You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Al-Qaeda's Rope-a-Dope
2011-11-22
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
In Inspire, radical Yemeni-American preacher Anwar al-Awlaki explains that AQAP settled on attacking cargo planes because the jihadis’ foes would be faced with a dilemma once AQAP placed bombs on these planes. “You either spend billions of dollars to inspect each and every package in the world,” he wrote, “or you do nothing and we keep trying again.” Awlaki further explained, “The air freight is a multi-billion dollar industry. FedEx alone flies a fleet of 600 aircraft and ships an average of four million packages per day. It is a huge worldwide industry. For the trade between North America and Europe, air cargo is indispensable and to be able to force the West to install stringent security measures sufficient enough to stop our explosive devices would add a heavy economic burden to an already faltering economy.”

Inspire also explains that large-scale attacks, such as those of 9/11, are in its view no longer required to defeat the United States. “To bring down America we do not need to strike big,” it claims. “In such an environment of security phobia that is sweeping America, it is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch and thus we may circumvent the security barriers America worked so hard to erect.” (Al-Qaeda, however, has not abandoned catastrophic attacks entirely: its attempt to execute multiple Mumbai-style urban warfare attacks in Europe in late 2010 shows that these efforts continue.) The Foreman-Ali analogy is apt: al-Qaeda thinks it is turning the U.S.’s strength against it, envisioning the elevated security spending exhausting America and making it more vulnerable.

The fundamental problem with the U.S.’s system of homeland defense is that it has been structured in an expensive manner from top to bottom. One striking example is the U.S.’s hesitance to embrace a system of terrorist profiling (most notably in airports), which produces inefficiencies. As Sheldon Jacobson, a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign computer science professor who has studied aviation security since 1996, has noted: “Spending billions of dollars on screening the wrong people uses up finite resources. If we keep focusing on stopping terrorist tactics rather than stopping the terrorists themselves, the aviation security system will never reach an acceptable level of security.”

The problem is that if we simply slash our national security spending without making our system of defending against the terrorist threat more efficient and effective, weÂ’ll end up less safe. Thus, a critical challenge the U.S. now faces is improving the efficacy of the system, even as it reduces its expenditures in an effort to escape from al-QaedaÂ’s rope-a-dope.
Posted by:Fred

#9  To bad, at least for al-Awlaki, that the United States had its own air delivery for him.
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2011-11-22 15:26  

#8  Cutting off freight traffic from selected countries might be a useful tool to punish countries that overtly support terror, but it doesn't remove the threat since the potential perpetrators aren't limited to those countries.

What al-Awlaki didn't quite understand is that packages, unlike people, don't mind being a little delayed and can stand much more robust sensor probing. Yes, there are delays, costs and technical challenges involved, but those are being worked and in many cases have been solved.

Deployment takes time and money.

International agreements that allow packages to be scanned at point of origin are preferable to scanning on arrival. However, such agreements need to protect critical technologies and information re: operational limitations. Those issues, too, are being worked.

Moreover, the resulting technologies have other potential uses which may in time make the investment quite profitable for us.

We just need to outlast these sons of b1tches and not be afraid to use our strengths to defend ourselves.
Posted by: lotp   2011-11-22 14:18  

#7  I don't buy this. It would be far easier to inspect each and every package than to deal with protecting against passangers. Increased security at airports has numberous effects for Al Queda such as an annoyed population who blame TSA and the ability of Muslim travelers to create scares that eventually wears us down.

If they were to target cargo planes the cost of shipping would go up $1 a package which few would notice or gripe about and if one got through it would be the loss of a small crew. Hardly the big even Al Queda tries for.

Rope-a-dope is right. I don't buy this.

On the other hand, for someone like Saddam it would have been brilliant. Cause the US to build up in Kuwait at enormous expense and then comply until we draw down. Then repeat and eventually the cost becomes so high the US would back off.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2011-11-22 10:14  

#6  Profiling works, and despite cries of "racism", the response is to point out that European airports use profiling, and it works. And no, limiting profiling to just "behavior" is stupid.

Profiling must be "holistic".

Second, America must reach the conclusion that the problem is Muslims, so the solution must be about Muslims. And I didn't say the solution must be with the agreement of Muslims, but enforced on them as a group.

America must say to Muslims that their beliefs *can be* a threat to our people, so ALL Muslims *must be* and *shall be* under scrutiny.

Yet this *might* be mitigated by Muslims "cleaning their own house" of those individuals who promulgate violence and extremism. They must not embrace them, support them, encourage them, or give them money or solace. Instead they must reject them, and support society by expelling them, and turning them over to the authorities as repulsive and dangerous criminals, that harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims.

A people is not stereotyped by their best and brightest, but by their worst and most repugnant. A people are appreciated by society if they encourage their children to succeed and contribute to society, and reject and expel its members that take from and offend society.

There is no racism in any of this. And if these truths are embraced, America can give up a vast amount of its paranoia and police state apparatus as unnecessary and abusive, and return to a state of freedom and liberty.

Which we lived with comfortably when faced with far worse threats.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-11-22 09:34  

#5   Profile profile profile!
Do the full security test if Mo's name is anywhere in the person's name.
No air freight - hell no freight - on muz origin stuff into the USA.
Posted by: Water Modem   2011-11-22 09:06  

#4  For some reason the computer I posted that one on threw up. Post is fixed. Computer is being punished by having Windows installed on it.
Posted by: Fred   2011-11-22 08:59  

#3  Or you say"Fuk It" and don't ship either to or from that area.

Shouldn't take too Long of being cut off to make the People wipe out your Taliban, to the last man,woman or thing.
(Or is that being redundant)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2011-11-22 06:36  

#2  1. "that large" is being borked by the filter.

2. The text is repeated in the body.
Posted by: gromky   2011-11-22 00:51  

#1  "Security phobia sweeping America" > The Lefties will be dancing in the streets, until such time our future Commie-Socialist Govt has then righteously arrested + gulagged for public Personal, Group? behavior in contrary to being a proper Socialist.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-11-22 00:24  

00:00