Posted on 09/30/2001 4:38:39 PM PDT by neutrino
Defense Against Terrorism: Polite Fiction?
The purpose of this essay is to discuss defense against terrorism in the US, and to elicit the views of others on the subject. There has been a great deal of discussion about retaliation for the events of September 11; but it seems that discussions of a cohesive philosophy guiding our defense have taken a back seat. Since our leadership is offering credible reports that the terrorists are planning additional attacks, it seems reasonable to begin looking at the choices we face as a nation.
I would also offer two small caveats; first, I'm not in the security business, and have no access to privileged information. So, clearly, this won't contain such - though some issues raised may be disturbing. Please keep in mind that every bit of information here will be in the public domain, generally with links provided. It seems quite likely that the terrorists are already aware of all this and more; and if our own people aren't cognizant of such threats, it is my opinion that they need to be. Second, I will use some numbers and analogies that may, on the surface, seem to trivialize the events at the World Trade Center. Please do not construe them in that way. Those events loom large, and I regard them in the most serious light. Lastly, please note that I am not advocating any particular course of action; I am only presenting the options as I understand them.
Main Points:
The Essence of the Problem
We as a nation and a people have just suffered a change that cannot be measured in terms of dollars or lives. The billions lost in the destruction of the World Trade Center are of almost no significance; the market decline between March 2000 and April 2001 exceeded $3 trillion. [Footnote 1] The thousands of innocent lives lost amount to little more than a fifth of the 40,800 deaths due to highway fatalities in 1999. [Footnote 2] And yet, the vast majority of Americans are deeply affected - angered, saddened, stunned, afraid - by these events. In essence, we can visualize Uncle Sam and Aunt Liberty coming up the walk to their new but modest home and finding the front door kicked in, the puppy stomped to death in a pool of blood, and vulgarities spray painted on the wall. Fixing the door and painting over the graffiti represents a minimal expense. The puppy's loss was more painful, but endurable. The essence of the problem, however, is that Sam and Liberty's worldview has just changed, and done so profoundly. The miscreants did not steal anything to enrich themselves; they sought only to destroy. And more pointedly, they did not satisfy themselves with the destruction of mere property, but sought to cause intense emotional pain.
Sam and Liberty are now faced with some hard choices about what to do to keep this from happening again. They can decide to shrug their shoulders, get back to normal, and assume that this won't happen again. While it's true that the vandals (or, in the real world, terrorists) are believed to be planning further acts, the cost involved in improving security might be weighed against the potential destruction, and result in a decision to accept vandalism (terrorism) as a cost of doing business. This is not as far fetched as it might seem, for it is very close to the current call to return to normal.. Or, Sam and Liberty might decide to improve security somewhat, but within tight limits. They might get a burglar alarm, start parking the car in the garage at night, and put some burglar bars on the windows. The vandals (terrorists) can still get in, but they'll have to work harder, and perhaps they'll decide it's too much trouble and go bother someone else. The third option is to greatly improve security - the modest little house is transformed into a sort of bunker, with razor wire gleaming all around, steel bulkhead doors, and so forth. Sam looks good carrying a rifle, though some would argue that Aunt Liberty doesn't look quite right carrying a shotgun instead of the shining torch. The fourth option of rooting out the vandals (terrorists) is a longer-term project, and is more related to retaliation than defense. Sam and Liberty have to decide what to do. We as a nation face precisely the same decision.
Terrorists Think Like Criminals
In our case as a nation, we continue to think like the law-abiding couple described above. The terrorists think like the criminals they are. When a homeowner locks the door, they make the implicit assumption that people will come through the door. If burglar bars, steel doors, and deadbolt locks are obtained, the assumption is that these protected areas are the only ones that need to be protected. The criminal will look at the house, see that the walls consist of vinyl siding, insulation, wallboard, and little more - and will enter through one of those walls. And if the house is made very secure, the assumption may be that no inhabitant of the house can be compromised - either by force, or due to smoldering disputes. We see these very situations being played out in miniature as car hijackings evade the influence of effective car alarms and as home invasions get around the best locks.
Airline Security - Fatally Flawed (Still)?
