Causing Terror On the Cheap

jhigh writes "Bruce Schneier posts on his blog today about the value of terror with respect to cost-benefit for the terrorists. If you look at terror attacks in terms of what they cost the terrorists to implement, compared with what they cost the economy of the nation that was hit, the reward for terrorists is astronomical. Add in the insane costs of the security measures implemented afterward, particularly in America, and it's easy to see why the terrorists do what they do. Even when they're unsuccessful, they cost us billions in security countermeasures."

Comments

Goals

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Certainly, I think the premise is true. It's why terrorism continues to be a tool, and why it's so hard to get rid of.

What's never been clear to me is how the economic impact to the target country helps towards the stated goals of the terrorists. Does Al Queda believe that if they depress our economy consistently enough, we will no longer be able to financially support Israel? History proves that not to be true.

Re:Goals

[fyngyrz]

Certainly, I think the premise is true. It's why terrorism continues to be a tool, and why it's so hard to get rid of.

It is only true because our government promotes the illusion of safety over the reality of liberty; and because they have absolutely no compunction about wasting the money they take from the citizens. After all, they can always take more. For the children. We can't stop this. The majority of the population is completely taken in by this nonsense.

What's never been clear to me is how the economic impact to the target country helps towards the stated goals of the terrorists.

Anything they can do to discomfort us while keeping them in the forefront of our minds serves their purpose. They have goals, and in order to keep those goals in the public eye, they simply have to keep people thinking of them.

I read a book once, a work of fiction (unfortunately) where the media decided to no longer give space to stories about terrorism. If a plane went down, they'd just call it a plane crash. No manifestos were aired. Military retaliation by the government, on the other hand, was swift, cost-effective and devastating, always on the home ground or interests of the terrorists when it could be determined. I've always thought that was the ideal set of answers.

The politically correct crowd shakes and shivers at the idea of hitting Muslim interests. Instead, they tolerate our attacking entirely unrelated countries. For example, of the 9/11 attacks, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi; the funding was from extremist Saudi Islamists; and the remaining hijackers were from the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon. In the current Wikileaks documents, the US state department speaks directly to the fact that the majority of Al Queda funding is coming from Saudi, and this was also known early on after 9/11.

So what did we do? We attacked Iraq, a secular country with zero connection to the attacks. It was purest theater, never mind that there was an ulterior motive (obtaining control of Iraqi oil resources and, I think, allowing Bush the Lesser an opportunity to finish what his daddy had (legitimately, in the wake of the Kuwaiti invasion) started.)

In the end, we spent a truly unconscionable amount of money (and are still spending it) for zero return on dealing with the problem. Bush, literally a war criminal, an aggressor with nothing but financial and personal objectives, is directly responsible for killing about a hundred thousand Iraqis for no legitimate purpose. Not to mention 3000 or so US service persons.

Afghanistan is little better. Does anyone think the extremist Saudis who drive this process with their funding are in the least bit concerned that we are stomping all over Afghanistan? Seriously? I mean, come on, really. What Islamic interests are present in Afghanistan? A bunch of goatherders and poppy growers... or in other words, nothing. The actual source of the problem, which I say again is clearly extremist Saudi Islamists, is completely isolated from anything we do, or can do, in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Further, those Islamists that are not extremists, or at least claim they are not, have responded to all of this with deafening silence as far as condemning the actions of their extremist sects and individuals. It is very rare indeed to find an Islamist that will speak out against these violent extremists. At some level, particularly in Saudi Arabia, the extremists are the brothers, cousins and associates of the non-violent Islamists... and they are entirely safe, because our government is unwilling to actually address the problem. The "whys" are complicated, but the upshot isn't: Our government has completely failed us in this regard. The security theater, DHS, TSA, all of that and the money and time it costs us... a huge waste of funds that does very little; so little, in fact, that in comparison with funding to deal with highway threats, one

Re:Goals

[Johnny Mnemonic]

What we should be doing is hitting Islamist interests, so the rank and file
Or, getting off oil so we can leave Israel to fend for itself. I do believe, and I haven't had it cogently disproven yet, that if we abandoned Israel the jihad against America would be halted. They might continue to hate us, sure; but I don't think it would continue to rise to the level of militancy. I could be wrong, but I believe that the basis of the jihad against America is because America funds Israel, and America remains a softer target than Israel. That's why I'm not sure that the terrorism is working, for we continue to fund Israel in spite of it, and in spite of the weakening our economy has taken.

just how poorly our government deals with anything more complicated than voting in their own raises.

