Today's events
DATELINE: Knoxville Airport, TN, 10 August 2006
First, solid police work by the Brits. They learned this with the IRA: stopping the bomber at the target is a losing strategy. You have to treat the entire production line, from funding thru delivery, like a system, attacking it systematically and winning most of your victories upstream--way before delivery.
Israel learned the same with suicide bombers, and the U.S. Military began succeeding on IEDs when it began a systematic response, attacking the scheme from stem to stern.
But here's where today's TSA response in airports and DHS's raising of the alert status smacks of sense-think-and-respond (Steve DeAngelis preferred description of adaptive reactions, or ones that are dynamically re-rendered by learning in real time), but without the think part.
I mean, the parameters cited here are 1) US carriers, 2) right now, 3) liquids, and 4) carry-ons. That's it. When the thÃnking part is abdicated, we're into pure reactions, letting terrorists determine the timing, scope, venues, and methods of our response. Does that make you feel any safer? In control?
If I were Al Qaeda, I'd purposely generate loser cells with stupid plans that are doomed to fail but inflict such knee-jerk reactions upon my true target population: Americans and their faith in their own government. Yes, one might actually succeed, but failures would be just as good in perturbing the system.
Anyway, that what it seems like from a traveler today.
Comments
When the thÃnking part is abdicated, we're into pure reactions, letting terrorists determine the timing, scope, venues, and methods of our response. Does that make you feel any safer? In control?
Actually, I do feel somewhat safer that one thing I never thought of has been identified as a problem, and addressed.
I wish we had God-like powers and could foresee everything the human mind can accomplish but of course we can't.
Posted by: ilaine upton | August 11, 2006 5:29 AM
The idea of putting together "loser" cells has a certain intellectual appeal, but from an opperational standpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense, as it exposes funds, communication, techniques, and people to the authorities.
Except if it is being used as a diversionary tactic.
The 'knee-jerk' reaction that Tom describes is a problem. But with regards to airline security, what would he suggest? Although it hasn't been given any airtime, there have to be people who blame Muslims for the need for increased security. I know I do.
Posted by: Tom Grant | August 11, 2006 9:21 AM
see also Chirol's post on the aims of terrorism. loser cells make sense to me...
Posted by: Sean Meade | August 11, 2006 10:21 AM
Indeed a great feature by the Brits. They are getting really resilient! Yeah Baby! And it shows that Al Qaeda is losing its ability to operate below the radar of Western -- or at least U.K. -- intelligence agencies.
Who is winning this war people??
Posted by: erry | August 11, 2006 11:27 AM
Right now a plot's been mostly smashed but there are known cell members on the move and it's not entirely certain that there isn't a completely unknown component operating in the US, Spain, or France. So we pucker for a couple of days until things clarify. I don't think that this is wrong.
It's what is done after things have been clarified that are going to determine whether or not we're on the right security track. Of course by then somebody's cat will be stuck up a tree and so the pack journalists will no longer be around to see what the adaptive response is and how appropriately we adjust to this threat.
Posted by: TM Lutas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 11, 2006 2:20 PM
Like FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
The black swans and attempts at black swans will appear from time to time:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/02/al_qaedas_black.html
That's why they call it "The Long War."
Pilgrim
Posted by: Pilgrim | August 11, 2006 5:45 PM
If suppressing the fund sources is part of a sensible systems response, then making air travel unbearable is helpful. I suspect that most of the terrorist funds are skimmed from the oil profits one way or the other. Oil prices are sensitive to air traffic. The price per barrel dropped two dollars on fears that jet fuel demand would be down. The difference represents a lot of Semtex. This funding/oil connection could be deliberately exploited by taxing imported oil. Americans could contribute directly by taking the train, or better yet, telecommuting. Is this trip necessary?
Posted by: jj mollo | August 12, 2006 12:31 AM
The Iraeli security will tell you TSA wastes alot of time and resources looking for what instead of who. Wanding granny's metal hip at the airport is like watching a "Dumb and Dumber" movie. The USA is still not serious about security but stuck in the knee jerk simple solution set.
Posted by: Hugh | August 12, 2006 9:09 AM