delivery of a weapon off
the table, had we merely said, lock the pilot up front and resist. We
never made that confession of that mistake."

Mr. Kerrey, no longer in office, can say what other politicians won't.
Aviation will remain a target not only for the obvious reasons, but
because it's a sprawling and highly routinized system:
Vulnerabilities, once found and tested, can be counted on to persist.
But that has implications for us too. Instead of turning ourselves
upside down over ambiguous nuggets of information, we should recognize
that we can deter attacks with a high degree of confidence simply by
focusing on vulnerabilities that are every bit as apparent to us as
they are to terrorists.

In the context of the recent hullabaloo, it's interesting to note what
was known and done without hullabaloo in the pre-9/11 past.

In 1994, French commandos killed four Algerian terrorists who'd taken
over a plane, landed in Marseille and ordered up a full load of fuel
with the suspected aim of crashing it in Paris. In 1995, a rollup of
al Qaeda operatives in Manila uncovered firm evidence of a plan to
hijack a plane and crash it into CIA headquarters. In July 2001, the
Italian military went on full alert during a G-8 summit in Genoa based
on intelligence of a hijack-and-crash plot while President Bush was in
town.

These are mere highlights of what had been deluge of indications more
substantial than "chatter" about the possibility of such plots.
Looking back now, we shouldn't be berating ourselves for not noticing
the stray clue that would have led us to the 9-11 plotters. We should
be berating ourselves for not plugging the hole that the terrorists
were counting on -- that is, for not revoking the FAA protocol that
said terrorists were to be negotiated with, not resisted.

If you suppose al Qaeda sticks to its knitting, it's not hard to
figure out where its investment in loophole-hunting is concentrated
now: How to get bombs aboard multiple flights simultaneously.

This was the gist of the well-documented Bojinka plot, planned out of
the Philippines, which aimed to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners
simultaneously. A test bomb aboard a Philippine Airlines flight killed
a Japanese businessman in 1994, and only lucky (and diligent) police
work in Manila prevented the plot from going further. You don't need
chatter to recognize the significance of Richard Reid: The shoe-bomber
with his matchbook was meant to test a solution to getting an
explosive on a plane without the necessary timing and ignition
mechanism that would likely show up on an x-ray. The Brits just
arrested another potential shoe-bomber in November, finding also a
pair of socks impregnated with three kinds of plastic explosive,
evidently for a suicide bomber to wear around his/her neck.

We'll leave out the case of 9-year-old boy who showed up for a flight
in Orlando in July with a handgun sewn into his teddy bear. His
parents said a strange girl had appeared at their hotel room door with
the bear as a "gift." The FBI says the investigation is pending and no
arrests have been made. Presumably the agency has examined
surveillance videos to see who might have been watching from the
shadows when the boy tried to take it through security checks.

Passenger profiling is a useful layer of security, but we'd be nuts
not to maintain a high level of random screening too. Keep this in
mind next time you're tempted to throw a fit when grandma or some
four-year-old is pulled out of line. What stops "Bojinka"-style plots
from happening is the fact that suicide terrorists are presented with
an unacceptable chance of being stopped at the turnstile.

America's vulnerabilities, on paper, are unlimited. But the lack of
attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
long.

Cub Driver wrote:

This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

Thanks. I agree with your assessment.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

January 7, 2004

Business World
Air Security Lies
In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

snips

But the lack of
attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
long.

I agree that the essay is a bit more sensible than the majority of the
administration's reactions to America being a victim of terrorism, and
it is good to see the WSJ perhaps moderating its usual position, but
the Mr. Jenkin's comments in the above paragaph lead me to judge it
not totally sensible when standing alone.

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11. What a joke. Look at the millions of
man-hours of energy; billions of dollars expended and wasted; millions
of significant distruptions of people's lives; countless compromises
of freedom and personal liberty; thousands of U.S. military
casualties; tens of thousands of dead, maimed and crippled foreign
nationals (Afghan and Iraqi, mostly); and a massively increasing
budget deficit that will probably effect our children for decades.
Oh, but it seems those things don't count as long as our country's
brave and heroic political leadership can prevent any direct
casualties on American soil and, by the way, get re-elected.

Many of those around the world who hold the U.S. in disdain are
probably laughing their heads off at the way a "rag-tag" (well, who
knows if they are really 'rag-tag' but we get that impression from the
spin-meisters) group of religous fanatics can cause such endless
disrupton for the world's most super-power by just making threats.
They don't need suicide bombers. Perhaps they are getting huge bang
for their bucks by just whispering rumors on cell phones, posting
cryptic internet mnessages, and floating bogus plan documents. What
has happened to our courage as a country? If we were really
courageous we would have long ago proclaimed that we were not going to
let our lives be disrupted out of fear, while at the same time we
would silently seek out the culprits with fierce determination. We
have a courageous military, but we are seemingly not a courageous
population. Let us reflect a little on what courage really is. To me
it is not proof of courage to proclaim, "Security at any price." Some
famous politician once expressed his leadership by entreating that,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was quite correct
in that.

