GINA COBB

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: In Praise of Paranoia and False Alarms in the War on Terror

Originally published on January 10, 2007:  In Praise of Paranoia and False Alarms in the War on Terror

In Praise of Paranoia and False Alarms in the War on Terror

Austin Bay coins a useful phrase, and captures an important concept, with The Age of Proximity.  Here's a tidbit:

The Age of Anxiety isn't a new phenomenon -- but the Age of Proximity is. And with good reason, the Age of Proximity is a dangerous, challenging era.

Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, provided several uncomfortable illustrations. Take New York City first, since it's the definitive "Ground Zero" for terrorists on our technologically "downsized" planet. As a noxious odor spread through Manhattan, reasonable people feared either an extensive natural gas leak or a poison gas attack.

Meanwhile, in Austin, Texas, police discovered five dozen dead birds on Congress Avenue, just south of the Texas Capitol Building, where the Texas Legislature convenes this week. The dying "canary in the coal mine" serves a blunt purpose: It warns miners of poison gas in a shaft. On the Earth's surface, a mass die-off of birds may indicate a nerve gas attack or the presence of a biological pathogen.

The Port of Miami's Monday incident is less prone to either ill-considered satire or accusations of overreaction. In Miami, a suitcase destined for a cruise ship tested (and retested) positive for C4 plastic explosive. The Miami bomb scare followed by one day an unfortunate misunderstanding involving three truck drivers of Middle Eastern origin and Miami port security personnel. Guards became suspicious when one of the drivers failed to produce "routine paperwork."

In Miami, the suitcase ultimately passed inspection. Local police released the detained drivers once they provided solid bona fides. It now appears New York's wretched stench blew in from wretched factories in New Jersey. Preliminary tests in Texas suggested Congress Avenue's deceased flock of pigeons and grackles were victims of poisoning, described by authorities as either "purposeful or accidental."

Do these incidents represent a sad display of frayed nerves and national paranoia?

No. They are very public and potent examples of apt responses to the dark side of globalization, of genuine threats in The Age of Proximity, where both citizens and governmental authorities must balance the weight of responsibility with the freight of fear -- and responsibility for the protection of innocent life puts the thumb on that difficult scale.

There are at least two important implications that follow from the arrival of the Age of Proximity:

1.  Jihadist threats "over there" are just as real and immediate "here," even if we are an ocean away.  What happens in Iran doesn't stay in Iran.  In the age of rapid transportation and instantaneous communications, isolationism will be less and less viable.

2.  In the attempt to foil terrorist plots and save lives in civilized nations of the world, there will turn out to be many more "false alarms" than real ones.  That is exactly as it should be. 

Many more things will look like things to be concerned about than will turn out to have been real reasons for concern.  Many more passengers will be screened, many more trucks will be stopped, many more suitcases will be opened, than turn out to actually reveal some jihadist plot.

This is necessarily so.  Terrorists do not neatly mark their explosives for easy detection.  They do not wear distinctive clothing so that they can be easily identified at checkpoints.

It isn't a sign of failure when screeners inspect 100,000 suitcases about to be loaded onto passenger jets and find -- absolutely nothing.  It is a sign of success.  It means the screeners are doing exactly what they should be doing.

If screeners have inspected a million suitcases and found nothing, does that mean the screening is unnecessary and we should stop?

Please.  A little elementary logic here.  Screening itself is a deterrent.  Further, terrorists will look for the soft spots.  Stop looking, and you will suddenly have the attack you never had before.  It's sort of the opposite of the New Testament injunction, seek and you shall find.

Fail to seek, and you shall find.

Fail to seek, and you shall wake up to find your Pentagon under attack, your tallest office towers in your largest city destroyed, and thousands of lives snuffed out -- all in one morning.

It isn't a sign of pointless discrimination when passengers become nervous about scruffy looking men apparently speaking Arabic, wearing long overcoats unsuited to the weather, and checking their watches repeatedly, shortly after a major plot to bomb transatlantic airlines has just been discovered. 

It isn't an overreaction to refuse passage to six imams who are acting so oddly that they make their fellow passengers nervous.

None of this is an overreaction -- and if it is, then better a thousand such harmless overreactions than another September 11th. 

It is critically important that we support the front lines in the war on terror -- the screeners, the agents, the officers, the police, and the security personnel.  .