Well, this same institution managed to fight and win a World War. I have a hard time accepting that 60 years has made that much difference. But it sure seems that if we were fighting the Germans now via Halliburton and Black Water, we'd all be a) a lot poorer, and b) speaking German.

As you conclude, the Military Industrial complex is the single biggest threat to the long term security of the US. Terrorism is just the excuse those guys are using to bleed us; and by bleed us, I mean "bleed out", not "skim". God help us if we fight in Afghanistan for another 10 years and then China takes on Taiwan. In a decade we may simply no longer have the financial resources available to fight them, and China clearly knows it. And are too happy to tie us up in regional bs skirmishes while we are our own worst enemy.

Re:Goals

[fyngyrz]

Presidents Bush and Clinton both believed there were WMDs in Iraq

Quite aside from the fact that WMDs have NOTHING to do with 9/11 (and if they did, there have been other hostile WMD (nuclear and other) armed countries in the world... did we attack Russia? Have we attacked North Korea?) That whole WMD thing is utter nonsense AND it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS ANYWAY. Even if it had been, it was shown - before the war was started - in detail that the reports of imported African aluminum tube manufacturing were inaccurate; the inspectors had found *nothing* and were consistently recommending more time to search (and that, only because they kept being told there was something where there was nothing.) The fact is, Iraq was a sovereign country and we had absolutely zero right or cause to go ballistic on them.

Still, you can't assign direct blame for 100,000 deaths in Iraq to Bush

Wrong. He is as responsible for those deaths as are Hitler and Tojo for the deaths in WWII. Bush created the situation where these things would inevitably happen. He *made* it happen. Just like the deaths from disease; no germ "had to" infect anyone, but he put the conditions in place by destroying their infrastructure. Once conditions are favorable, anything with any impetus behind it will now inevitably move in and grow in the newly favorable landscape. We had seen this over and over, in country after country that destabilized for one reason or another; Bush was no innocent going into this, thinking that flowers would grow where the bombs landed, that Iraqis would suddenly convert to Christianity, that the insurgents would go "oh, that's nice, but we'll just skip the opportunity." That's idiotic thinking.

The bottom line is that Bush utterly wrecked Iraq and he had NO good reason to do so; and in the process, he ALSO didn't address the actual problem: hijackers were taking over aircraft and using them as kinetic weapons. Instead of locking the cockpit and going on with life, he ALSO attacked Afghanistan... and in the meantime, the Saudi threat goes absolutely unaddressed, and continues to fund Al Queda.

The intended consequence of their actions was to kill people, while the US would have considered a bloodless war to be optimal. Trying to lay the blame on Bush completely ignores this fact.

Unless you think the sum of Bush's IQ plus all his advisors IQs, plus all his generals IQs doesn't break 100, that's ridiculous. Bloodless war, my aching back. Start at the beginning: There was NO reason for the war at all. The inspectors were inspecting, Iraq was threatening no one outside its own borders, Bush went all cowboy and stupid entirely on his own. He's a war criminal. I hope he travels outside the US (doubtful) and some clear-thinking country arrests his sorry, idiotic butt. We have a real terrorism problem, and he used that to further petroleum and other business interests. He invaded not one, but two sovereign countries. He didn't address the terrorism problem. He trampled all over our liberties. He destroyed our economy. The man probably embodies the single greatest cause of harm to the United States of America, on the most fronts, in the last seventy years.

I don't particularly care that he's superstitious; or that he's an ex-druggie and and ex-alcoholic; or that he's not too bright (that's what advisers are for); or that he can't speak English very well (although that does tend to make him a fail at diplomacy.) I *do* care that he is so clueless that he destroyed two countries without cause; that he screwed our economy in order to funnel money to his buddies; that he thought it was appropriate to grope the German prime minister; that he lied over and over again to the American people; and that he treated the constitution as "just a piece of paper", and not just in words, but in deeds as well.

I hope we never elect such a rousing failure again, but I look at credulous postings like yours and truly, I despair. How long will people try to defend Bush? Just man the heck up and admit you were wrong to back him, that he was wrong to do what he did, and LEARN from it, will you? Sheesh.

