MemeStreams | MemeStreams Discussion

Create an Account

This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: In the Calculus of Fear, Terrorists Have an Edge. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

In the Calculus of Fear, Terrorists Have an Edge
by Jeremy at 2:01 am EST, Nov 4, 2003

Governments are inevitably only as good as their last failure.
No matter how many attacks they prevent, no matter how many people are not killed daily by terrorists, what's remembered is the relatively small number of terrorist attacks that succeed.
The war against terrorism appears to be in a transitional state.
Al Qaeda's main challenge is to promote and ensure its durability as an ideology and concept.
Unfortunately [for us], it's a lot easier to attack a single target than to defend an infinite number of potential targets.

All this points to a long, long struggle ahead in the war against terrorism.

This op-ed article, by RAND's Bruce Hoffman, appeared in the Sunday LA Times.

In a battle of the Bruces, I would recommend Hoffman's article 100 times before I would recommend Schneier's latest op-ed even once. For one thing, this is actually Hoffman's area of expertise! He captures the essential challenges we face without resorting to silly analogies or taking pot-shots at "technology."

RE: In the Calculus of Fear, Terrorists Have an Edge
by Decius at 9:37 am EST, Nov 4, 2003

Jeremy wrote:
] Unfortunately [for us], it's a lot easier to attack a
] single target than to defend an infinite number of
] potential targets.
]
] All this points to a long, long struggle ahead in the war
] against terrorism.

No, it doesn't. It points to an intractable problem. Long, Long != Infinity. Computer security is intractable for much the same reason. And its ok. Its just computers. Its a business. However, the idea that we cannot consider our concerns with Al'Q dealt with until we have ubiquitous physical security points to a permanent elimination of certain freedoms.

This author employs the very fears his enemies have created. Talking about the terrorist problem as intractable, raising the specter of continued attacks, while offering an uncritical view of the security changes that have been made since 9-11. The conclusion he wishes to create in the mind of the reader is that any additional security capabilities (legal, technical, procedural, or otherwise) ought to be accepted and supported uncritically.

If you aren't going to win your war with security then you ought to look elsewhere for a solution. Thats what I take from this. Did successful terrorist attacks by anti-abortion activists galvanize the anti-abortion community? No. Eric Rudolph looked like a nut case. What is the difference between this and 911?

The difference is that anti-abortion activists feel better about pursuing their goals through legitimate democratic activity. There are outlets that relieve the pressure before it becomes violence.