Should We Bomb the UK?
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Benjamin Franklin)
Consider the following. A potential airline terrorist plot in 2006 which quite literally, never got off the ground, caused the world’s airline industry to undergo extensive security changes. The failed “liquids plot” is still with us as security screeners take away your shampoo because your 3.5 ounce container is one half an ounce too large and is therefore, a risk. Even the dimmest terrorist might figure out that two three-ounce bottles will get through security when one six ounce bottle will not.
On December 25th 2009, another failed terrorist plot by a group in Yemen which has never (repeat never) successfully launched a successful terrorist attack, has caused a global upset. Hundreds of flights were cancelled or seriously delayed by knee jerk reaction security measures which will not make us any more secure in the long run. Now, airline passengers are being told that on some flights, they must sit in their seats for the last hour of the flight as they pose a security threat to the aircraft if they go to the washroom. Again, perhaps the message to terrorists here is that they must not plan an attack in the last hour of a flight. Rather, their attack must come before the last hour. Restrictions such as these are an illogical and useless infringement on liberty.
Furthermore, politicians are now call for the bombing of Yemen and greater intervention in their affairs, even though it appears that young Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was probably radicalized in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has produced a series of terrorists over the years, both “Irish” and “Islamic.” Using the reactive logic of Western based intelligence and security thinking, we should be bombing the city of London, also known as Londinistan for its extensive terrorist problems, as this city has produced terrorists such as Omar Khyam and Mohammed Siddique Khan. Additionally, we should be placing greater restrictions on passengers travelling out of the UK, and not Nigeria or Yemen. What about Germany, which was the training and planning home for many of the 9/11 bombers? Should we bomb Hamburg once we are done with London? And what of Ottawa, which produced Momin Khawaja? Would bombing the urban Ottawa suburb of Orleans lead to greater international security?
Obviously, the idea of bombing London, Hamburg or Ottawa is as ridiculous as it would be useless and counterproductive.
Much the same can be said for Yemen. Most of the current security problems in Yemen have little to do with the al Qaeda-inspired group that is trying to form there. Yemen’s greatest problems derive from its inherent instability caused by the economic and social inequalities between “North” and “South” Yemem. The current Republic of Yemem, formed only in 1990, had seen years of violence from the 1960s up to its formation. Civil war then broke out again in 1994 and the instability has not receded. Bombing it now, unless actual terrorist infrastructure can be identified, would only lead to greater anger and instability, which are the natural allies of terrorism.
The Basic Flaws
Western security and intelligence thinking with respect to terrorism is fundamentally flawed in at least two main areas. The first is a technocratic belief that technology can solve our security problems. The second is that Western reactions to terrorism tend to be reactive and based at the tactical level, rather than taking a long term strategic view. The short terms “guards, guns and gates” approach can only provide a temporary increase in security. Newer ideas, such as the highly invasive body scanners will not produce greater security, as terrorists will simply consider newer ways to smuggle items aboard aircraft. For instance, one of the next problems will not be solved by full body scanners, x-rays machines or restrictions on liquids. What if two terrorists board the aircraft, each one with a small container of dry powder? Each powder can be innocuous by itself, but could be explosive or highly flammable when combined? None of the current technological measures in place or envisaged would catch this attempt.
The answers to our security problems lie not with technology but with people. Most of our current security measures are single point technological efforts aimed at screening every possible item that is being brought on board an airplane. Given the nature of human ingenuity and technological weaknesses, a single point defence system will not provide the solutions.
If airline security is to increase, we must move beyond the proposed technological solutions. A combination of hard (technological) and soft (people/intelligence) security screening measures need to be put in place. Multiple levels of security, most of which would not even be seen by passengers, need to be in place. Behavioural profiling and pre-flight intelligence assessment are required to sort out potential terrorists from the rest of the totally innocent passengers.
Instead of increasing our security, however, the current round of reactive and technological measures are simply decreasing our liberty and invading our privacy while providing no long term increases in security. Western citizens are blindly accepting these security measures and are not demanding real improvements which target terrorists rather than all citizens. Ultimately, it appears that Ben Franklin was right.
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.
2 Responses to “Should We Bomb the UK?”
nice post. thanks.
Very educating story, saved your website with hopes to see more information!