Schneier hates security theater...

[GPLDAN]

I applaud Bruce for railing against it, and Marcus Ranum too in his even more pointed criticism in his books. But what they are railing against is the military industrial complex, and their complaints have as much power as Eisenhower's at the end of his term, when he cautioned the American people not to let it take over.

Too. Late.


Guys like Richard Clarke write books about the upcoming CyberWar, they are abetted by Chinese BGP attacks that they couldn't be more thrilled about, because they have founded security firms that are already lobbying on K Street. Wake up. This is big business and the Blackwaterization of airports, the internet, the highways, it's begun and it won't stop. Not when the MSNBC poll is running 75-25 in favor of classifying Julian Assante a terrorist.


Poor Daniel Ellsberg, living long enough to see all his pentagon paper work undone in broad brushstrokes. Nixon didn't live to see the American security state flourish, he'd have been flush with joy had he lived. He and Charles Colson would have danced a little jig with Henry Kissinger, the merry assassins of democracy were simply ahead of their time.

Re:Schneier hates security theater...

[ColdWetDog]

Indeed. The problem, as always, is that we need an 'enemy'. Since the Soviet Union did us a disservice my collapsing in the 1990's the powers that be needed to find a convenient one. China? Maybe - but we are locked in an economic menage-a-tois with China, Europe and Japan (OK, that's four). We can snipe at the Chinese, just as one would do with their lover, but dissolving the relationship is going to be really hard.

Terrorists, especially Muslim terrorists, are just absolutely perfect in this regard.

Their religion is just different enough to be offensive, their culture is different enough to be offensive and they do some truly offensive things (think behavior towards women). They're small enough to never really be a threat but large enough to act like one. They have their own bat-shit insane actors (think Kadafi and Ahmadinejad). They dress funny. They talk funny. They don't like alcohol and dogs.

Just the perfect balance between being different and truly dangerous and many of them don't particularly like us.

We have always been at war with Islam (which is actually a pretty accurate statement in a number of ways). Now if they would just develop a credible space program ...

Re:Well, Duh!

[Garridan]

We've been pretty good about the whole "don't negotiate with terrorists" ideal. However, we should do one better, and "don't acknowledge terrorists". We flinch and whimper and crawl into a fetal position at the loss of a handful of lives, or, in the case of the 2009 christmas attempt, a few hairs on some idiot's scrotum.

ROI analysis of terrorism is eye-opening

[Dr. Spork]

There are places on the internet where smart people think very hard about issues like this. It turns out that the most effective terrorism is inspired by Open Source Software models, where sharing and reuse of common components improves efficiency. (It's not so strange to think of the Kalashnikov or a bomb detonator design as a piece of code.) The goal of terrorists is to de-legitimize national governments by causing them to weaken or collapse. Then, non-state entities can find a niche in the vacuum left behind. They've been incredibly effective in Mexico, Nigeria and many other places. Giant powers like the USA and the USSR are much harder beast to take down, but clearly, there is precedent.

Attitudes have changed over the years

[fantomas]

I grew up in the UK. In the 70s and 80s there were bombs going off regularly in the UK because of the situation in Northern Ireland but the response seemed to be less significant than the response to the present 'terror'. People seemed to get on with life more back then and seemed to be more pragmatic in their responses.

Anybody know why it seems like we've responded with a much greater response this time round? Because these guys are suicide bombers? People worry more? Or did we respond at about the same level last time round?

I was in London when the truck bomb blew up large parts of Canary Wharf, the people I knew who worked in the area seemed to be more concerned about checking if they should go to work the next day, if the office was still there, more than anything else.

Re:Attitudes have changed over the years

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it has to do with the fact that many fewer people in Western countries have closely experienced really terrible times like war, famine, plagues and the like. In the 60's and 70's many people had still directly experienced WWII and if not were surrounded by others that had. I think some of that perspective has been lost.

Re:Attitudes have changed over the years

[jaweekes]

I agree. I was also in the UK during "the troubles" and then in the US for the Oklahoma bombing; the difference was drastic in news coverage and response.

Al Qaeda first tried to take down the twin towers with car bombs, but I have never seen car screening when parking in a high-rise. So I really do think the airport security is really out of line, and will deter me from flying unless I really have too.

