Smart Essay on the Limitations of Anti-Terrorism Security
This is good:
Threats constantly change, yet our political discourse suggests that our vulnerabilities are simply for lack of resources, commitment or competence. Sometimes, that is true. But mostly we are vulnerable because we choose to be; because we’ve accepted, at least implicitly, that some risk is tolerable. A state that could stop every suicide bomber wouldn’t be a free or, let’s face it, fun one.
We will simply never get to maximum defensive posture. Regardless of political affiliation, Americans wouldn’t tolerate the delay or intrusion of an urban mass-transit system that required bag checks and pat-downs. After the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, many wondered how to make the race safe the next year. A heavier police presence helps, but the only truly safe way to host a marathon is to not have one at all. The risks we tolerate, then, are not necessarily bad bargains simply because an enemy can exploit them.
No matter what promises are made on the campaign trail, terrorism will never be vanquished. There is no ideology, no surveillance, no wall that will definitely stop some 24-year-old from becoming radicalized on the Web, gaining access to guns and shooting a soft target. When we don’t admit this to ourselves, we often swing between the extremes of putting our heads in the sand or losing them entirely.
I am reminded of my own 2006 “Refuse to be Terrorized” essay.
Jacob • April 3, 2016 9:19 PM
We should look at this from an offensive POV, not defensive.
I posit that if the US will declare war on ISIL – and I mean a full-fledged war, with tank divisions and 50,000 infantry, and bombing runs a la Putin – for a limited time frame e.g. 3 months, wherby any ISIL guy caught will be executed on the spot, this will reduce the terror menace quite a bit.
No need to change regime, or to bring some “political change” in the land, or to bring about “change of mind” – just annihilate ISIL people on their land as quickly as possible and get out. Such quick excursion will certainly cost less than what DHS multi-year cost is, and much less than the F-35 program…
This may give as some quiet period for some years to come. And if ISIL or the terrorist organization du jour raise their head again – repeat the process. I think that regimen will solve the “can’t win the fight against terrorism” mantra.