In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
"remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?

Okay all of you testosterone enraged war-hawks, let me have it now for
daring to speak out against a good ol' popular war in which we
definitely have God on our side.

Sorry that this is so off the topic of piloting, but I didn't start
the thread.

John Pierce

"John" wrote in message
om...
|
| In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
| "remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
| foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?
|

Since when does ten years' effort at bringing about a peaceful solution
constitute a 'rush' into war?

I agree with you.

While the article cited above make does some sense, it still misses the major issues....

No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still cause damage. No matter how many countries
we invade and pave over, we won't be able to stop those that hate us from doing us harm (in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

The "generals" are just re-fighting the last war again. Say whatever else you will about al Qaeda, they're not
stupid. They found a weakness and exploited it. But that trick only works once, and I seriously doubt that
aircraft will be used in the next attacks. It's going to be something else entirely, since almost all of our focus
is on things that fly. Duh.

Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and though that has gone into the "war agaist
terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?

John wrote:

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

January 7, 2004

Business World
Air Security Lies
In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

snips

But the lack of
attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
long.

I agree that the essay is a bit more sensible than the majority of the
administration's reactions to America being a victim of terrorism, and
it is good to see the WSJ perhaps moderating its usual position, but
the Mr. Jenkin's comments in the above paragaph lead me to judge it
not totally sensible when standing alone.

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11. What a joke. Look at the millions of
man-hours of energy; billions of dollars expended and wasted; millions
of significant distruptions of people's lives; countless compromises
of freedom and personal liberty; thousands of U.S. military
casualties; tens of thousands of dead, maimed and crippled foreign
nationals (Afghan and Iraqi, mostly); and a massively increasing
budget deficit that will probably effect our children for decades.
Oh, but it seems those things don't count as long as our country's
brave and heroic political leadership can prevent any direct
casualties on American soil and, by the way, get re-elected.

Many of those around the world who hold the U.S. in disdain are
probably laughing their heads off at the way a "rag-tag" (well, who
knows if they are really 'rag-tag' but we get that impression from the
spin-meisters) group of religous fanatics can cause such endless
disrupton for the world's most super-power by just making threats.
They don't need suicide bombers. Perhaps they are getting huge bang
for their bucks by just whispering rumors on cell phones, posting
cryptic internet mnessages, and floating bogus plan documents. What
has happened to our courage as a country? If we were really
courageous we would have long ago proclaimed that we were not going to
let our lives be disrupted out of fear, while at the same time we
would silently seek out the culprits with fierce determination. We
have a courageous military, but we are seemingly not a courageous
population. Let us reflect a little on what courage really is. To me
it is not proof of courage to proclaim, "Security at any price." Some
famous politician once expressed his leadership by entreating that,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was quite correct
in that.

In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
"remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?

Okay all of you testosterone enraged war-hawks, let me have it now for
daring to speak out against a good ol' popular war in which we
definitely have God on our side.

Sorry that this is so off the topic of piloting, but I didn't start
the thread.

John Pierce

"David H" wrote in message
...
I agree with you.


No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
cause damage.

On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.

(in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....

That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is to
have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be, "I
hate you, but it's not worth it."

I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:nr4Lb.70297$hf1.12680@lakeread06...

"David H" wrote in message
...
I agree with you.


No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
cause damage.

On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.

(in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....

That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is
to
have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be,
"I
hate you, but it's not worth it."

I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

There are two ways to tackle terrorism.

Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient enough
to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
massive change in lifestyle

Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all boarders,
friends and foes alike.

In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former, there
may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

This is a common outcome.

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11

I don't think that's what Jenkins said. Indeed, what I think he said
was that the Homeland Security money was largely wasted, as compared
to the success of going after Osama in Afghanistan. Proactive, not
reactive.

But then I can barely remember what I said yesterday, never mind what
I read!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"David H" wrote in message
...
I agree with you.

[snip]

Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and
though that has gone into the "war agaist
terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President
Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?

Esentially, it is a rephrasing of their own words.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net

If anything, it's an understatement.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11

I don't think that's what Jenkins said. Indeed, what I think he said
was that the Homeland Security money was largely wasted, as compared
to the success of going after Osama in Afghanistan. Proactive, not
reactive.

But then I can barely remember what I said yesterday, never mind what
I read!

all the best -- Dan Ford

I agree Dave, ah...Dan!