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.

RE: In the Calculus of Fear, Terrorists Have an Edge