Anti-Terrorism: We're Doing It Wrong
   By Carl Bussjaeger, January 15, 2010

Here's an analogy: Picture a Christian who believes that god has determined right and wrong, that all humans come equipped with an immortal soul, and that human life begins at conception.

Now imagine a hard-core atheist, who believes none of those things; in fact, who believes a fetus is definitely not a separate individual until life support systems are disengaged at birth.

Start the two of them arguing about abortion. So long as the pro-life Christian assumes that the atheist shares his beliefs about human life and the soul, he isn't going to make much headway in convincing said atheist that abortion is wrong using religious-type moral arguments; he's working from the wrong assumptions.

But if he stops and considers that, "Oh. He really doesn't believe that the baby is a distinct individual; it isn't just an expedient excuse for abortion," things change. Once he realizes this, he can re-tailor his argument. Perhaps he could try explaining – by way of brain activity, reaction to external stimuli, et cetera – that the baby is an individual human.

On the other hand, the atheist might point out that not every fertilized egg will necessarily begin cell differention; sometimes they never become anything but a shapeless mass of undifferentiated cells. Would the Christian's god condemn an innocent immortal soul to that?

That's part of our current problem in understanding the motivations of Islamic terrorists. We refuse to accept that what they tell us is the real reason they are attacking. Instead, "They hate our freedom."

Well, maybe some do hate our freedom. Which makes it quite obliging of the government to deprive us of it in reaction to terroristic screw-ups. But that isn't why they believe we are the enemy. They've told us; from the 9/11 Commission Report: "By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed…from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Osam bin Laden has cited the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, believing it defiles the holy sites of Islam. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern also mentions "Washington’s propping up of dictatorial, repressive regimes in order to secure continuing access to oil and natural gas -- widely (and accurately) seen as one of the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Maybe you think those are all good things, and can't understand why anyone could possibly object. Dictators just provide needed political stability. Great, keep thinking that way, but for the sake of analysis, accept intellectually that the guy in the explosive vest over there disagrees. Violently.

Now that, even as you disagree with their thinking, you've identified the wrong-thinking that motivates Islamic terrorists, how should you go about identifying and screening out threats? Could you start with people originating in a particular geographical region? Do the known terrorists share any demographic traits? Should we start with those? Wouldn't it make sense to narrow the possible range of targets to a reasonable value, instead of treating everyone as equally hostile?

Think about that for a bit. Now, identify the most likely terrorist:

Right now, the way we look for threats is "F". Which means that we miss real threats lost in the throngs of everyday travellers. Because we don't differentiate, we can't tailor appropriate responses to occurences. Thus, an upset traveler spurred the launch of two multi-million dollar fighter aircraft. Food poisoning generated more fighter dispatches and police over-reaction. A little American boy gets frisked every time he flies; it started when he was 2 years old. And the elderly nun, a peace activist, was arrested and not allowed to fly. But the terrorist, lost in the undifferentiated mob, boarded his flight and did his bit for the greater glory of Allah.

And our reaction to the successful terror attack (successful, because he did provoke an unreasonable fear reaction)? Do we narrow the search and more closely watch the likely instigators?

No. We're going to buy a bunch of full body imagers**, and electronically strip search... everyone. At an enormous financial cost. When all we had to do was notice the bad guy being pointed out... and cancel his visa.

When will we learn?

* 1/25/10: This turns out not to be the case. But it appears that he did not check any baggage; odd for international travel.

** Bringing in expensive millimeter wave full body imagers in response to the boxer bomber's attack is particularly ironic: They can't see PETN powder, and similar low density materials; that's why they can see through clothes. The X-ray based imagers, along with the exposure to ionizing radiation, share millimeter wave imagers' blindness to some extent.

There is an X-ray imager, called DEXI, in development as a diagnostic tool. It would expose a subject to much lower doses of radiation and should be able to differentiate materials like PETN, as well as detect internal objects. But it is still experimental. And because it relies heavily on computer analysis, it will be slower than the the existing body imagers. It is also far more complex, and will be correspondingly far more expensive.