President Obama: "We Screwed Up"
Overview
Those are President Obama's own words, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in remarks at the daily press briefing on Wednesday. That is a quite different mantra than the one that the previous administration was known for. You remember it - "We have to be right every time, the terrorists only need to be right once." The underwear bomber (we again refrain from naming terrorists at TPP) is now, according to National Security Advisor James Jones, "strike two", making reference to the Ft. Hood shooting. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was widely criticized for her remarks defending the security processes in place. Today the President took to the airwaves to admit that "mistakes were made" and that "dots were not connected." As we remember it, the Department of Homeland Security was created to make sure that the dots were connected. The fact that they weren't points to an apparent lack of prioritization by the Obama Administration with regard to the terrorist threat. One can see by the headlines going back several months detailing both foiled and successful plots, that the terrorists understand this as well.
TPP has commented about this issue on several occasions. Our position is that while both the Obama and Bush Administrations have brought the fight to the terrorists overseas, both administrations treat security within the United States with band-aids that are largely ineffective.Policy has been reactive and stupid. Travelers are witness to this every time they remove their shoes at the airport and give up their bottle of Aquafina to the TSA screeners.
Coming out of this series of mis-steps are another series of actions which appear as though the Administration is doing something while not actually doing anything effective. You can tweak policy all that you want, if it's a bad policy the results will remain unsatisfactory.
One of the more talked about "solutions" is the Rapiscan Body Scanner, currently being promoted by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Not coincidentally, Rapiscan, a division of OSI Systems, Inc., is a major client of Chertoff's business venture since leaving the government. Ignoring the obvious conflict of interest complicit in lobbying for a client by appearing on news shows in his capacity as former head anti-terrorist guy, the technology would be next to useless for all but the most incompetent terrorists. The Rapiscan device scans through clothes and into the body about 1/10th of an inch (2mm). It provides a contour scan the surface of a person's body, and in theory reveals hidden weapons or contraband. In reality, it reports anomalies in body contour. While a gun or boxcutter carried under clothing would be detected (as it would by current metal detectors), the plastic explosive smuggled onto the plane on Christmas day would likely have not been detected. This is because where the explosives were hidden provided masking of them by the terrorists legs and genitalia. All that is required to defeat this device are to hide the contraband in folds of fat, underneath a sagging breast or between the lower cheeks. This would certainly change the profile for who might be a terrorist, but would not improve detection.
In addition, the false positives would wreak havoc among the traveling public. "Anomalies" would be reported for ill-fitting clothing, scar tissue, skin warts or tumors, and even adult diapers.We do not hold to the arguments that this technology violates privacy. Air travel is not a right, it is a privilege, and the government may use what means that are deemed necessary to provide security. Our objection is that this technology is not effective as marketed, and easy to work around. TPP has long been a proponent of the use of technology to enhance security at airports and other areas subject to terrorist attack. The Rapiscan unit will not add to security. It is the high priced version of the X-Ray glasses advertised in comic books back in the 60s. This is not a solution - it is a farce.
Unobtrusive technologies do exist that can aid in airport security. Electronic "sniffers" that can detect explosives with the sensitivity of a dog's nose are on the market and in common use. That would be an example of an effective use of technology. For that matter, the Israeli government makes wide use of bomb sniffing dogs at it's airports and secure facilities. There is no reason that we cannot implement dogs as a reliable solution for of the cost of the 450 Rapiscan units that have been ordered by the government, and with far more effective results.
Ultimately, no technology is as effective in interpreting threats and countering them as a trained security force. Once again, we call for the dissolution of the current TSA as structured, and it's replacement with a highly trained and motivated security force. Paying someone $12 per hour to rifle through people's underwear is not adding to anyone's security. It is not hard to teach recruits how to spot suspicious behavior or how to handle a potentially dangerous situation. It is taught every day at local police academies throughout the country. We at TPP envision a force based in all major airports structured as your local police. Security is enhanced by uniformed officers on patrol keeping an eye out for trouble and undercover officers scattered throughout passenger areas. A tactical and bomb squad should be included in this structure.
