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.

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]

Mumbai Latest (7:30 p.m. local time; 2 p.m. British time)

Twenty-one hours after the first attacks and stand-offs continue at the Taj and Oberoi Hotels. The Times of India reports all hostages released at the Taj, and CNN International is reporting 10 hostages released at the Oberoi. Five attackers and 14 policemen are reported dead, and The Times of India says more bodies are in the Taj Hotel.

As the stand-off moves to resolution, attention will turn to responsibility for the attacks. Right now, the media is spinning with frustration that they have nothing beyond the claim of the shadowy "Deccan Mujihadeen". While some journalists are speculating --- I think with little evidence --- about an Al Qa'eda assault, I suspect that Canuckistan's comment on a Pakistan connection may be far more important. In the context of the downward spiral in Pakistan, a renewal of Indo-Pakistani conflict, either between Government forces or between India and Pakistan-based insurgent groups, is cause for concern.

The P Word

The conflict is still continuing in Mumbai. Once events are settled, questions will quickly be asked about who supported these attacks. Already the Indian prime minister has talked about "external" forces. Based on previous events, attention will be played to any official or unofficial Pakistani involvement in these attacks. If these links exist, it will have rather significant implications for Indian-Pakistani relations and, of course, for the United States and the wider "war on terror."