The Myth of Absolute Security

As everybody knows by now, over the Christmas holidays an attempt was made to blow up a plane headed to Detroit, Michigan. Despite various systems in place which should have prevented this incident from ever getting to this stage, the bomber managed to conceal the explosives in his underwear, set off the chemical reaction to act as an explosive charge. As it happened, it was only the quick thinking of another passenger and the response by the airline staff that saved the nearly 300 other passengers.

Since this time, there has been a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, charges and counter charges. To top it off, last weekend, a man at Newark International Airport in New Jersey jumps a security checkpoint (to kiss his girlfriend) and causes a complete shutdown of the system, delaying flights and creating chaos for thousands of passengers. Last week, Obama addressed the nation, following an preliminary investigation about what went wrong and how we can improve security.

Despite all this turmoil and rhetoric and interminable news coverage , there are some points I think are worth mentioning. All security- whether it is a full body scanner or a lock on your front door- is mostly about giving one the “illusion” of security. Without this practical illusion of safety, we- as individuals and as a society- could not function. For example, we have to be able to turn off the lights at night, knowing-or at least, believing- that the alarms and locks in our home will work properly and effectively prevent a criminal from entering. If we didn’t have this illusion, we would worry ourselves silly- probably needlessly- every minute of the day. Life would hardly be worth the effort.

In point of fact, absolute security is probably an impossible target and no administration could honestly promise such a thing. And we are wrong and foolish to expect it. If your adversary is clever enough, he will find a way to outwit the security devices. This is a fact of life and something as adults we must come to grips with. That is the bad news but it doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands in resignation.

There is a bright side. Firstly, if everybody- not just the police or agencies but all of us- keeps a heightened degree of vigilance- not hysterical panic and over-reaction - we have a better than average chance of preventing a disaster. A thousand pairs of eyes means a thousand filters and checkpoints that a potential terrorist must avoid.

Secondly. adequate training can help to minimize the consequences of an attack. This requires civil training- things to watch out for. in effect, training people to observe, as well as first aid training and procedures in an emergency. This kind of training should be free of charge, and should work at all levels, home, school and the workplace. A kind of new nationwide Civil Defense Program? All of us must be able to look catastrophe in the face without blinking.

One of the best films I ever watched was a training video on hotel fires. Many of the facts were gruesome and, on the surface, quite discouraging. And yet, knowing now what I know about “the opening and closing of windows of opportunity” I now feel more confident that, in such a situation, I would do the best I could do. Maybe I would fail, but at the very least, I can base my decisions on accurate information and not blind panic.

Thirdly, the public has a duty to report suspicious behavior and in an emergency, act independently to save lives. Additionally, the public needs to feel certain that authorities are actually listening and following up on any leads, no matter how unlikely. This also requires security staff that are easy to contact, that can interview and evaluate the validity of reports and, when necessary, implement follow-up action. The idea that the public is only recipient of protection and not a participant is a fundamental flaw in the present system.

Can anybody imagine how difficult it was for the Nigerian father to go to the American authorities and report his own son? And yet, in the end, it seems to have been a failure of the authorities to take this important lead seriously.

And finally, if the authorities constantly upgrade their standard operating procedures and follow them with regards to security protocol, then our illusions of security may be based something more than wishful thinking.

LiveJournal Tags: Terrorism,Newark Airport,Civil Defense

The People's War on Terrorism

At the moment, I am reading “The Unthinkable” a fascinating book by Amanda Ripley, examining who survives disasters and why, and how we can improve our chances. It certainly a good read, the author’s style makes what might be a gruesome subject into a really interesting study. I would like to quote now a passage:

Terrorism is another hazard like any other except that it demands even more initiative from regular people. Civilians are the involuntary draftees after all. We should not forget this after 9/11, says Stephen Flynn, a homeland security expert and former US Coast Guard officer. “There were two narratives after 9/11. One narrative was, :There are bad people coming to kill us and we have to take the battle to them.”

That was the narrative deployed by President Bush as sent American soldiers to fight overseas and told the American people to stay calm and keep shopping.

“The other narrative,”says Flynn, is the United Flight 93 narrative.” There was one plane on 9/11 on which regular people were well informed. The passengers on Flight 93 had time to learn that the plane would be used as a missile if they did nothing. And what did they do? They pushed past the denial stage fast. Then they deliberated, whispering behind their seat backs and gathering information over the phone. They acted as group. Then, in the decisive moment, they charged into the cockpit and changed history.

If regular people got into as panic-stricken in a crisis as most of us think they do, Flight 93 would have almost certainly destroyed the White House or the US Capitol. “It is highly ironic,”says Flynn, “that our elected representatives were protected on 9/11 by everyday people.” Latent resilience is everywhere, and it is the only certain defense against terrorism. Not every attack can be prevented, but just enrolling regular people in the everyday counter attack is in itself a victory. Because terrorism is not the same as the Cold War: it is a psychology war more than a physical war and in that distinction lies great opportunity. “Fear require two things,”Flynn says,”An awareness of a threat, and a sense of powerlessness to deal with that threat.” Without the powerlessness, terrorism is far less destructive. If we understand dread, we can starve it.

