I'm still waiting to be scared

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, November 1, 2010 - 9:17 AM Share

Stephen Colbert's Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's attempt to rally fear in the hearts of Americans through its foiled toner cartridge gambit continues to reverberate in homeland security circles. Clearly, there are still a few bugs in the system. That said, here are my quick takeaways:

1) Al Qaeda failed… again. Seriously, if al Qaeda is ostensibly the New York Yankees of terrorism, the Steinbrenners would have fired the GM and coach years ago.

2) As this New York Times round-up suggests, al Qaeda has had to adopt new tactics because its preferred tactics have been thwarted:

[It was] a rare attack aimed at the air cargo system -- one of the foundations of the global economy -- rather than the passenger system, which has received the most attention from governments working to avoid a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Times story goes on to bemoan the failure to ratchet up security in the cargo system, which is a fair point. An implicit conclusion to draw from this switch in tactics, however, is that al Qaeda-affiliated groups are being frustrated on the passenger front.

3) Will Juan Williams now be fearful every time he sees a toner cartridge, even though most toner cartridges are not evil?

4) A common mantra about combating terrorism is that homeland security officials have to aim for a 1.000 batting average, while terrorists just need to get lucky once. I wonder if this is really true, however. Each time a new type of attack is thwarted, government officials learn a great deal about new tactics and methods, and a treasure trove of intelligence can be quickly generated. Failed attacks are likely to discourage some al Qaeda sympathizers, leading to more informants.

No, al Qaeda doesn't need a perfect track record, but failure after failure does carry strategic and operational costs.

5) The Saudi counterintelligence effort is getting an awful lot of good press.

Am I missing anything?

EXPLORE:HOMELAND SECURITY, AL QAEDA, TERRORISM, AL QAEDA, SECURITY STUDIES, WAR ON TERROR
 

BUZZ KILLINGTON

1:47 PM ET

November 1, 2010

Ha ha

It's easy to tell others they shouldn't be nervous. But are you ever nervous about anything? Is it always (or ever) rational? Does it always (or ever) make any difference when someone explains to you why it's irrational?

 

ZORRO

6:09 PM ET

November 1, 2010

The Job (ideally) of Government...

...is to rein in the irrational mob, not to pander to it.
So it should matter to the government what is irrational and what is rational.
So less bombs and spies, more health care (because it saves more lives).
Not to mention that a lot of foreigners don't have to die that way...

 

KWO

9:31 PM ET

November 1, 2010

Fear sells

So less bombs and spies, more health care (because it saves more lives).

Obamacare was sold on exactly the same basis as the GWOT: everyone must surrender personal freedom in favor of government intervention, in order to prevent people from dying.

 

GREGSANDERS

2:08 PM ET

November 1, 2010

Using the nomenclature of the

Using the nomenclature of the kids today, point #3 wins the internet for this morning.

 

POLITICALGEEK

7:10 PM ET

November 1, 2010

yes and no

We seem to have a very limited imagination in the US. Until we get a threat from a particular source, we cannot even imagine any potential danger. It took 9/11 to beef up the security on passenger planes. Now the threat from cargo planes is getting attention.

I agree that living in fear is not productive, but trying to think ahead rationally could leave us with less scrambling around looking clueless when the threat (or potential threat) does come. Thinking ahead can also help prevent our knee-jerk reactionary responses.

We also have inconsistencies within our current security systems. For instance, I have personally seen large rigs carrying deliveries of Liquefied Natural Gas from Yemen in Boston Harbor. Why hasn't anyone thought to check this potential hazard? Oh that's right. It's the oil and gas industry. We wouldn't want to slow down our energy consumption or jack up the price from the extra security...until the next actual attempt, that is.

 

KLMOLNAR

11:58 PM ET

November 1, 2010

First of all, I think all

First of all, I think all Yankees fan, including myself are sufficiently insulted by the comparison of our beloved team to a notable terrorist organization. Second, that is a cheap shot at Juan Williams. Finally, I think you got the forth point right. Although I think that failed attempts can act just like a fake attempt would. American's will not forget the events of September 11th. But they are unlikely to forget the times the government stopped an attack from happening. I think this might take a little bit away from al Queda. For Americans to think that our government will always be able to better al Queda is naive, but these types of events will have that effect.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More