O Tannenbomb
A few observations on the Christmas Day bomber.
1) Like many others, I'm bewildered at the official response: change the rules so that passengers must stay in their seats for the last hour without anything in their laps. This makes flying even more miserable (unbearable for some) yet I don't think it'll make us any safer.
2) Boy did Janet Napolitano strike out. Her first impulse, like any politician, was to say things are working out so the public should be calm. But after such a clear system failure (the only reason those people on the plane are still alive is that the detonation didn't work properly), the last thing you want to say is "the system worked." She's backtracking now, but has serious damage been done?
3) What is this obsession Al Qaeda has with blowing up airplanes? I realize it's not all they do, but they keep going back to it, even though that's where all the security is. Is it still the easiest way for them to get at America, or does bringing down a plane get you a lot of bang for your buck? Or maybe they've spent so much time on it that it's become their trademark?
4) We may not want to fight it, but there's still a war going on. And we should remember our enemies would do considerably worse if they could.
5) I think most of the security measures that have been taken at airports since 9/11 don't have much effect. The problem, though, is they're trying to stop a minuscule amount of bad actors by putting everyone through the wringer. The real trouble with such things is you can't tell whether they're succeeding or not, because if they are, you wouldn't notice. The main point is deterrence. What doesn't happen is as important as what does, but it's next to impossible to get people to feel that way.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:23 AM
4 Comments:
Have often thought that Al Qaeda is smart but too dumb to realize it in these half-baked attacks. Mess a little around the edges -and let the West destroy itself through its heavy-handed responses. They didn't bring down a plane but their actions will make infidel travelers (more) miserable and probably bankrupt the airlines (again) and of course throw more gasoline on a polarized debate. While the cave dwellers would love to rain death and destruction on the unbelievers, the holy men are probably satisfied with the monkey wrenches they've thrown into the system.
"Half-baked" attacks? Everything succeeded this time up to the last moment when the detonation didn't work. Otherwise, we'd all be talking about 300 who died in the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11.
I'm wondering if there is going to be any analysis in the news of the trend we are seeing. I would mark the two 2009 attacks on US soil as successful, the first such successes for Al Queda or Al Queda inspired terrorists since 9/11. The connection to Al Queda at Fort Hood is still being investigated (at minimum there is contact with an Imam), and while the Christmas Day bomber didn't kill anyone, that was only due to dumb luck - so the plan worked perfectly.
The trend I wonder about is the execution of these plans in 2009. A few plans we know of were thwarted from 2002 through 2008. Now suddenly, there seem to be more plans and they seem to be succeeding. What changed?
We don't know if anything changed, Denver Guy. Until we have more information, we'll just have to call it a coincidence that there were two big attacks on U.S. soil in 2009.
Post a Comment
<< Home