Decius wrote:
Stratfor: Terrorism Intelligence Report - August 29, 2006

Airline Incidents: Fear as Force Multiplier

By Fred Burton

...

Good article and I especially like getting this from a source as credible as Stratfor.

It's always seemed blisteringly obvious to me, and I've consequently said it dozens of times : Terrorists are about terror; if you're afraid, then they've done their job. End of story.

Unfortunately, maintaining a specific level of fear among the population has political benefits. And I also get that telling people "Don't be afraid." isn't a tack the government can take easily; it's up to individuals to realize that their own fear is the actual problem.

k wrote:
I also get that telling people "Don't be afraid." isn't a tack the government can take easily; it's up to individuals to realize that their own fear is the actual problem.

I don't agree.

In World War II we faced threats to our way of life that far surpassed what we see today, and the attitude of politicians at the time was defiant and strong. This sort of leadership contributed to a society that was not afraid and was ready to do what they could to contribute.

Our present approach is pathetic. Buearucrats covering their assess by unleashing the wolves on the general public evertime a pin drops. A terror alert system informing the people of the government's best prediction of when they are going to die, something they can do absolutely nothing about. These forces contribute to the pressures on the people, already loaded with our service men and women being in harms way overseas for long periods of time, and by the occaisonal successful terror attack. The pressure pushes them closer and closer to the point where they'll yearn to fix the problem quickly and easily by letting the nukes go.

Meanwhile our myopic leadership picks away at every legal institution, both international, and domestic, that keeps our society from flying apart at the seams. The people who established the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, the Separation of Powers, and the Fourth Amendment did so because they learned through years of bloodshed that these things are absolutely nessecary. Some might need to be modernized, but to simply cast them away wholesale is suicide.

To make matters worse, it turns out they didn't welcome us into Iraq by throwing flowers at our tanks, and we fired the guys who had accurate cost estimates for that adventure, and Israel just bought Iran's sucker punch lock, stock, and barrell and has thereby emboldened all of the people who seek to kill us.

The only thing I hate more then looking at this situation with dismay is the fact that I'm not convinced the "other team" has a better plan for dealing with it. We have not men fit for the times.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
I also get that telling people "Don't be afraid." isn't a tack the government can take easily; it's up to individuals to realize that their own fear is the actual problem.

I don't agree.

In World War II we faced threats to our way of life that far surpassed what we see today, and the attitude of politicians at the time was defiant and strong. This sort of leadership contributed to a society that was not afraid and was ready to do what they could to contribute.

Our present approach is pathetic. Buearucrats covering their assess by unleashing the wolves on the general public evertime a pin drops. A terror alert system informing the people of the government's best prediction of when they are going to die, something they can do absolutely nothing about. These forces contribute to the pressures on the people, already loaded with our service men and women being in harms way overseas for long periods of time, and by the occaisonal successful terror attack. The pressure pushes them closer and closer to the point where they'll yearn to fix the problem quickly and easily by letting the nukes go.

Meanwhile our myopic leadership picks away at every legal institution, both international, and domestic, that keeps our society from flying apart at the seams. The people who established the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, the Separation of Powers, and the Fourth Amendment did so because they learned through years of bloodshed that these things are absolutely nessecary. Some might need to be modernized, but to simply cast them away wholesale is suicide.

To make matters worse, it turns out they didn't welcome us into Iraq by throwing flowers at our tanks, and we fired the guys who had accurate cost estimates for that adventure, and Israel just bought Iran's sucker punch lock, stock, and barrell and has thereby emboldened all of the people who seek to kill us.

The only thing I hate more then looking at this situation with dismay is the fact that I'm not convinced the "other team" has a better plan for dealing with it. We have not men fit for the times.

Tha analysis above is good, Decius. But to say "It turns out they didn't welcome us into Iraq" is mildly disingenuous. "It turns out"? Some of us knew all along. As usual the "hawks" got it hideously wrong and as predicted by many "whining liberals" like me, the consequences are dire and only getting worse.

Sadly, I have to add that while the more honest on the right now admit they were wrong (kudos) it's seems still too hard to admit that the lilly livered pinko liberals might just have been right all along. But why choose despair rather than giving the other guy a chance? Who knows, not only were we right all along, but we might even have a better chance of sorting out the mess. Hard to admit, I know, but one step at a time.

Nevertheless, a good analyis, Decius, and a warning to all who think invading Iran might just help sort it out. Beware the fallacy that what we need is even more hawkishness. As some of us have been saying for decades, what we really need is to learn how to make friends of our enemies. Israel and America truly stand as brothers in this regard. And time is running out ....

oaknet wrote:
Sadly, I have to add that while the more honest on the right now admit they were wrong (kudos) it's seems still too hard to admit that the lilly livered pinko liberals might just have been right all along. But why choose despair rather than giving the other guy a chance? Who knows, not only were we right all along, but we might even have a better chance of sorting out the mess. Hard to admit, I know, but one step at a time.

This obviously seems directed at me. Was I hawkish on Iraq? Am I "on the right." No, No, and yes I do expect to see something more convincing from liberal leaders then a pulse. I am not on the left either.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
I also get that telling people "Don't be afraid." isn't a tack the government can take easily; it's up to individuals to realize that their own fear is the actual problem.

I don't agree.

In World War II we faced threats to our way of life that far surpassed what we see today, and the attitude of politicians at the time was defiant and strong. This sort of leadership contributed to a society that was not afraid and was ready to do what they could to contribute.

[ I ought to have been more precise. I meant to say that it's not as simple as just saying "Don't be afraid." It sounds weak and pathetic, whereas what we have sounds strong but really isn't. As I said, it's opportunistic. Nothing more or less. The people's fear is a good way to acquire power and I think that's what it all boils down to, eventually. True courage would've been to say, "This was a vicious attack, but the American people won't cave into terror... we'll guard our freedoms and our lives." Of course, words like that were said, I suppose, but the actions I've seen don't bear that out.