Above all else, we must avoid joining in the deadly game of "blaming the rescuers" --  especially on those uneventful days when those responsible for our security look hard, ask questions, find nothing -- and get nothing for their trouble but grief from CAIR.

Austin Bay coins a useful phrase, and captures an important concept, with The Age of Proximity.  Here's a tidbit:

The Age of Anxiety isn't a new phenomenon -- but the Age of Proximity is. And with good reason, the Age of Proximity is a dangerous, challenging era.

Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, provided several uncomfortable illustrations. Take New York City first, since it's the definitive "Ground Zero" for terrorists on our technologically "downsized" planet. As a noxious odor spread through Manhattan, reasonable people feared either an extensive natural gas leak or a poison gas attack.

Meanwhile, in Austin, Texas, police discovered five dozen dead birds on Congress Avenue, just south of the Texas Capitol Building, where the Texas Legislature convenes this week. The dying "canary in the coal mine" serves a blunt purpose: It warns miners of poison gas in a shaft. On the Earth's surface, a mass die-off of birds may indicate a nerve gas attack or the presence of a biological pathogen.

The Port of Miami's Monday incident is less prone to either ill-considered satire or accusations of overreaction. In Miami, a suitcase destined for a cruise ship tested (and retested) positive for C4 plastic explosive. The Miami bomb scare followed by one day an unfortunate misunderstanding involving three truck drivers of Middle Eastern origin and Miami port security personnel. Guards became suspicious when one of the drivers failed to produce "routine paperwork."

In Miami, the suitcase ultimately passed inspection. Local police released the detained drivers once they provided solid bona fides. It now appears New York's wretched stench blew in from wretched factories in New Jersey. Preliminary tests in Texas suggested Congress Avenue's deceased flock of pigeons and grackles were victims of poisoning, described by authorities as either "purposeful or accidental."

Do these incidents represent a sad display of frayed nerves and national paranoia?

No. They are very public and potent examples of apt responses to the dark side of globalization, of genuine threats in The Age of Proximity, where both citizens and governmental authorities must balance the weight of responsibility with the freight of fear -- and responsibility for the protection of innocent life puts the thumb on that difficult scale.

There are at least two important implications that follow from the arrival of the Age of Proximity:

1.  Jihadist threats "over there" are just as real and immediate "here," even if we are an ocean away.  What happens in Iran doesn't stay in Iran.  In the age of rapid transportation and instantaneous communications, isolationism will be less and less viable.

2.  In the attempt to foil terrorist plots and save lives in civilized nations of the world, there will turn out to be many more "false alarms" than real ones.  That is exactly as it should be. 

Many more things will look like things to be concerned about than will turn out to have been real reasons for concern.  Many more passengers will be screened, many more trucks will be stopped, many more suitcases will be opened, than turn out to actually reveal some jihadist plot.

This is necessarily so.  Terrorists do not neatly mark their explosives for easy detection.  They do not wear distinctive clothing so that they can be easily identified at checkpoints.

It isn't a sign of failure when screeners inspect 100,000 suitcases about to be loaded onto passenger jets and find -- absolutely nothing.  It is a sign of success.  It means the screeners are doing exactly what they should be doing.

If screeners have inspected a million suitcases and found nothing, does that mean the screening is unnecessary and we should stop?

Please.  A little elementary logic here.  Screening itself is a deterrent.  Further, terrorists will look for the soft spots.  Stop looking, and you will suddenly have the attack you never had before.  It's sort of the opposite of the New Testament injunction, seek and you shall find.

Fail to seek, and you shall find.

Fail to seek, and you shall wake up to find your Pentagon under attack, your tallest office towers in your largest city destroyed, and thousands of lives snuffed out -- all in one morning.

It isn't a sign of pointless discrimination when passengers become nervous about scruffy looking men apparently speaking Arabic, wearing long overcoats unsuited to the weather, and checking their watches repeatedly, shortly after a major plot to bomb transatlantic airlines has just been discovered. 

It isn't an overreaction to refuse passage to six imams who are acting so oddly that they make their fellow passengers nervous.

None of this is an overreaction -- and if it is, then better a thousand such harmless overreactions than another September 11th. 

It is critically important that we support the front lines in the war on terror -- the screeners, the agents, the officers, the police, and the security personnel.  .

Above all else, we must avoid joining in the deadly game of "blaming the rescuers" --  especially on those uneventful days when those responsible for our security look hard, ask questions, find nothing -- and get nothing for their trouble but grief from CAIR.