Technology can aid officers. A security hub monitoring cameras on everything throughout the facility is found in every casino in Las Vegas. This allows problems to be minimized by having their security people investigate at the first sign of trouble. Are airports any less in need of such forward-thinking? This hub can also receive data from other sensors and monitoring, allowing real-time updates to officers on patrol, as suggested in our previous articles.
Common Sense Dictates
More people are becoming aware that the security situation at airports and other "secure" facilities is cosmetic, reactive and a burden on most travelers. Resources are being allocated in a way that does nothing to improve security. Policies are constructed in a pool of political correctness, rather than by employing a strategy of effectiveness. Had the underwear bomber succeeded, there would be no talk of "screwing up" - the American public would be demanding for heads to roll. Terrorists will always evolve to meet a challenge, and nothing will be able to stop a truly committed lone nutjob. Still, we have set the bar way too low for the terrorists, and way too high for the traveling public. It is time for the Obama Administration to stop adjusting the fig leaf that we are calling security at our airports, and replace it with armor. It is time for us to be serious about this. To not do so is to place ourselves in peril. As we stated at the beginning, the terrorists only need to be right once, we need to be right all the time. Every day that we do not, provides the terrorists with another opportunity to ruin many lives. Common Sense requires a call to action.
RLB
Categories: National Security, political leadership
Tags: national security political leadership war on terror
Preaching to the choir, brother...
Reply to this
Every time I got to the airport I run all of these thoughts through my head. It's like somebody wrote a "Security for Dummies" book, and put it next to the "Terrorism for Dummies - US Edition". None of these measures is doing anything to advance our security. It's designed to make us feel safe by giving an illusion that someone is doing something. What will we do now that an underwear bomber tried something? Go through security naked? Give me a break!
Reply to this
The problem with creating an airport police force is that most of the current TSA screeners would never qualify for the job. You would have to fire the vast majority of them and recruit out of the local academies or military leaving service. The last thing I would want is to give someone who can't work a metal detector wand a gun.
Reply to this
I don't think there's any disagreement that what gets done at airports now is mostly for show. The needing an ID is good. Limiting the boarding area to passengers is good, and I really don't mind having my carry on checked. It's the ridiculousness of what is screened, and who gets extra screening. Random screening works for polling, but not in catching a terrorist. Grandma is not a terrorist. Neither is a 4 year old. My mouthwash is just mouthwash. No one ever hijacked a plane with a nailclipper. Of course ther should be no weapons allowed on board, but be real in the definition of a weapon. It doesn't make me feel any safer and it just discourages me from flying whenever I can possibly avoid it.
Reply to this
I've got to agree there - if I don't absolutely have to fly, I don't. I drive, or take the train. It really doesn't take any longer than dealing with the airport, and you don't have to worry about dropping out of the sky. If they made the security a little less of a hassle it might get me back to flying. Nothing like bothering everybody in the terminal and the bad guy still gets through.
Reply to this
I need to fly all the tme and it's just insanity. It's so bad that the screeners at my airport know me by name an I still get secondary searches. It's not like I look suspicious, unless a white guy in his fifties wearing a business suit is the new Al Qaeda. Something really needs to be done.
Reply to this
I'm glad someone finally found a reason besides "I don't want people seeing me naked" to trash that body scanner. Chertoff looks even more like a used car dealer trying to sell a lemon to anyone who will give him the time of day. Selling out your country with a scam like this should be prosecuted. He might as well be putting out a welcome mat for the terrorists.
Reply to this
Are there any spec sheets available that show the Rapiscan unit will not perform as advertised?
Reply to this
The following link is a FAQ sheet from the Rapiscan website. Questions 9 and on detail the limitations of scanning ability. The Sandia study cited in question 12 specifically tested materials hidden under clothing but placed on the surface of the skin.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html
There is a full spec sheet available at the site, for the engineers out there. We reiterate that this instrument is only of limited use, and relying on this technology as a first line of defense is foolish.
