Terrorism

Lately the news has focused on the Christmas Day underwear bomber and his attempt to destroy Northwest Flight 253 landing at Detroit. Fortunately, no lives were lost. However, I believe Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab succeeded as he has returned our focus to terrorism when considering the definition as “a state of fear and submission.” Sadly though, I would offer that citizens in America are not fearful, but instead subject to fear-mongering by the media and the government.

On September 12, 2001 I believe we were all stunned and wondered, “how could this happen?” President Bush moved to create a huge new government spending program with the formation of the Department of Homeland Security and the expansion of the Transportation Security Administration. The first DHS Secretary, Tom Ridge, created the threat level designations to identify the probability of attack, but it remains the same color, “Orange”, with no quantitative definition. In the post September 11th world we dutiful gave up civil rights in the name of safety, subjecting ourselves to demeaning searches at airports like removing our shoes, forcing little old ladies to forfeit knitting needles, and watching our children cry as they pass through the process. The ultimate idiocracy came with the subjection of infant formula and breast milk to potential disposal.

From there, the paranoia spread to other parts of our lives, all under the guise of the “state of fear.” We now attend sporting events and pass through metal detectors and have bags searched. Regardless of all the post September 11th expansion of technologies and counter-terrorism intelligence agencies, President Obama admitted there was a system failure; exemplifying the quote, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.” But, like predecessors, President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano have proposed further expansion of security; spending monies on new high-tech imaging machines, explosive sniffers, more databases for comparing intelligence, and increasing TSA. Somehow they expect this will bring a different outcome, but yet they are repeating the same things.

In the new 2010 environment I have noted a radical shift in public opinion, there is no confidence in the government’s plans this time. Thus, we the people have caught on to the charade, doing the same thing repeatedly will not bring a different outcome. Even media sources supporting this Administration have had a plethora of critical columnists and articles examining these new security proposals. Furthermore, citizens are finally showing outrage over the proposed invasiveness of new search techniques and enhanced screening.

Handling terrorism is difficult, but it is war. Unfortunately it is not like wars of the past where the enemy wore a different color or fought along geographical boundaries. In this politically correct world it has been made incorrect to reference a “war on terror” for fear of inflaming those who attack us. I prefer to look at the problem from an economic and statistical standpoint and question why certain terrorists are unsuccessful. I recognize there are two contrasting views regarding how security and safety is delivered. One opinion is to willingly submit to any search in the name of safety and the other is to minimize the invasiveness to the average person and instead profile certain groups. I think we also have to use quantitative values and look at cost versus benefit of different methods. Lastly, if real terrorism were to occur I do not think any amount of effort could be done to stop it.