I just started listening to the audiobook of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six. The opening scene involves an airline hijacking. I didn’t need to look up the date to know that it was written before 9/11. The protagonist of the book is CIA Agent John Clark, who happens to be on a plane getting hijacked. I knew instantly that it was written before 9/11 because we enter Clark’s mind and nearly every thought he had was refuted just a few years after it was written. The best thing to do in the event of a hijacking is to sit still (Clark ultimately doesn’t, owing to special circumstances). Smart and capable terrorists don’t hijack planes. Just do what they say, keep your head down, and let the professionals do their job. That was, up until 9/10/01, the conventional wisdom.
Frequent Hit Coffee commenter Peter often criticizes the fliers on the planes from 9/11 for not having risen up as those on United 93 did. I give them a pass for the above reason. It’s difficult to imagine, however, anything approaching that level of compliance in the near-decade since. We’ve learned that the worst thing they can do is not blow up the plane, but rather turn it into a weapon. In which case, not only do you (and everyone on the plane) die, but so do a whole lot of other people (and a nation goes into chaos). Combine that with the reinforced cockpit doors, and while we may have reason to fear terrorism, another 9/11 is not likely to happen no matter what they get on the plane.
I think of this as we deal with the TSA’s new policies. Many on the right are outraged and view this as a manifestation of creeping tyranny, but in many ways it’s simply the next logical step in a walk started by Obama’s predecessor. To be fair, many on the right admit this. Many others argue that this is why we need profiling and the like*. Some argue that we need security like the Israelis have. Many on the left, formerly outraged by the TSA policies when Bush was in charge, argue that these safety measures are required for the public safety (and all argue that profiling is not the way to go about it). To be fair, many on the left are as outraged with Obama as they would be with Bush.
On this debate, I sit on the sidelines, more-or-less. I look at the Israeli system as being non-scalable (Israel has conscription and relatively few airports), exceedingly expensive, and intrusive in a different way. Profiling I view as perhaps effective but something to be avoided. I view the scanners and pat-downs as a few steps too far. Whenever I do mention this, with the exception of some libertarians and ACLU types, I get “Well, how should we keep our airports secure?!”
But really, how secure do we need them to be? There are a lot worse things that terrorists can do than blow up a plane. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be noteworthy and tragic, but the real tragedy occurred because of what they did with the planes. And at some point, you have to look at the relative safety of flying versus driving and say “some risks you’ve got to take.”
Beyond which, I hope that they keep trying to hijack planes. Jokes about TSA incompetence aside, it’s an iffy target at best as most potential targets don’t have the kind of security that we had before 9/11 and hijacking as a method of terrorism was, as John Clark noted, on the decline**. I can’t imagine anything worse than that they bypass airplanes and get creative. They could bomb a levy. Another WTC-style bomb attempt (except, obviously, somewhere else). Murray Federal Building except a bigger target. Or worse yet, they could attempt death by a thousand drops. A man and a boy with a sniper rifle shut down an entire city. A few anthrax letters had the entire US on its heels***. Bomb a bus here, a market there, and they could do some real damage. Not necessarily in the form of a casualty toll, but a psychological one. And that’s what’s really important.
The psychological toll is, perhaps, what the TSA is trying to prevent on planes. I doubt that they haven’t considered what I’ve said above. I’m sure their response would be to imagine the psychological toll of another actual (successful) hijacking. People won’t want to fly. It’s a fair point, but in some ways I think the psychological effect of security theater is worse. They think it screams “Trust us. You’re safe.” but as much as anything I would say that it suggests the opposite. Particularly as they have to justify these procedures and inform us of any and every way that they could hide a Play-to bomb up their arsecrack. The cynical part of me thinks precisely that instilling fear, rather than concern for future fear, is the point. But I guess I’m not that cynical.
* - I was looking for a way not to bring up this word, but I know if I don’t then someone else will. Keep in mind that I am not arguing that this form of security is better than that form of security. Rather, I am arguing that we are too obsessed with security to begin with whether we’re contemplating inconveniencing everyone a little or inconveniencing certain demographics a lot.
** - Prior to 9/11, I struggle to find any flights originating in the US that were hijacked in 20 years. There was an interesting attempt, however, in 1994.
*** - I am reminded of how the band Anthrax hired a letter-opener because, as they put it, “we do not intend to die an ironic death.” Quote of the decade, easily.
Let’s imagine if there were no security at all — anyone off the street could walk in, unimpeded and without any checking whatsoever, directly to the gate, and the only filter of any kind was an unarmed flight attendant demanding tickets so as to separate paid passengers from other people.
Would air travel, at least on flights originating in and landing in industrialized western nations, become appreciably more dangerous than it is now? We’d see more contraband and drugs smuggled on commercial flights, to be sure, but that doesn’t hurt the other passengers. There might be a few incidents in which psychopaths would get dangerous objects on board and hurt people or even bring a plane or two down; with the relative ease of getting guns and knives on the plane individuals could be targeted for violence.
But I cannot get past the belief that even in such a minimal-security world, the result would be that mile for mile, air travel would nevertheless still be much safer for the individual passenger than the drive from one’s house to the airport. Maybe I’m wearing rose-colored glasses in such a thought. And of course I’m being rational about this and what drives Airport Security Theater is not rational thinking but instead a desire to manipulate the emotions of ordinary passengers, to make them feel safe rather than to provide actual safety.
Comment by Transplanted Lawyer — December 21, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Frequent Hit Coffee commenter Peter often criticizes the fliers on the planes from 9/11 for not having risen up as those on United 93 did. I give them a pass for the above reason.
