Interesting given that i'd peg Forno as someone who'd more likely be from the cyberlibertarian right than someone who would take the position that it's about blowback. He also applauds Sontag. otherwise, below is sometimes useful info, to help ya see thru the hype, but it will also heighten fears a bit since he shows how easy it is to override any of the security measures that anyone enacts.
warning: racist crud about cave dwelling Osama et al if you read the actual web page. I think i snipped most of it b/c it was so long.
anyway....
From: Richard Forno <rforno at infowarrior.org>
NERF-BASED SECURITY: REASSURANCE THROUGH ILLUSION, RHETORIC, AND FEAR-MONGERING
Richard Forno 22 October 2001
(c) 2001 by Author. Permission is granted to quote, reprint or redistribute provided the text is not altered, and appropriate credit is given. The author has no grudge with the NERF Company.
Summary: An easy-to-read look at various current issues and actions resulting from September 11th and asking if they are really effective.
http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2001-09.html <...>
This article is intended to provide reality-based answers to these questions, and are probably not what you'll see on television or the mainstream media. The decision to write this came from the public reaction to Susan Sontag's recent op-ed column in the New Yorker Magazine. Her comments - rooted in reality - generated a significant public uproar that had some branding her as 'unpatriotic' - the logic being that anyone who does not blindly accept and support everything the United States proposes in its response to terrorism must be supportive of terrorism. While I am an American, and patriotic as Yankee Doodle Dandy, I happen to agree with many of her comments, and thus this article was born. <...>
ANTHRAXOPHOBIA WRONGLY RULES NEWS AND OUR LIVES <...>
While the casual observer - perhaps those whose only source of 'news' is from shows like 'Hard Copy' or who receive their news from a single source - may be concerned at the potential of an anthrax attack, realists may have a far more sinister assessment: given that confirmed anthrax incidents and anthrax-related scares occurred in isolated areas - Reno, Manhattan, Madison, and Palm Beach - could it be that an adversary, be it al Qaeda, Iraq, or a domestic nut case, is simply mailing anthrax and anthrax-like letters to either cause public paranoia, or (more likely) is sitting back observing how the government, media, and public react and respond to this perceived threat, in advance of a future, more widespread attack? <...>
Terrorists are asymmetric and unconventional in their actions, choosing unorthodox methods of attack. On September 11th, four aircraft were hijacked with the intention of destroying buildings and killing thousands. In early October, there were statements by Osama stating that "storms of airplanes" would never defeat his cause. Soon after, an al Qaeda spokesperson warned American Muslims "not to board airplanes" or be in skyscrapers "anytime soon." The news channel 'experts' and government spokesmen were quick to state these were serious hints that future airline hijackings were possible. While that's certainly a possibility, given the unconventional nature of terrorism, perhaps we could interpret these messages as items intended to draw our attention toward airports and airplanes while ships, trains, and busses (for example) are the real targets in a follow-on attack. Nobody wanting to be successful in battle outlines their exact battle plan or weapons capabilities for their adversaries. Ask any military historian, this is one of the oldest tactics in the book, not to mention a common one in boxing - draw your opponent's attention to the left while aiming for the right. In this case, a terrorist's 'Rope-A-Dope.' <...>
THREAT INFLATION BY THE REGAL COURT OF W.
After September 11th, anything that could become a terrorist tool was deemed a possible threat and became the object of close scrutiny by the federal government. Some of the more memorable items that came under investigation and analysis as possible terrorist tools included crop-dusters, hazardous material tanker trucks, airplanes, semi-trailers, box cutters, nose-hair clippers, the Internet, encryption, and barbecue grills. (Well, maybe not barbecue grills, but you get the idea.) A few of these deserve special mention:
The crop-duster 'threat' might give the uninformed observer pause, but the realist would look at Justice claims and shake their heads in disbelief. Granted, crop-dusters spray chemicals from the air, but what kind of chemicals do they spray? Insecticides and Pesticides - fancy terms for substances that kill bugs, infections and germs in plants. Assuming that the adversary doesn't switch tanks or completely clean them out, it's a good bet that the residual pesticides would negate part if not all of the biologic agents intended to attack people via crop-dusters. In addition, experts note the spray orifices (the 'nozzles') used on crop-dusting aircraft are the wrong size for creating the droplet size necessary for distributing biologic warfare agents. Further, several of the common biologic agents require specific environmental conditions to live in - changes in light or temperature can render such attacks ineffective. Given the highly-fickle nature of biological weapons, many educated security experts believe that chemical weapons, not biological ones, would be the preferred weapon in an aerial attack.
