The Security Myth

In response to Mike’s post, why does Mumbai make the threat from asymmetric attacks any greater than it already is? It has always been there and it always will be unless we choose to live in a complete police state.

Take the case of the airports--because of the attack at Glasgow you now can't drive up to a terminal to drop a passenger off or pick someone up. Yet, there's absolutely nothing to stop someone from walking in with a backup containing an explosive and either leaving it in the terminal or detonating it amongst the passengers lined up to go through security. It's a "soft target." Now airports could institute a measure requiring everyone entering the terminal to be searched but then someone could blow themselves up in the parking lot so that would require a perimeter around the airport with every car being searched but then someone could blow them self up at the checkpoint .... and on .... and on. The only real solution would be to shut down air travel. So society wide there is an illusion of security created by the state to encourage people to go about their daily lives but in reality there is little that could be done to stop a determined terrorist. It’s about containment, not elimination, a point I make in the conclusion to my  book (gratuitous plug).

By the way, for an interesting examination of the faults with U.S. airport security see this from the current issue of The Atlantic.

Mumbai Speculation of the Day

Apologies for going on about The Times of London and their defence correspondent, Michael Evans, but this latest effort at analysis is fully deserving of scorn:

Focus on Westerners suggests al-Qaeda was pulling strings

Shocking as Wednesday nights attacks on Bombay may have been, they were not unprecedented in their audacity or tactics and may have been masterminded by a familiar enemy.

A terrorist group with training camps in Pakistan and strong ties with al-Qaeda as well as a history of mounting attacks in India yesterday became the chief suspect behind the atrocities.

Intelligence and security officials were cautious about making early conclusions but admitted that the scale of the attacks and the planning pointed to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a terrorist group with a long record of violent extremism and previous connections to the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

Lashkar-e-Taiba is definitely not a group whose strings are pulled by Al Qa'eda. It has its own political agenda, elements of which may overlap with the agenda of Osama Bin Laden and Co. but most of which is driven by Pakistani and regional dimensions, in particular the dispute over Kashmir.

Michael Evans and associates are making the perfect storm of terrorism. Lashkar-e-Taiba is tied to both Al Qa'eda and Pakistani intelligence services. And "while planning for Wednesdays attack probably took place in Pakistan, the plotters probably used a local group in Bombay to execute it. Suspicion has fallen on the Indian Mujahidin as that partner."

So what's wrong with this? With the widest possible net to bring in all bad guys, inside and outside of Governments, this type of analysis has little chance of getting to grips with specific local and regional issues and complexities behind these attacks. Evans and Co. trumpet, "Some analysts suggest that Pakistani militant groups have forged closer ties with al-Qaeda because of the continuing fighting with Pakistans Army in the northern tribal areas."

Maybe, just maybe, instead of highlighting "al-Qaeda", the Times correspondents might dwell on the last part of that sentence --- "the continuing fighting with Pakistans Army in the northern tribal areas".

More Questions from Mumbai

There is still isolated fighting in Mumbai. Headline drama has come from the storming of a Jewish cultural centre by Indian commandos, while The Times of India reports that there is still firing at the old section of the Taj Hotel, with at least one assailant possibly holding two more hostages.

The immediate conflict, however, is over, leaving at least 125 dead. Amidst the tragedy and rather empty blustering from British papers of standing side-by-side with India, the question inevitably turns into, "Who and why?"

Almost everything I have read is uncertain speculation. The initial easy response of "Al Qa'eda" has been joined by consideration of Pakistani groups, either supported by factions of the Government or independent of it. The latest wave of possibility, based on reports that some of the assailants spoke Hindi, is that this might be an Indian militant group.

We don't know. And I don't think that the intelligence services --- in India, in Pakistan (unless they indeed are linked to the assailants), in Britain, in the US --- know. All of this pondering is understandable, but at this point it just heightens fear without any sense of resolution.

It would be so much easier if Al Qa'eda had claimed responsibility, as in Michael Evans' masterpiece of irrelevance in The Times --- based on casual chat with "British intelligence sources" --- that Al Qa'eda "might be plotting an attack 'to grab the headlines' before Mr Obama takes over in the White House on January 20". This would have given us the best villain while absolving others (e.g. Pakistani authorities) and ignoring the complexities raised by yet others (Pakistani groups who are not part of Al Qa'eda's master plan).

