Prepare Now For The Coming Terrorist Attack! Part 1: Security and Low Frequency Events

The United States will be struck by another major terrorist attack; of that we can be certain. It is coming. It will happen. Hopefully, I can get this article out before it does, but I cannot even be certain of that. I can only be certain that the attack is coming. I can also be certain that the attack will have nothing to do with President Obama weakening the US's defense against terrorism.

Much has been made of President Bush's claim that he kept us safe for almost 8 years since September 11, 2001. However, the last foreign terrorist attack prior to 9-11 was a bombing attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, an interval of a little over 8 years. (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichol's bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City and Eric Robert Rudolph's pipe bombing campaign, which included the pipe bomb planted at the Atlanta Olympics, are examples of "Lone Wolf" domestic terrorism which would probably not have been disrupted by any post 9-11 security changes.)

With an eight year gap between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 9-11, we could conclude that President Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were as successful as those of the Bush Administration. If, however, we look back to the attack before the world trade center bombing of February 1993, we find a gap of almost 18 years (in January 1975 Puerto Rican nationalists bombed a Wall Street bar killing 4). Should we conclude that Carter, Reagan, and G. H. W. Bush had superior anti-terrorism policies?

A more reasonable conclusion is that U. S. restrictions on explosives and automatic weapons, combined with routine police work, have been sufficient to make foreign terrorist attacks in the United States low-frequency events. We can all be glad of that, but making causal statements about the suppression of low-frequency events requires more direct evidence than the lack of the event's occurrence. That is to say that, had we made none of the changes we did following 9-11, we still might not have had any more attacks on U.S. soil.

For example, despite warnings from security and counter-terrorism experts, purchase of the type of fertilizer used by McVeigh and Nichol remained largely uncontrolled until 2007 (and even the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 did not go as far as the experts wanted). That is 12 years of continued vulnerability to a proven, effective technique without incident. This illustrates the general rule of low-frequency events—they occur infrequently.

(President Bush when claiming credit for the lack of attacks since 9-11 mentions a number of foiled plots, few of which rise to the level of real threats and all of which were disrupted by normal security and police work.)

None of this should be taken to mean that we should not apply reasonable new procedures when an attack, or near attack, exposes a real vulnerability. The post 9-11 security rules at airports, although inconvenient, are reasonable safeguards, even if it is impossible to know whether they have prevented any airline hijackings.

But, we also must ask whether each new security measure is reasonable. What is it that we are giving up? I am happy to take off my shoes, but I would balk at taking off my pants. Similarly, I am willing to allow a FISA court to authorize wiretapping; I am not, however, willing to allow the NSA to root through my communications like a pig after truffles, even though if they do it enough they may someday find somebody who is plotting something. That is giving up too much.

On Meet the Press, Sunday January 25, 2009, Tom Friedman predicted that, "One more massive attack inside this country, and that's the end of the open society as we know it." Unfortunately, I'm afraid he is right. Following another attack no one will suggest that we all convert to Islam to keep ourselves safe, but we will see calls for an end to many of our civil rights. Either response is, in effect, a capitulation.

With the certain knowledge that such a low frequency event will eventually occur, now is the time to begin planning for a balance response that does not betray the values that make this country worth fighting and dying for.

Check back tomorrow for Part II: Understanding Al-Qaeda and Closing Guantánamo Bay.