At the same time, I don't think it makes sense to compare our current situation to WWII, even superficially. Was that a greater threat? I don't know, perhaps so, but look at what we've already lost and you decide how much greater. As you bemoan, we've lost a substantial bit of liberty and sacrificed an awful lot of treasure and goodwill. That's not easily comparable to the threats posed by the Axis which were far more directly comprehensible.

It's like the difference between a gun and cancer. Both are fatal, and it's hard for me to call one categorically "more of a threat." Continuing the analogy, the benefit, I guess, is that you can treat cancer, possibly, which you can't do with a bullet to the head.

You're absolutely right when you say that our current approach -- crash loudly, carrying a big stick, flailing it about while beating your chest -- is a pointless waste of time, money and lives. It's not WWII. There's no well defined enemy. Winning isn't achieved by killing X number of men on a battlefield or destoying an industrial base or incinerating civilians with nukes or sustained carpet bombing. Winning is achieved by undermining the credibility of international terrorist mentality and by not being the evil empire we're purported to be. I'm not saying you don't have to send in the troops sometimes to make it possible for new modes of thinking and acting to take root, but I haven't seen it happen in Iraq, and that's beside the point anyway (my problem with Iraq isn't so much that it's not working as that there was no honesty in the process. As you say, anyone who had a realistic vision of the thing was sacked because it didn't fit the political desires of those in charge... i ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Stratfor: Terrorism Intelligence Report - August 29, 2006
Airline Incidents: Fear as Force Multiplier
By Fred Burton

During the past month, since British authorities announced the
disruption of a bomb plot involving airliners, there has been a
worldwide increase in security awareness, airline security measures
-- and fear among air passengers. At least 17 public incidents
involving airline security have been reported in the United States
and parts of Europe since Aug. 10. Most of these were innocuous,
but many resulted in airliners making emergency landings off their
scheduled routes, sometimes escorted by fighter aircraft.

The spate of incidents -- each of which rings up significant
financial costs to the airline company and governments involved and
causes inconvenience and delays for travelers -- is a reminder that
terrorism, philosophically, is not confined to the goal of filling
body bags or destroying buildings. At a deeper level, it is about
psychology and the "propaganda of the deed." And as far as al Qaeda
is concerned, it is also about economic warfare: Osama bin Laden
personally has stated that one of the group's strategic objectives
is to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy."

To say that the governments and industries targeted by terrorism
face difficult choices is a gross understatement. The problem lies
in the fact that decision-makers not only must protect the public
against specific groups using known tactics (in al Qaeda's case,
bombs and liquid explosives) but also must protect themselves in
the face of public opinion and potential political blowback.
Officials naturally want to be perceived as doing everything
possible to prevent future acts of violence; therefore, every
threat -- no matter how seemingly ridiculous -- is treated
seriously. Overreaction becomes mandatory. Politicians and
executives cannot afford to be perceived as doing nothing.

This powerful mandate on the defensive side is met, asymmetrically,
on the offensive side by a force whose only requirements are to
survive, issue threats and, occasionally, strike -- chiefly as a
means of perpetuating its credibility.

The Impact to Air Travel

Following the thwarted U.K. airlines plot, security measures in
Britain, the United States and elsewhere were tightened. These new
regulations have included a ban on liquids and electronic items in
the passenger compartment, more stringent baggage checks and
tighter scrutiny of prospective passengers.

These new security measures already have had a financial impact on
the airline industry. On Aug. 25, Irish discount airline Ryanair
filed the lawsuit it had previously threatened against the
British Department for Transport. The lawsuit represents an effort
to change the new re... [ Read More (1.2k in body) ]

Follow through for the full text. Selected excerpts are provivded below for those too hurried or too afraid to click through.

Terrorism, at a deeper level, is about psychology and the "propaganda of the deed." And as far as al Qaeda is concerned, it is also about economic warfare: Osama bin Laden personally has stated that one of the group's strategic objectives is to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy."

There is a similar economic angle to attempts at protection against cheap missiles.

Officials naturally want to be perceived as doing everything possible to prevent future acts of violence; therefore, every threat -- no matter how seemingly ridiculous -- is treated seriously. Overreaction becomes mandatory. Politicians and executives cannot afford to be perceived as doing nothing.

This powerful mandate on the defensive side is met, asymmetrically, on the offensive side by a force whose only requirements are to survive, issue threats and, occasionally, strike -- chiefly as a means of perpetuating its credibility.

Terrorist acts do not have to be tremendously successful (in terms of physical casualties or damage) in order to be terribly effective.

One wonders why they even bother with all of the conspiracy, training, and preparation.

Al Qaeda measures its progress in the war of attrition not only by the number of American servicemen killed, but in terms of American treasure expended in furtherance of the war. In essence, bin Laden and his planners adopted a concept that is familiar to Americans: "It's the economy, stupid!"

Al Qaeda long ago took the risk-aversion factor into account, as it embarked on its war of attrition against the West. In such a war, what matters most is not how many times a fighter is bloodied and knocked down, but how many times he picks himself up and returns to the fight. It is dogged determination not to lose that can lead to victory. This is, in essence, how the Mujahideen won against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and how al Qaeda views its contest against the United States today.

Stratfor seems to left out the part about how much the Mujahideen relied on us for financing and supplies. Today, Hezbollah is similarly reliant on its sponsors.

Conspiracy may be cheap, but waging a persistent, violent insurgency is generally not.

When we recognize the futility of a force-on-force battle against a certain class of threat, we will walk back the cat toward the state sponsors, because we think we know how to confront them (and have the tools to do so). Is this a successful strategy?