RLB
Reply to this
I'm not sure that I'd get rid of the baggage screening entirely, but having a real police force at the airport really seems like a good idea. A police presence is usually a good deterrent, and when it doesn't deter, it's a good idea to have instant response from people who know what they are doing. I'd like to see that happen.
Reply to this
Let's say we commit to an "airport police", does every airport get one? The needs of NYC or LA might warrant this, but what about Des Moines or Little Rock? I think the TSA could handle those airports just fine.
Reply to this
It's the same equation whether you're in Iraq, Israel or New York. Uniformed boots on the ground is the best guarantee for a stable security situation, and the best answer to threats. Technology can only do so much - a well trained officer, or group of officers can handle most anything.
Reply to this
Boots on the ground is a great idea, but it's missing the basic problem. How did this clown get onto a US bound flight in the first place? He's on the watch lists, Great Britain denied him a visa, and his father ratted him out to the CIA - how many more dots do you need to have before they get connected? Where is the intelligence?
Reply to this
I'm finding it interesting that both the shoe bomber and this "fruit of the Boom" guy were engineering students in England. You would think they could design a bomb that would work. Are these guys that stupid, or are the engineering schools in GB that bad?
Reply to this
Thank God that they were such bad engineers, otherwise there would have been a real tragedy. That might be another piece in the profile - radical muslims who don't do so well in engineering school. It sort of has a parallel with the 9/11 terrorist who learned the basics of flying, but just didn't bother with pesky things like laanding or takeoff. They might want to add that to the mix.
Reply to this
More dots to not connect. It would be a real shock if what brought the terrorists down is that they just aren't very good at what they do. They offset that by just recruiting more dumbasses willing to die. Doesn't seem like a winning strategy,
Reply to this
I dunno - can you ever really run out of dumb asses? Thinking about it, I'm sure that at least in Britain a good part of the profile would be mediocre engineering students. The London bombers had that connection too. I thought the prime example of a poor college student bringing down the world was George Bush (joking! just joking!).
Reply to this
Good thing I know you modoman... hey, when I said preaching to the choir, I don't think there's too many people who haven't figured out that we're being scammed at the airport. No one is getting caught by removing their shoes, and only dummies are carrying stuff onto planes. We're all in a world of hurt if a smart one gets through. I would think that even if we take passenger area security safely, the next bomb will be in the checked luggage. It only makes sense. Most of the stuffsits in a pile waiting to get loaded after it hits the X-ray. If a terrorist can become a major in the military and do an inside job, how hard would it be for one to get a job as a TSA baggage handler and slip something in after it has cleared security. There's a whole world of problems we just don't want to look at. As for me, I just don't fly anymore. It violates my rights so that the real terrorists can feel "not profiled". Screw em! I'm tired of going through added inconvenience when the bad guys get through anyway.
Reply to this
I'm not going to apologize for the Obama or the Bush administration, but I'm sure that these trrorists are not the only ones to try anything. It's because they got past the security that they are news. I'd be willing to bet that most of the troublemakers get caught before thay get anywhere near a target. Of course, you can't hear about them. I don't think anyone would feel safer with a headline each day saying that 50 terrorist attacks were foiled in the US today. Hell, for sure no one would fly then.
Reply to this
Obviously some get caught - look at those guys in Houston and New York a few monts ago. Of course they didn't seem like really bright bulbs either. The smart ones seem to stay out of the country, probably mostly because they DON'T want to get caught. We picked up Khalid Sheihk Mohammed in Indonesia, not in the US. That's the m/o - the smart guy recruits the not so smart guy, and the not so smart guy screws up the mission. The masterminds only need one dummy to do it right, and they get to sit pretty wherever they are and claim the credit. These really are scum that we are dealing with.