Let us consider airline security. We hear much of how greatly improved it is; can we be safe now? Can we be sure that no knives will come aboard? Will our measures protect against plastic knives that don't show up on metal detectors? Please consider the choice of weapons offered HERE. [Footnote 3] The source is not unique; a wealth of vendors can be located by entering the terms CIA letter opener into the search engine www.google.com. You'll find the devices available for $8.00 plus shipping and handling! [Footnote 4] X-ray machines capable of revealing a great many details are available [Footnote 5], but once again they are more useful for catching the neophyte or the incompetent. Lest you disagree, please consider the thick-soled shoes worn by those who walk a great deal - a waitress, for example. What is to prevent an aspiring terrorist from hollowing out a hole in such shoes and placing a plastic knife within? And can the x-ray machine reliably determine that a slim line of material in the sole of a shoe is a weapon? Are we to assume that terrorists are so unintelligent that they cannot figure this out? The sad - or perhaps more accurately, alarming - point is that airline security has been the most emphasized area of enhanced readiness. One cannot help wondering how porous other things are.
National ID Cards - Useless?
There have been proposals for national ID cards. [Footnote 6] Let us put aside, for the moment, the very real questions about liberty and freedom of movement that such measures involve. Let us focus for now on the single question of effectiveness. Would such a card work? The first problem is counterfeiting. It seems likely that organizations with considerable resources would apply themselves to the problem. Quite possibly, governments (Iraq, as one example) would expend efforts in this direction also. For this reason, a simple ID card would probably not be effective. One with a Smart Chip that connected with a national database might be more reliable, but here, also, we face potential problems. If ID were stolen, could the chips be cloned or modified? How secure would the database be - especially considering the many thousands of clerical workers required to maintain it. Can we be sure that none of them could be compromised? Even if we filter out those who couldn't be bribed (a feat that has, apparently, escaped the FBI (Hanssen) and the CIA (Ames)), can we also be sure that none would fall prey to terrorists kidnapping and threatening a family member?
If the card is to do any good, it must either be used often - so as to maintain an ongoing record of the holder's movements and activities, or it must be continually monitored. What will be done if the card cannot be verified with the database? Communications outages occur. People sometimes lose, misplace, or forget their ID. Cards can be damaged. Do we summon the security forces when grandma can't find her card? Continual monitoring is even more problematic as well - we would know the location of the card, but not of the person. And even if we make every convenience store clerk, cab driver, ticket agent, and so forth an eye for the Government, our purpose would not be achieved. One can easily imagine a terrorist finding someone who would be willing to make innocuous purchases of food, fuel, and other incidentals on the terrorist's behalf. Or they might find a person willing to rent them a bedroom for cash, with no questions asked. So, then, not only must the card be checked in the course of commerce - there must be random spot checks. To be truly effective, the checks would need to be frequent, well nigh impossible to evade or avoid, and thorough. Whether one was a doctor on the way to emergency surgery, a CEO with a chauffer, or a janitor who claimed he was afraid of losing his job, there could be no exceptions. Implants might be used to speed the process, especially if remote detection could be used; some segments of the population would object strongly to them.
At the heart of the problem is a question: to what extent are we as a people and a society willing to accept pervasive monitoring of our movements and activities?
Borders That Can't Keep Out Day Laborers....
We have porous borders with Mexico and Canada, and the coastline is largely open. Presently, one can walk across either border at numerous uncontrolled areas. As evidence, consider the large number of illegal aliens working in the US presently. Despite dramatic increases in budget and personnel, illegal immigration continues to be a problem - and the impact of the efforts to abate it is unclear at best. [Footnote 7] Checking the traffic at official crossings seems more laughable than anything else; aspiring melon pickers, construction workers, and others traverse the border at less controlled points. Are we to assume that the terrorists are so weak and unmotivated that they cannot replicate the actions of the people who seek a better life? True security seems to imply a heavily patrolled border. This could range up to the equivalent of a Berlin wall across both borders; along with a great many border guards. The coastlines would require patrol, both on land and sea. And over all of this, aircraft would seek other aircraft. We have evidence in the war on drugs that every bit of this would be required; a suitcase nuclear device and a terrorist could use the same procedures as a drug smuggler. And, even with the current measures, there is little evidence that drugs are no longer entering the US.
Yet, a secure border that can keep determined people out, must surely be able to keep people in. Are we willing to truly secure our borders? What will we do about a small private airplane with radio troubles that attempts to cross the border?
A House Divided
We have a domestic population that is not entirely in agreement regarding measures to be taken against the terrorists. There are indications that some individuals within the US are sympathetic to the terrorists. Another, larger group favors pacifism. A still greater group disagrees with any extensive reduction in civil liberties. The actions and words of these groups could adversely affect the greater effort, so we are faced with the question of how much control should be maintained over what people do, say, and write. As one example, block watch committees could be established to report any unusual behavior by neighbors. Informing on others would be encouraged and facilitated. This is not without precedent - one is required to report child abuse.
This behavior was once considered the hallmark of communist nations. Will we adopt it here? And will the outspoken or unpopular learn a new and darker meaning to the phrase "They're not our kind of people."?
