http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/on_the_war_on_t.html

Schneier talks often about "security theater" (security measures that appear to keep us safe, but don't) and his level headed approach to the terrorism issue is one that appeals to me.

This has been beaten to death on this board, and we might as well beat it some more. I don't feel any more or less safe after 9/11. If anything, having a greater presence in the middle east has probably caused more people to hate us, which will ultimately lead to more terrorist wanting to blow us up.

I agree with Sir Macdonald that preventing terrorist attacks should be a civil issue. I imagine we could do a lot of ferreting out of these cells with the trillion+ dollars that will be put towards the war in Iraq.

1/26/2007 9:43:05 AM

In my opinion, fighting crime.

1/26/2007 9:54:11 AM

Come on now, they don't call it the "axis of evil" for nothing.

1/26/2007 11:27:16 AM

They tried the "fighting crime" method. It didn't work. Remember what happened after the first WTC bombing in the early 90s? Oh yeah, nothing. That sure is fighting some crime.

1/26/2007 11:39:02 AM

remember all the people complaining about us bombing weapons facilities in sudan?

1/26/2007 11:41:46 AM

Doesn't have to be black or white, good versus evil, combat versus crime solving. It's best to take a blended approach. For cells within the United States and nations with functional governments, a crime fighting approach is reasonable. For cells that operate out of areas of anarchy or where the government refuses to cooperate, then a military approach is required.

1/26/2007 12:07:26 PM

... how is that any different from what we do now?





genius....

1/26/2007 12:08:38 PM

even the war is somewhat crimefighting, just on an international level. They have to be so mindful of civilans in the urban environment.

1/26/2007 12:38:55 PM

So essentially, those that think some form of militaristic action is necessary, there is no way we can prevent terrorist attacks on our soil without it?

I think in some situations, it probably is necessary to use more force than the civilian sector can provide. But what are those situations?

1/26/2007 1:05:58 PM

Quote :

"... how is that any different from what we do now?"

Well, Iraq wouldn't have been a target for one.

Quote :

"So essentially, those that think some form of militaristic action is necessary, there is no way we can prevent terrorist attacks on our soil without it?"

Certainly you can prevent most attacks without the use of military force, but to completely rule out its use is unrealistic as well. There will be those rare instances, such as Afghanistan, where the only way you could reach out and disrupt the network is to throw in some special forces.

There is also the question of intelligence agencies. Do you consider them crime fighting? Intelligence afterall falls under the military.

1/26/2007 1:10:04 PM

Quote :

"I agree with Sir Macdonald that preventing terrorist attacks should be a civil issue. I imagine we could do a lot of ferreting out of these cells with the trillion+ dollars that will be put towards the war in Iraq."

The general problem with this is that the funds and people involved with the war in Iraq are very different from the funds and people involved with rooting out local cells. It's done this way for a good reason, but any attempts by the government to improve mobility of funds, people or intelligence between these various factions is always met with hostility from the american public.

1/26/2007 1:48:56 PM

so the only thing giving the WoT the advantage is that we haven't had any terrorist attacks?

1/26/2007 2:38:52 PM

Quote :

"There will be those rare instances, such as Afghanistan, where the only way you could reach out and disrupt the network is to throw in some special forces."

But, do we even have to take it that far? Is there no way we can protect our shores, without actually have to go overseas? To me, the only reason to actually take the fight to them, is if we feel like they could put weapons in Mexico, or some other location close to the US, without us knowing it, and firing at us this way.

To which then begs the question, are we so far behind with intelligence, that there is no way we could see this coming?

Of course, 9/11 happened. But have we learned anything? Is it an impossibility for us to reasonably protect our country without having to go attack people somewhere else?

^^ Mind clarifying? Are you saying the public is more willing to fund wars than to fund intelligence?

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : a]

1/26/2007 2:40:08 PM

Quote :

"To which then begs the question, are we so far behind with intelligence, that there is no way we could see this coming?"

i think by and large we have good intelligence, but I mean our intelligence couldnt find any WMDs so its certainly far from perfect

1/26/2007 2:52:56 PM

^ an honest question - what are you implying with that response?
are you saying that there were WMDs in iraq when we invaded, but our intelligence failed to find them?

because the general consensus now, agreed upon by George Tenant, Colin Powell and i think Cheaney and others, is that the intelligence from pre-war was faulty, and there were never any WMDs to begin with (and spare me the "oh yeah, why don't you ask the Kurds if there were WMDs!!" shtick)

1/26/2007 3:24:47 PM

You should have heard Cheney on Wolf the other night (the "hogwash" interview). Cheney was demonstrative about Saddam not adhering to the UN resolutions, and that he had used weapons in the past and had the capability to acquire them quickly and use them quickly against us, and that in the very near future, he was going to be in a nuclear arms race with Iran.

Wolf tried to say "but sir, the WMDs were in the 80s.....(cut off)"

And the whole time I am thinking...umm...this is the war on terror?

1/26/2007 3:34:06 PM

Quote :

"the intelligence from pre-war was faulty"

thats what i'm implying...our intelligence is good but not perfect...even when i concede there were no WMDs based on us not finding any WMDs as an example of how our intelligence has flaws, you try to give me shit for that?

in response to TypeA's question about "is our intelligence not good enough..." I said it wasnt perfect...seemed straight forward, oh well

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 4:07:07 PM

Quote :

"^ an honest question - what are you implying with that response?"

1/26/2007 4:09:50 PM

Quote :

"thats what i'm implying...our intelligence is good but not perfect"

1/26/2007 4:10:42 PM

Quote :

"But, do we even have to take it that far? Is there no way we can protect our shores, without actually have to go overseas? To me, the only reason to actually take the fight to them, is if we feel like they could put weapons in Mexico, or some other location close to the US, without us knowing it, and firing at us this way."

I agree that the vast majority of terrorist activity should be treated as a criminal act and not a military one, but I feel that there are some exceptions to this rule. There are situations where you have groups hiding in pockets of anarchy, and more importantly, governments that directly sponsor or knowingly house terrorist groups that have directly attacked the United States. The former means that there is no government or law enforcement agency to work with to dispatch justice. In the latter (such as Afghanistan), the issue is escalated from a mere law enforcement issue to one where a national government is an accessory to, or directly responsible, for the attack. In these cases, a nation has every right to respond whether through economic or military means.

Quote :

"To which then begs the question, are we so far behind with intelligence, that there is no way we could see this coming?"

I think that there's a lot of room for improving national intelligence. The greater emphasis on HumInt would be a good first step; I believe we've become too overly reliant upon technological means and methods. This would help in the neverending hunt for bin Laden for example.

As for the actual event of 9/11, I think that was more of structural issues with the intelligence services and constitutional issues (linking databases, interagency relations, etc.).

Quote :

"Of course, 9/11 happened. But have we learned anything?"

I think we've learned something but haven't bothered applying all those lessons. This is a serious concern for me.

1/26/2007 4:32:43 PM