Austin Bay coins a useful phrase, and captures an important concept, with The Age of Proximity.  Here's a tidbit:

The Age of Anxiety isn't a new phenomenon -- but the Age of Proximity is. And with good reason, the Age of Proximity is a dangerous, challenging era.

Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, provided several uncomfortable illustrations. Take New York City first, since it's the definitive "Ground Zero" for terrorists on our technologically "downsized" planet. As a noxious odor spread through Manhattan, reasonable people feared either an extensive natural gas leak or a poison gas attack.

Meanwhile, in Austin, Texas, police discovered five dozen dead birds on Congress Avenue, just south of the Texas Capitol Building, where the Texas Legislature convenes this week. The dying "canary in the coal mine" serves a blunt purpose: It warns miners of poison gas in a shaft. On the Earth's surface, a mass die-off of birds may indicate a nerve gas attack or the presence of a biological pathogen.

The Port of Miami's Monday incident is less prone to either ill-considered satire or accusations of overreaction. In Miami, a suitcase destined for a cruise ship tested (and retested) positive for C4 plastic explosive. The Miami bomb scare followed by one day an unfortunate misunderstanding involving three truck drivers of Middle Eastern origin and Miami port security personnel. Guards became suspicious when one of the drivers failed to produce "routine paperwork."

In Miami, the suitcase ultimately passed inspection. Local police released the detained drivers once they provided solid bona fides. It now appears New York's wretched stench blew in from wretched factories in New Jersey. Preliminary tests in Texas suggested Congress Avenue's deceased flock of pigeons and grackles were victims of poisoning, described by authorities as either "purposeful or accidental."

Do these incidents represent a sad display of frayed nerves and national paranoia?

No. They are very public and potent examples of apt responses to the dark side of globalization, of genuine threats in The Age of Proximity, where both citizens and governmental authorities must balance the weight of responsibility with the freight of fear -- and responsibility for the protection of innocent life puts the thumb on that difficult scale.

There are at least two important implications that follow from the arrival of the Age of Proximity:

1.  Jihadist threats "over there" are just as real and immediate "here," even if we are an ocean away.  What happens in Iran doesn't stay in Iran.  In the age of rapid transportation and instantaneous communications, isolationism will be less and less viable.

2.  In the attempt to foil terrorist plots and save lives in civilized nations of the world, there will turn out to be many more "false alarms" than real ones.  That is exactly as it should be. 

Many more things will look like things to be concerned about than will turn out to have been real reasons for concern.  Many more passengers will be screened, many more trucks will be stopped, many more suitcases will be opened, than turn out to actually reveal some jihadist plot.

This is necessarily so.  Terrorists do not neatly mark their explosives for easy detection.  They do not wear distinctive clothing so that they can be easily identified at checkpoints.

It isn't a sign of failure when screeners inspect 100,000 suitcases about to be loaded onto passenger jets and find -- absolutely nothing.  It is a sign of success.  It means the screeners are doing exactly what they should be doing.

If screeners have inspected a million suitcases and found nothing, does that mean the screening is unnecessary and we should stop?

Please.  A little elementary logic here.  Screening itself is a deterrent.  Further, terrorists will look for the soft spots.  Stop looking, and you will suddenly have the attack you never had before.  It's sort of the opposite of the New Testament injunction, seek and you shall find.

Fail to seek, and you shall find.

Fail to seek, and you shall wake up to find your Pentagon under attack, your tallest office towers in your largest city destroyed, and thousands of lives snuffed out -- all in one morning.

It isn't a sign of pointless discrimination when passengers become nervous about scruffy looking men apparently speaking Arabic, wearing long overcoats unsuited to the weather, and checking their watches repeatedly, shortly after a major plot to bomb transatlantic airlines has just been discovered. 

It isn't an overreaction to refuse passage to six imams who are acting so oddly that they make their fellow passengers nervous.

None of this is an overreaction -- and if it is, then better a thousand such harmless overreactions than another September 11th. 

It is critically important that we support the front lines in the war on terror -- the screeners, the agents, the officers, the police, and the security personnel.  .

Above all else, we must avoid joining in the deadly game of "blaming the rescuers" --  especially on those uneventful days when those responsible for our security look hard, ask questions, find nothing -- and get nothing for their trouble but grief from CAIR.