How Much To Pay?
To return to the analogy of Sam and Liberty, we face some choices. At one end of the scale, we decide that the casualties of the war being waged against us are acceptable losses and do essentially nothing. It is my perception that - to a great extent - this is what we are doing now. At the other end of the scale, we would implement a great array of government controls that would monitor everyone's behavior to the smallest details. The costs, both economic and in terms of basic freedoms would be large. Yet, the country as a whole would be hardened against attack both from within and without. All the mechanisms of tyranny would be in place, so the nation would face risks from future presidents who might abuse such far-reaching powers. Can we - and should we - trust the checks and balances of the Constitution to this degree? Can a 200 year old document guide our response to modern, ruthless terrorists who represent the diametric opposite of all that the Nation's founders believed and advocated? Once again, this is a choice to be made.
Who (And What) Gets Protected?
The middle of the scale is, perhaps, the most difficult to analyze. We are faced with the question: "Which middle?" Do we mean "middle" in terms of a moderate amount of security - which may mean little more than to inconvenience and impede the innocent while leaving a leaking sieve for committed terrorists? It might, however, make matters more difficult for less capable criminals or terrorists. This would be analogous to Sam and Liberty getting a home burglar alarm and some good deadbolt locks on the door. Or, by "middle", do we mean to harden some areas to the point that even committed terrorists can't damage them, but leave the majority of the country protected at a marginal level? This may mean that Washington D.C., nuclear power plants, and airplanes are safe - but that Chicago, Atlanta, oil tankers, and refineries are not. Will the terrorists throw up their hands in frustration and quit trying? Will they insist on going after our best-protected areas? Or will they sate themselves on the blood of people from the less secure venues? Are such losses acceptable? Do we as a nation care if Atlanta is sacrificed in the name of convenience, expediency, and cost-effectiveness? These are cold blooded questions, but make no mistake - our decisions on seemingly unconnected matters in the area of security will determine what our choices are. And in the real world, there will be no side-stepping of the issue.
The Real Question
This, then, is the purpose of the essay. Our national debate about domestic defense seems to be fragmented. To be successful, defense must be an integrated whole. It will involve costs - economic, social, and even of privacy and freedom. So, how would you - the nephews and nieces - advise Uncle Sam and Aunt Liberty? How much security should they have? And what should they be willing to pay?
Neutrino
1. http://www.ncb.com/homepage/marnotes.nsf/docadd/april2001.htm
2. http://www.nsc.org/safetyagenda/newsrele.htm
3. http://www.selfdefensesupply.com/Hidden%20Knives%20&%20Letter%20Openers.htm
4. http://www.botachtactical.com/blaccolciale.html
5. http://www.light1998.com/BodySearch/BodySearch2.htm
7. http://www.dallasfed.org/htm/pubs/border/orrenius.htm
That policy is now dead. A new, victim resistance policy has not yet been officially pronounced by the Authorities, but the victims follow it anyway. No future terrorist will be able to take control of a plane because the passengers and the crew will not let him.
Your analogy would be closer, if one of the nephews was home, and Uncle Sam had told him, "if someone threatens to break the door down, let them in, and let them do what they want.
The terrorists do not have unlimited resources, so a middle road can be quite effective. The border can be made relatively difficult to cross, with small expense, if we are willing to do it.
Remember that these middle level defenses do not have to be permanant. A great deal of resources are being concentrated on finding these terrorists and their organizations. We may have to live with a low level of terrorism for a long time, but I predict that the reduction in crime from more Americans being armed and alert, will more than make up for the added deaths by Terroist. We also have an advantage that was not mentioned. We don't have to watch everyone. None of the Terroists was an American citizen. None were women. A small segment of the population can be scrutinized much more easily than a lorge one. We will win the war, I suspect, much sooner than anyone thinks.
I would go for a national ID card if I was pretty sure it would be used to augment immigration enforcement. At this point I doubt it. Probably would be used more for stuff I don't like. In the absence of a national ID card I would advocate tough uniform Federal rules on the state issuance of driver's licenses. Maybe even make it a Federal crime to engage in driver's license fraud. Way too many illegal aliens are using drivers licenses they should never have been issued. They go to dumb states like Tennessee that accept Mexican birth certificates (so easy to forge).... no SS# needed. This has got to stop!
My own feeling is that if we kill Osama Bin Laden soon everyone will go back to sleep until the next huge act of terrorism. We will pressure Israel to give into the Palestinians since this will solve our "terrorism problem". </sarcasm>
I don't think this country is serious yet. Unbelievable, eh?