Given the attention drawn to crop-dusters by the government and media, an adversary wanting to distribute biowar agents could be free to wait for the right weather conditions and simply blow them across an interstate highway or river. Wait for a temperate, windy day -- it doesn't even need to be in a city or during rush hour. Drivers would likely think it's dust from a construction project and drive through the dust as they often to, and not give the matter a second thought. Meanwhile, the particles get caught in the vehicle air system and move with the vehicle (and its occupants) to their destination, thus spreading the given bioweapon across a wide area. Short of closing all major highways, roadways, and waterways, how would this be prevented? <...> The experienced co-authors of an as-yet-unpublished article "Terrorism Today and Tomorrow" correctly note that "our new adversaries are diverse and linked in unfamiliar ways....Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and a loose coalition of criminal actors, guerillas and insurgents now challenge national security capabilities that were designed to operate within a nation-state framework. As we're now seeing, outside that framework, our traditional structures have great difficulties. <...>
AIRPORT SECURITY AS THE SCREEN DOOR ON THE SUBMARINE (NERF SECURITY @ ITS FINEST)
Since September 11th, we've seen airport and airline security measures reviewed and increased...at least as far as the public is concerned. Seeing camouflaged and armed National Guardsmen patrolling our airports presents the appearance of increased airport security. Prohibiting everything from nail clippers to tweezers, Swiss Army Knives, box cutters, and sewing needles results in increased pre-board search times at airports, and the public's perception that security is being strengthened on our airplanes. For a firsthand account of the current airport security fallacies - including bags not being matched to passengers and arriving at a destination before their owners - I encourage you to read this missive from a respected intelligence professional who's also a close friend. While some security procedures, such as reinforcing cockpit doors and developing 'auto-land' capabilities for aircraft will truly increase aircraft safety, some of the other measures - particularly at the airports - are just downright goofy. <...> The reality is that these are feel-good, scrunchy, NERFy steps to encourage the public to fly again by presenting the appearance of increased security. Yet, there have been numerous cases of pilots, flight attendants, and passengers 'testing' these new security requirements and successfully moving newly-prohibited objects past security checkpoints since September 11. That fact alone should indicate the nature and state of these vaunted 'increased' security measures, and question its true effectiveness.
TERRORISTS DON'T KEEP BANKERS' HOURS (BUT THOSE GUARDING OUR BUILDINGS DO)
There are currently new provisions prohibiting semi-trailers from driving on the two major DC roads that flank the Capitol grounds. The casual observer will interpret this as increased security to prevent against future terrorist attacks.
Realists, however, will note that the events of September 11th demonstrate one of any number of ways to attack a facility that bypasses street closings, and something that's been quietly discussed in security circles for years. While street closings may reduce the size of vehicles that can pass through it, nothing precludes an explosives-laden SUV or Volkswagen Bug from wreaking havoc in the area at an opportune moment.
More strikingly, working close to the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, the week after the attacks saw increased police vehicles and military policeman checking credentials of those driving into garages of military buildings here. Three weeks after the attacks, there was no sign of military police checking vehicles as they entered garages...it was as if the threat to those buildings had magically disappeared. However, after the October 11th FBI advisory warning that additional attacks were possible, military police were back checking vehicles and patrolling the sidewalks in front of their buildings during the business day. However, driving by at 7:45 one evening, I did not see any police or guards checking vehicles, and was able to drive into the same garage that was protected by military policeman three hours earlier! I've also been in DoD facilities that prohibit entry from any door but the front door during work hours, where staff identification is checked - but after 5:00pm, since there are fewer security guards to check badges, monitor cameras, and make rounds, authorized staff are free to use their access cards and enter the building from any external door. This is Feel-Good, Look-Good security in action, plain and simple.