We know, from cell phone calls, that the hijackers on the other planes had killed people, and hence were an obvious grave danger beyond the “typical” hijacker - yet also were poorly armed and vastly outnumbered. They could never have resisted a concerted counterattack. I am convinced, as I’ve said many times, that the real reason for the lack of resistance is the fact that to most non-proletarian people “fighting back” is a wholly alien concept. The mere thought of slamming one’s fist into another man’s face, no matter how dire the circumstances, is unthinkable. Use of physical force is associated with other, undesirable types: rednecks, ghetto gangbangers, schizophrenics, drunken fratboys. You won’t find too many of them on an airplane.
Comment by Peter — December 21, 2010 @ 10:23 am
Murray Federal Building
Coincidentally, this building is in Israel.
I look at the Israeli system as being non-scalable
Very true. Airport security is important to Israel, so they get qualified people to work it.
Comment by Mike Hunt — December 22, 2010 @ 2:34 am
TL, that’s a few steps farther than I am willing to go. Get some terrorists bringing on enough guns and a blowtorch for the cockpit door and the defense measures I cite (reinforced doors and non-compliant passengers) can be managed. So you would need some security.
Comment by trumwill — December 22, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Peter, we don’t know the circumstances surrounding the passengers that were killed and it’s not entirely unreasonable to believe that they killed one or two to make a point and did not necessarily intend to kill everyone else.
As we know now, the passengers on United 93 faced the same fate as the passengers on the other planes. Without that hindsight, though, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that likelihood of death increases with fighting back if the aim of the hijacking was to land it on a tarmack somewhere and make demands.
I just don’t think it’s a coincidence that it was the last of the four flights where the passengers revolted. I believe that they were the ones that knew. And I suspect that had the others known that they were going to die any which way, they probably would have acted similarly. I think most people fear death more than being a redneck/gagsta/etc.
Comment by trumwill — December 22, 2010 @ 11:34 am
Airport security is important to Israel, so they get qualified people to work it.
Which they can afford to do largely because of a limited number of airports and the number of army veterans conscription generates.
Comment by trumwill — December 22, 2010 @ 11:36 am
On alternative terrorist methods:
So why haven’t we seen any of these successfully perpetrated on US soil is the last nine years?
My guess is that Al-Qaeda, et al., is having trouble recruiting even minimally competent people to do these kinds of attacks. I think pretty much every attempted attack in the US since 9/11 was botched. Clearly, they killed all the smart ones who could get inside the country in 9/11, and they just aren’t finding good ones already inside the US.
As for how they pulled off London, Madrid, and Mumbai, I hesitate to speculate, but I’m sure we could find out.
Comment by RB — December 22, 2010 @ 11:48 am
A combination of things, RB. I say frequently “Thank god the terrorists are stupid.” Not just in terms of competence, but in lack of imagination. Probably doesn’t hurt that bin Laden is dead (I believe) and their informal leadership structure doesn’t lend itself to someone stepping directly into a predecessor’s shoes.
I think you’re right on recruiting, too. The last several to try have not exactly been Mohammad Atta in terms of ability.
Comment by trumwill — December 22, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Here is a fairly amusing article about the incompetence of Muslim terrorists.
Of course, everyone in the blogosphere (not to mention Faux News) is still certain - certain! - that Islam will Conquer the World, just like they’ve already conquered Eurabia.
Comment by Peter — December 22, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Which they can afford to do largely because of a limited number of airports and the number of army veterans conscription generates.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. It is easier for Israel to do security well, but they also have the political will to do it well. After all, they were part of the US, they would be 48th in size. In addition, they are surrounded by people who don’t like them very much, to say the least. If we REALLY wanted to make airport security a top priority, we could. After all, we manage to have a strong military and civilian police force. It all comes down to political will. It would be difficult to scale the Israeli system, but not impossible. However, as a country we seem to prefer the system we have now.
However the main point of my original answer was to make fun of you for referring to the Murray Federal Building.
Comment by Mike Hunt — December 22, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
However the main point of my original answer was to make fun of you for referring to the Murray Federal Building.
Let no goof go unpunished.
Comment by trumwill — December 23, 2010 @ 1:13 am
What exactly is so unspeakably wicked about profiling Muslims? Muslim countries (including allies, and even “moderate” ones) profile the hell out of non-Muslims, including restrictions on the expression and practice of religions other than Islam (e.g. even “moderate” Malaysia punishes apostasy). Yes, there are a wide variety of ethnic groups that are Muslim (and converts to Islam from unlikely demographics), but there are commonalities in terms of name types etc which are identifying.
One can safely presume that the Israelis use perceived religious origin as a factor.
Why not have a way to let the buyer decide? E.g. one could pay more for flights which follow the Israeli system
Comment by Escapist — December 23, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
Escapist, my primary answer to your question is that I wouldn’t want to be inconvenienced the way that those profiled would be, and therefore if it’s not necessary I would prefer that they not be inconvenienced, either. The main thrust of this is post is to argue that such inconveniencing is not necessary.
Comment by trumwill — December 23, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Let no goof go unpunished.
Well the point wasn’t to point out your goof, since I knew what you meant. I just thought it was funny that in a post where you mention Israel, you called it “Murray” which is a Jewish name.
Comment by Mike Hunt — December 24, 2010 @ 12:42 am
“‘Murray’ which is a Jewish name”
“Murray” only has Jewish associations as a first name or an anglicization of a more foreign-sounding surname. The surname “Murray” is of Scottish or Irish origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_%28surname%29
Comment by nebbish — December 24, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
“Murray” is like “Sheldon” — a non-Jewish name that many Jews have fondly adopted as a first name for inexplicable reasons.
Comment by Maria — December 28, 2010 @ 4:41 pm