Reply to this
You mention electronic noses, and in the same breath dogs. Does anyone know how well one stack up against the other? I think that an officer in tactical gear with a dog in tow would be welcome by most travelers and would intimidate any would-be terrorist better than some electronic gadget. Not only that, a dog has teeth. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing.
Reply to this
Dogs would be good - nothing like a backup partner that can smell explosives, take down someone before they know what hit them, and cause the bad guy to crap his pants all at once. Now that's thinking creatively.
Reply to this
Ultimately, it's going to come down to we will need to protect ourselves. When some loony gets through the security measures, it will be up to the passengers on the jet to take him down. Todd Beamer gave us the answer. since then that's been what's worked best. If some loser wants to kill all of us, we might as well return the favor, first.
Reply to this
I've thought that it's up to me from th first moment after 9/11. The government knows that unless it can get the flying public to submit to really harsh measures, there's no real way to guarantee safety. So they toss us some things to do to look like they are taking the threat seriously. In reality, they are staying up nights waiting for one of the smart ones to get through. If he does, and it's on my flight, I'm not going down without taking him with me.
Reply to this
It is more worrying that the terrorists seem to have picked up operations over the past few months. I have to credit that with Obama just not being as firm as Bush. The terrorists knew that if they tried anything under his watch, they would be hunted down like dogs. The host countries made life unpleasant for them becuase they didn't want to give an invitation to the US Marines to move in. Now the terrorists think - "Hmmm, life in jail in the US with meals, clothing and cable TV, or keep living in this cave?" Doesn't seem like a bad deal. Obama has taken his "can't we all get along attitude" and brought it directly into this issue. I guess somewhere in his head he can't imagine not being liked. In any case we have had terror strikes, foiled terror strikes and attempted terror strikes in this country with increasing regularity since last July. Not so much under Bush. It's an attitude as well as a plan, Mr. President. It's better to be respected than to be feared. Unfortunately, our President is neither among our enemies.
Reply to this
I was enjoying the conversation all along until this idiocy just posted. Gclarke, are you really going to get into a "my president is better than your president" thing? I think that terrorism cuts across party lines. There were just as many dead democrats as republicans on 9-11. Both men made mistakes (can anyone spell Iraq?). I don't think they are ramping things up because they don't respect Obama. They didn't respect Bush either. They are ramping things up because they hate America, and it's what terrorists do. Now that it's hard to do from Afghanistan and Pakistan they have found a home in Yemen and Somalia. As soon as we shut them down there, they'll come up someplace else. Maybe we need a better strategy all around rather than pretending to secure our airports and pretending to fight terrorism with the military.
Reply to this
This is a very complicated issue, and really, you can't blame the government for taking the easy way out and giving the "appearance" of security. Real security is too hard to provide in a free society. The only way to gain security is to surrender freedom, which you do in a little way by removing your shoes. The only way to provide real security in flight is to inspect everything,including strip searches of the passengers and crew. I don't think anyone wants to fly that badly. There are things that are done well, and a lot of stupid things, but as a society we can never achieve perfect airport security. I think it was Franklin who said that a man who trades his freedom for security deserves neither. For the record, I think replacing the TSA with real police is a good idea, but don't expect more than that as far as effective changes.
Reply to this
That's a little fatalistic. Common sense says we should do whatever we need to protect ourselves. Some of it might seem silly, but we do it because similar threats have happened. What would you have us do? Just not check anything?
Reply to this
No, we obviously need to check for suspicious passengers or dangerous things in carryons. But we should eliminaate the stupid stuff. Somebody mentioned nailclippers before. I don't think you can hijack a plane with them - not even toe clippers. Just show some common sense.
Reply to this
Well, you were way ahead of the curve on this one. Nothing like having a government payoff to some bogus entity substitute for security. It's even nicer since your only choice is to submit or to be groped by a TSA screener with less tact and training than a burger flipper at McDonald's. Thanks again to our government.
Reply to this