Based on these observations, one assumes that those in charge of homeland security believe that we're facing an adversary working on a 9-5 40-hour workweek schedule. Something tells me that an unconventional adversary doesn't keep bankers hours or regular schedules.
CONTRARY TO PATRIOTIC RHETORIC, AMERICA IS REAPING WHAT IT SOWED (WE JUST DON'T WANT TO KNOW OR ADMIT IT)
Any discussion of Islam would take several pages alone, but suffice it to say that those that understand Islam know it is a religion rooted in charity and peace. Those Americans that equate Islam to terrorism, Hezzbola, bin-Laden, and al Qaeda are ignorant of the reality of Islam, and wrongfully interpret these extremists as representatives of the Islamic and Arab communities, as evidenced in the increased anti-Arab, anti-Islamic criminal incidents in recent weeks. Nothing could be further from the truth -- Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; the nut-cases in al Qaeda do not speak for the world Islamic community, just as a Christian blowing up an abortion clinic does not speak for all Christians around the world. In the same vein, American evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson used religious overtones to explain and justify the September 11 attacks, but these two men don't represent mainstream Christianity as a whole. As Americans, we have always prided ourselves as a tolerant mixing pot of world cultures and ideologies, and we should continue being tolerant of our fellow Islamic and Arab citizens and neighbors. Being Islamic or Arab does not indicate a proclivity for terrorism. Thus endeth my soapbox sermon.
Truth be told, the Taliban have a reason to hate America - as is often the case when America gets involved in foreign nations' conflicts, we tend to pull out once our goals are reached, leaving those we supported to fend for themselves. When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in February 1989, the Untied States also withdrew its support of the anti-Soviet mujhadeen, since American interests in the country were reached once the Soviet war machine and communism departed. Post-Soviet Afghanistan became one of deep poverty, civil war, estranged elections, and famine....yet because the Soviets were gone, the United States had little interest in helping rebuild the battered nation. It is this type of foreign policy that generates anti-American sentiment and support for al Qaeda. It may also be justifying our current humanitarian relief mission in Afghanistan as a way for the United States to relieve its guilt at 'abandoning' the Afghans in 1989. If we do not learn from our history, we're potentially doomed to not only repeat it, but become endangered by it, as we are today.
<...>
CONCLUSIONS
The co-authors of "Terrorism Today and Tomorrow" noted that "the world of today and tomorrow is one dominated by a conflict between those ìwho haveî and those ìwho have notî. Those with a conflicting cultural or religious ideology are likely to challenge our superiority according to their rules, not our rules. Their modus operandi blurs and will continue to blur the distinctions between crime and war, criminal and civil, combatant and non-combatant. Their actions will seek to exploit the seams of the modern stateís internal and external security structures. These emerging challengers will embrace unconventional means not amenable to conventional responses.
If we begin to live in constant fear, we allow the adversary to win. The United States is not the first industrial nation to experience terrorism at home - Israel has lived with assorted Arab-sponsored terrorism since it became a state in 1948, and the United Kingdom has been victimized by Irish terrorism for longer than that. We, too, will survive thisÖ.and we will, provided we keep things in perspective, do our own research, and draw our own conclusions on what the real threats and security measures are, instead of taking what is presented by the government and media as undeniable gospel.
The wisdom I hope you've gleaned from this article is that contrary to what is presented on the media and enacted as law or new procedures, little is really effective at preventing or adversely impacting future terrorist activities. This is a different kind of war - not only is it a military one, but a psychological one for us at home. We're not as secure or as prepared as the government would lead us to believe, and there is no clear defense against the impact of terrorism except to keep an open mind and continue our normal lives the best we can.
The President is waging a self-declared "war on terrorism" against a "new enemy" that modern America is not prepared to face. This article has shown, however, that much of the defensive posturing in this new war -- especially at home -- is conventional, traditional, and predictable - and thus rather ineffective against an unconventional adversary and philosophy. We would be wise to recall the warning of Edward Luttwak in his 1997 text Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace: "War, in common with sport, has the characteristic that what worked well yesterday may not work well tomorrow, precisely because it worked yesterday."
Welcome to tomorrow.
resources and links embedded in article at:
http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2001-09.html
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/