Terrorism as a Disaster

It seems to make a lot more sense to treat terrorism as not only a criminal act- which makes every law abiding member of society a potential suspect- but also as a disaster. Too much money has been spend on the prevention of a type of crime that, in reality, is probably beyond the capability of a free society. If, in the war on terrorism, the citizens who are most at risk lose all sense of liberty and freedom, when a normal life without fear or threat becomes impossible, and when suspicion and distrust of one’s neighbors is the norm, then what have we gained? We play into the hands of the terrorist if we lose our values attempting to defend them.

Government officials and policy makers must reach out to the citizens, teach them proper ways to deal with disasters, which includes terrorism, such as mandatory evacuation drills for all skyscrapers, mandatory first aid training for all teachers at all levels of public schools, paid classes for all citizen wishing to learn any emergency skill . A citizen’s network to provide logistical support should be developed to be used in times of crisis.

Regular citizens must be given the tools to protect or at least prepare themselves in case of attack. Extending this further, it could be possible to devise a neighbor civil defense program, in which a system for locally-arranged evacuation and emergency response training. The public must be given access to information, encourage to train and drill regularly- with feedback loops to continually improve our reactions. Local communities must be involved in the war on terrorism, at least, in terms of disaster preparedness training.

Sensationalism in the News

Another key ingredient in the terror dynamic is the news media and how it reports terror attacks. Terrorism effectively plays upon the sensational quality of modern new reporting- especially when shocking and dramatic news translates directly into profits. The Media Corporations must, therefore, report the news responsibly and must not be used indirectly by terrorist organizations simply to promote more fear and dread. But, in a free society, how can this be possible? Do we suppress the news of the terrorist events?

Of course not. But level-heads must also prevail. Risks to terrorist attack-while purposefully dramatic- must be put into their proper perspective. Your chance of being killed in a car accident are far higher than being a victim of terrorism, Your chance of being struck by lightning is higher. All of us have a far greater risk of dying of heart disease than by a bomb on a plane. Banal forms of death- no matter how common- are naturally less interesting. It is only human nature that a fiery explosion, a dramatic rescues and images of suffering should grab more attention than an obese man choking on an olive pit. And yet, it is in fact a distortion of reality for us to live in constant fear and dread.

I am not suggesting relaxing our guard at all. But, when our representatives give such mixed messages as raising and lowering security alerts without explanation and then telling us to carry on as normal, it serves no purpose to the common welfare. At best, it leads to confusion, at worse it leads to indifference and hopelessness.

The War Effort

Civilians in World War II were asked to participate in the war effort, collecting scrap metals and rubber goods, buying war bonds and blackout patrols. It was a wise move. It harnessed a source of energy that Americans, perhaps more than any other nation, give and keep giving in an apparent endless supply- its sense of community. And, mind you, they had a lot less to give than most of us do.

The people were able to contribute voluntarily to protection of the society . Patriotism was more than waving flags and singing anthems. This was something that Bush and his friends never quite understood. The American people waited to be asked to contribute and they were merely told not to panic and keep shopping. In the war on terrorism, however, we must all become trained defenders and organizers in defense of our homeland because, after all, the citizens are terrorism’s primary target.

Kennedy Revisited -2

On Sitting down with the Enemy

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

University of Washington's 100th Anniversary (November 16, 1961)

“It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only "hard" and "soft" nations, hard and soft policies, hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course inevitably leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means appeasement; the other believes that any arms build-up means war. One group regards everyone else as warmongers, the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side admits that its path will lead to disaster—but neither can tell us how or where to draw the line once we descend the slippery slopes of appeasement or constant intervention.

“In short, while both extremes profess to be the true realists of our time, neither could be more unrealistic. While both claim to be doing the nation a service, they could do it no greater disservice. This kind of talk and easy solutions to difficult problems, if believed, could inspire a lack of confidence among our people when they must all—above all else—be united in recognizing the long and difficult days that lie ahead. It could inspire uncertainty among our allies when above all else they must be confident in us. And even more dangerously, it could, if believed, inspire doubt among our adversaries when they must above all be convinced that we will defend our vital interests.

“The essential fact that both of these groups fail to grasp is that diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another. Either alone would fail. A willingness to resist force, unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence—while a willingness to talk, unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster.

But as long as we know what comprises our vital interests and our long-range goals, we have nothing to fear from negotiations at the appropriate time, and nothing to gain by refusing to take part in them. At a time when a single clash could escalate overnight into a holocaust of mushroom clouds, a great power does not prove its firmness by leaving the task of exploring the other's intentions to sentries or those without full responsibility. Nor can ultimate weapons rightfully be employed, or the ultimate sacrifice rightfully demanded of our citizens, until every reasonable solution has been explored. ‘How many wars,’ Winston Churchill has written, ‘have been averted by patience and persisting good will! .... How many wars have been precipitated by firebrands!’”