A media incident this morning illustrates the point too painfully. BBC Radio 4's flagship programme Today has just wet itself with panic after the former head of India's intelligence services none-too-subtly suggested that the attackers are supported by the Pakistani intelligence services and military, acting independently or in defiance of the Zardari Government.

The host immediately went to the BBC's security correspondent to throw cold water on this. Gorden Corera assured everyone that the British Government's counsel was not to rush to judgement. Understandable, I think, given that Foreign Secretary David Miliband was just in Islamabad and proclaiming total confidence in his ally Prime Minister Zardari.

We do not know. But if anyone wants something for consideration, here goes:

Just as the instability in Pakistan feeds from and contributes to the ongoing instability in Afghanistan, so it may be the case that instability in Pakistan --- a central Government which is far from strong, which is being undermined by the situation in the Northwest Frontier, and which now be fragmented --- is contributing to the dramatic instability of the last 48 hours.

Whether that continues is, for me, the important issue. And it is far more important than the inconvenience, offered in the analysis offered by The New York Times this morning, that it "will make the agenda of the new American administration harder".

After Mumbai: Assessing The Threat

Security expert Bruce Schneier has taken issue with the FBI's recent warning that 'al-Qaeda' might be planning to attack the New York subway system this Thanksgiving:

I have no specific details, but I want to warn everybody today that fiery rain might fall from the sky. Terrorists may have discussed this sort of tactic, and while there is no evidence yet that it's in the process of being carried out, I want to be extra-cautious this holiday season. Ho ho ho.

My gut reaction is to agree with him- the announcement seemed like fear mongering at worst, ass-covering at best. But my question is, after Mumbai, do we have the luxury of disregarding such warnings? I don't believe for a minute that the same group who attacked Mumbai is capable of attacking New York, but last night's events were a reminder of just how terrifyingly effective asymmetric warfare can be.

As one Twitter user put it, "Apparently 'highly coordinated' now maps to 'bunch of guys with watches set to the same time.'" How can New York, Mumbai, or any other city, legislate for a group of men armed with light weapons and synchronised watches?

[photo via keerthi]

Journalism 101: Today's Awards for Incisive Comment

HONOURABLE MENTION: THE ALL IS WELL IN IRAQ COMMENT

Marine Captain Giles Clarke writes in The New York Times of running a half-marathon in Baghdad:

As I sprinted across the finish line, though, I knew it was all for a greater good. I knew that I was contributing to something much bigger than myself. How did I know this? I just ran a half-marathon in Baghdad.

Totally Irrelevant Fact (1):

Three bombings targeting Iraqi government employees and the U.S.-fortified Green Zone killed at least 20 people and left scores wounded Monday.

Totally Irrelevant Fact (2):

Number of US military personnel who ran the half-marathon: More than 200
Number of Iraqis who ran the half-marathon: 0

BRONZE MEDAL: I LOVE YOU, YES, I DO COMMENT

David Ignatius gets misty-eyed over Condoleezza Rice in The Washington Post:

Condoleezza Rice may be the most disciplined person in this town of workaholics. She has always been the perfect young woman, pleasing and impressing others.

Dave's Afterthought:

Now the issue of U.S.-Iranian relations will be handed over to the Obama administration. "We ran out of time," says one administration official.

The Question Dave Did Not Ask Condi:

Why?

SILVER MEDAL: THE BETTER LATE THAN NEVER COMMENT

The Washington Post celebrates Presidential justice:

THE BUSH administration acted fairly and responsibly this week in deciding to release Osama bin Laden's former driver from the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and return him to his home country of Yemen.

Suggestion made by The Post:

The White House has another opportunity to do the right thing, this time in the case of 17 Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo.

Suggestion not made by The Post:

Anything to do with the other 235 detainees at Camp X-Ray

GOLD MEDAL: THE TRIBUTE TO CONSERVAPEDIA COMMENT

In The Washington Post, George Will joins Conservapedia's vigilant defence against Dangerous Professors, reviewing Stanley Fish's book, Save the World on Your Own Time:

Fish's advocacy of a banal proscription -- of explicit political preaching in classrooms -- may have made him anathema to academia's infantile left. The shrewder left will, however, welcome his book because it denies or defends other politicizations of academia that are less blatant but more prevalent and consequential -- those concerning hiring and curricula.

For those who can't quite make it through that paragraph, here is Conservapedia's translation:

Professor values are currently one of the most prevalent forms of Liberal indoctrination.