We are very lucky that Abdulmutallab's device malfunctioned and hundreds of lives were spared. Yes it's unfortunate that intelligence agencies couldn't share information more freely (8 years after 9/11), and red flags weren't raised by his father's concerns and his cash purchase of an airline ticket. The media are going bonkers over this with 24-7 coverage and nonstop speculation, outrage, snap judgments, finger-pointing, or a combination of those. But for the millions of airline passengers who enter and leave our country every year, it's impossible to conduct thorough background checks and body searches, or run them through million-dollar scanners, unless we want our homeland security costs to eclipse our health care spending (and our civil liberties to be trampled). Plus it's quite a challenge and maybe foolhardy (or illegal) to investigate the millions of people who browse violent, religious, or anti-Western content on the Web, or are affiliated with someone who does. The Secret Service doesn't even have the manpower to fully investigate all the threats against Obama (up 400% vs. Bush).
Bad driving (not wearing seat belts, DUI, cell phone use) and medical malpractice claim more lives each year than terrorism, but we accept those ills to a certain extent, or at least we acknowledge that a "zero tolerance" mandate is impossible. We do what we can to minimize the risks with legal penalties and technology safeguards, but we concede that some lapses will occur. But with terrorism, why do we have to be so irrationally rigid? Now many air travelers are worried that they will be next, and even Des Moines airport is on high alert. But each time we drive to work, do we fear that we will become the next roadkill? Instead we're probably speeding because we're late, or calling a loved one, which ironically increases our chance of dying. So why the paranoia over terrorism? I know premeditated murder out of hatred or an extreme agenda is more jarring to the soul, but all preventable deaths are equally tragic. I think in risk consulting, they calculate the risk level by multiplying the likelihood of occurrence by the magnitude of harm (simplified I know). A driving death is higher on the former and lower on the latter (globally), and terrorism is the inverse. Maybe the actuaries can determine which one we should be more scared of, but I doubt it's terrorism.
Yes it's true that a major, traumatic event like 9/11 can disrupt the global economy and set our country back for years, not to mention all the lives and resources lost. We should do our best to prevent the big attacks, but independent "lone wolves" like Abdulmutallab (assuming he was not helped on scene) are impossible to thwart 100% of the time. We didn't stop the home-grown Unabomber and DC snipers until it was too late either. It is disconcerting that terrorists seem fixated with air travel instead of the other more vulnerable soft targets (smuggling a bomb in ship cargo, attacking commuter trains like in India, even cyberwarfare). Probably the fact that we are so obsessed with air safety makes them more motivated to defeat us there. Clearly our enhanced surveillance and tighter visa restrictions have helped keep us safe (though also created major headaches for innocent immigrants and students), and the proof is zero Americans killed on US soil by terrorists since 9/11. Even our hundreds of foreign missions abroad haven't been attacked (apart from our 2 war zones). But the blowback from our foreign military actions may take another decade to fully develop and sting us.
Americans are obsessed with guarantees and control. We expect our stock portfolios and home values to rise indefinitely. We expect to get promoted if we work hard. We expect that our flights will be on time and our cars won't break down. We expect that our government will keep us safe. Much of the time those things happen, but life is unpredictable. Several Americans just died from freak accidents while I typed this paragraph. But because we demand such flawless performance and guarantees of life, liberty, and happiness, we may over-react and resort to extreme measures in a futile attempt to maintain our values through adversities beyond our control. Afghans and Iraqis live with the very real possibility of a fiery death each day, but they are not paralyzed by fear, obsessed with security, and violent towards any perceived threat. The Serenity Prayer reads, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." I think America's counter-terrorism efforts, while so far successful in keeping us safe, are lacking in all three. Maybe the last portion of the Serenity Prayer should read, "And when I fail in those attempts, God grant me luck to survive my shortcomings." Those survivors of the Northwest flight are alive today more due to luck than our counter-terrorism efforts.
In keeping with tradition, when the US is attacked (or almost attacked) from abroad, we respond by bombing some poor bastards within a month. As we speak, the Pentagon is making a list (and checking it twice) of potential Yemeni targets. The Muslims spoiled our day to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace (even though more people were murdered in Jesus' name than Muhammad's so far), so now Santa has a big lump of coal for Al Qaeda and any bystanders in their vicinity. CNN reported that we have a classified agreement with the Yemeni gov't to fly cruise missiles, fighter jets, and armed drones against targets in Yemen. So we have even more leeway than Pakistan, and in fact have bombed a suspected Al Qaeda camp there in early December. Well, Obama is sending 30,000 more Marines to Afghanistan, a nation with fewer than 200 original, Arab Al Qaeda members. Yemen, on the other hand, may have several hundred Al Qaeda fighters as well as high-ranking leaders, so I suppose an attack there would be more justified. But as many analysts have already warned, the Somalia and Pakistan examples show us that brash military strikes by a foreign power (even against legitimate, dangerous targets) may provide some strategic gains, but ultimately undermine the fragile local government and actually make failed state conditions more likely (an eroded rule of law and increased violent extremism against foreigners and their local allies).
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/29/us.yemen.strike.targets/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment