Security delusions

The bomber will always get through was a phrase used by Stanley Baldwin in 1932, in the speech "A Fear For The Future" to the British Parliament.

I was reminded of this phrase yesterday (January 26, 2010) when the Bipartisan Committee on WMDs (or some such body) published its grades on the Obama administration's work in preventing a biological attack on the US. They gave the administration an F.

The reason for the low grade: the plans for a response to an anthrax attack on a New York subway station were to shut down the subway system. The committee found this unacceptable. I think this is silly and will explain why in a moment.

The administration's response was typical (I'm paraphrasing): in the last year the President reviewed the procedures and ordered changes and improvements. These have not yet been implemented.

This is also silly.

Now to the silliness: Baldwin was right. It has been proven many times over the years in different contexts and different situations: the bomber always gets through. It may be only one, but he (or she) will get through. Expecting anybody to be able to seal this country hermetically is ridiculous. Even if somebody succeeded, what is to prevent terrorists from cooking up something inside the country?

This is not to say that we shouldn't try - which the current administration seems to have neglected - but don't expect a 100% success rate. Even attempting to achieve a 100% intercept rate will cost us resources that can be better spent elsewhere.

Consider a simple question: why is Al Qaeda, that organized the sophisticated 9/11 attacks, now trying things like the underwear bomber? Basically sending an inept and not well-trained individual who ultimately failed?

The reason, in my opinion, is that the organization's leaders have been under pressure and stress for a long time. The Bush Administration's policy of constant pressure worked fairly well. It didn't prevent all attempts but it successfully degraded the organization's ability to do us harm. According to some intelligence sources Al Qaeda is reorganizing in Europe and again setting up 9/11 style cells. We need to keep up the pressure; it is much more important than plugging up all possible security holes, which is a losing proposition and leads to diminishing returns.

The other silliness of both the committee and the administration is the assumption that the Federal Government has to be responsible for everything. Why should there be a Federal plan on what to do in the case of a biological attack on a New York subway station? Isn't New York more qualified to plan for that? It may need, and should get, Federal assistance if it asks for it but the Feds can't plan and take care of all the possible emergencies in this big country. If we attempt this kind of solution we will end up with a much bigger and much more inefficient and oppressive federal bureaucracy and not more security (TSA anybody?).

There is another danger in the current approach: we can't keep telling the public that we are safe. This is a dangerous lie. It is dangerous for a number of reasons. If people think they are secure they pay no attention to their surroundings, making it easier for terrorists. A complacent public is also more likely to respond with a massive panic attack if a terror act happens or it may respond with complacency which is as deadly.