They said that the WTC was extremely successful in slowing down air travel, the travel industry, and other commerce.
The terrorist saw what happened to commerce when there were power failures in Calif. He thought they would avoid the big cities but hit power grids in smaller communities which would effectively shut down cash registers.
For example, I see no evidence that the gun control has any inkling of how out of tune they are with the situation we are in. We found out that we are the targets of a war that will be fought, from time to time, right here among us. And, as we increase our internal security, private citizens will increasingly become the only practical target for terrorists (which seems to suit them just fine in other parts of the world).
Our gun laws aid terrorists by creating any number of "gun-free" targets around the nation. That's why the terrorists were able to take over four airliners with plastic knives. Now we will adopt Israeli practices for cockpit doors and airmarshalls; perhaps we'll even arm the pilots. Terrorists won't be able to take over airliners anymore. So, they will look to see where else they can strike.
Government buildings are generally well protected (Congress already has gas masks for chem/bilogical attack), plus many legislators carry concealed weapons and/or have bodyguards. These measures are sure to be increased. The Homeland Security Dept. will insure that many other obvious targets such as refineries, chemical plants, water supplies, nuclear factilites, etc. are well protected. If the terrorists move quickly,they might get one or two of these "high return" targets, but soon the deterents will be in place, so they'll look elsewhere. Where else might they strike?
Well, schools, for one. Federal law and many state laws make schools "gun free" zones. I remember that one of the most chilling bits of film I ever saw was taken by Palestinian terrorists as they raided a school in northern Israel, killing teachers and children. Now, the Israeli's arm teachers. Neighbors and passersby are frequently armed --- often with those evil looking "assault weapons". Raiding even one of our schools would in all likelihood be just as "high return" as the above referenced targets. And they could really do it up because of the feel good, ineffective gun-free school laws we have in place.
Then, think about all the places adults and/or children meet. Church, Scouts,Boys & Girls Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Faculty Clubs, etc. etc. We know that when "mass killings" have occurred, they have been stopped more often than not by gun wielding civilians; yet we do little to increase the availability of concealed carry permits in the 17 states that don't have "right to carry laws". We restrict civilian versions of so called "assault weapons" because they look evil, despite the fact that there are millions of us veterans who have been well trained in how and when to use them. Until 1986, civilians could even possess automatic weapons under close Government supervision; that year, the stock was frozen to those then legally in civilian hands despite the fact that there hadn't been even a single adverse incident under the prior regimen. So, it is time for us to get out of the time warp we've been living in. It isn't 1986 or even 1996. The battle ground is here and we civilians are the targets. As we die by terrorist hands, the so called "gun control" crowd will have our blood on its hands.
Even corporations are inadvertently inviting terrorists. General Motors plants post signs prohibiting guns. What happens if a terrorist team breaks into such a plant with serious weaponry? The security guards I have seen at many corporate gates are NOT EVEN ARMED!!
The disarming of America is a recipe for mass slaughter!
You bring up some good points. And I certainly hope your conclusion is correct!
I'd be satisfied if it was just used to purchase airline tickets and for boarding planes
To leave the current system in place, where there is no standard for the ID you must present before boarding a plane, where a health club ID, library card or drivers license(which is not even verified against any database)is acceptable, is ridiculous.
Don't be surprised if the Feds, despite all their preaching aginst a national ID at this time, don't start to require some type of state issued, data base verifiable, ID before Abdullah gets on the plane.
I'm beginning to see some indications that people are already going back to sleep. Which suggests that readiness will give way to convenience and saving money rather quickly...
We will pressure Israel to give into the Palestinians since this will solve our "terrorism problem".
Exactly. Along with such organizations as Hammas and Hezbollah. Unfortunately, when one feeds a viper one does not make a friend - one merely makes the snake grow larger. Our politicians seem to have trouble grasping that concept.
I don't think this country is serious yet. Unbelievable, eh?
I fear you're right. On 9/11 - in the afternoon of the day of the attacks - I went to a little place I like to eat at to grab a sandwich. The TV was on, the waitress was somewhat upset...but there was a group playing (and gambling) on dominoes. They could not have cared less...the deaths of thousands meant less to them than their game.
So, no, many aren't serious. Or, worse, flat don't care. All of which is, IMO, quite dangerous...
Good point. And there are lots of high tension electrical lines spread across the country...through isolated, rural areas. For that matter, there is (or, at least, was) a certain manhole on a certain street that was the nexus point for communications in South Texas. Were that point to be damaged by fire, communications by phone, fax, etc. would be severely impacted. Of course, the terrorists are too dumb to ever think of that...aren't they...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.