I would have been on one of the planes that would have been blown up in August 2006, and that doesn't scare me, but I still believe that airport security hasn't stopped one attempt.

Re:Attitudes have changed over the years

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words: Mutual Assured Destruction.
The terrorists of the 60s, 70s and 80s were simply peanuts compared to the ever present and very real risk that civilization could be wiped out at a moment's notice. People were so used to living with the fear of a nuclear holocaust we could not be easily terrorized by a few tiny home made bombs.

Re:Attitudes have changed over the years

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anybody know why..."

The simple answer is that the September 11th terrorists attacked the Pentagon. Everyone (rightly) remembers the attack on the World Trade Centre, but the reason we are all under such astonishingly draconian security is because they attacked the Pentagon.

What's the bigger problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, they didn't. We gave them up.

No, the people calling themselves "The US Government" are abridging our natural rights, often in ways that enrich their friends.

Who's really doing the most damage here?

Re:Wrong end of the Cold War

[Achra]

the US spent a relatively small amount arming the terrorists in Afghanistan, forcing the USSR to spend a lot more to maintain their occupation.

Don't forget what that got us, though. That man that we placed on the cover of Time Magazine, that man that our president said was "The Moral equivalent of our founding fathers".. That man orchestrated an attack on our country that destroyed the world trade center and killed an astonishing number of our countrymen one fall morning. Terrorism: Theirs and Ours

hmm

[buddyglass]

I've always thought terrorists could get a lot more bang for their buck by using much less extravagant means. You don't need to crash a jet into a building; just replicate the D.C. sniper from a few years ago across 50 different U.S. cities. Target local government officials, police officers, women, children, etc. All you need is to get some guys with marksmanship training into the country then get some high-powered rifles into their hands. Instruct them to take their own lives if capture is imminent. I have a feeling this tactic would go a lot further towards "instilling fear" in the U.S. populace on a day-to-day basis than the plane crashing thing.

Re:Simple solution

[DrgnDancer]

Then theres the hobo's everywhere that you never know if they will try to mug you.

Meanwhile, people bitch about our right to own guns which essentially protects against this sort of thing.

The first quote explains, to an extent, why the second quote happens. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge gun control guy. I often question the usefulness of carrying a gun for the majority of people (I really don't think most people have any reasonable chance to employ a concealed weapon in most attack scenarios without getting themselves killed), but I don't question your right to do so... most of the time. Then I see stuff like this and I wonder if maybe taking away everyone's guns and giving them a blankey isn't a good idea.

Surely you must see that you are reacting to the same fear as the anti-terrorism security theater people are? The fear that some unknown "other" is going to do bad things to you for no other reason than they are different and often less fortunate? You're also reacting in exactly the same way, grabbing onto something that makes you feel like you'll be better able to protect yourself whether it'll be effective or not. A gun is not a self defense panacea. It will not protect you from "hobos" by itself. It's a tool. If you spend the necessary hours (and hours and hours) to learn to use it properly, it has some usefulness in some self defense situations. I'm not talking about a gun safety course and a few hours on the range making sure you can hit the broad side of a barn... I'm talking man-days spent working draw and fire drills, accuracy on moving targets, and accuracy while moving yourself. Plus knowing when to use these things so the guy with the already drawn weapon or his backup in the shadows don't blow you away before you accomplish anything.

Of course even if you spend the time to do it right, you're still just learning all this stuff and carrying the weapon in reaction your fear, the same as the guy who submits to the strip search is reacting to his fear of terrorist. So now we have a scared guy with a gun walking down the street waiting for the first "hobo" to act suspiciously enough to let him use it. Great. It's nearly enough to make me become a 'huge gun control guy". It really is.

Re:Well, Duh!

[interkin3tic]

I don't know if the Terrorists have "won", but we have surely lost

The US and allies meddle a whole lot more in the Arab world, not less. We have not fallen to our knees and converted to their particular idiotic and hypocritical cult within Islam. They didn't come anywhere close to destroying the west. I firmly believe they are not resting in an afterlife enjoying 40 virgins.

They utterly and totally failed at their stated goals.

They did -spark- many other problems for us, all minor compared to what they were aiming for. Sparked, not caused. We gave up our rights and wasted our taxes on our own, driven mainly by our fear, and partly by elected officials and the media. They didn't do that, we did. We may have chosen to project our fears onto China had they not applied for the job, and I think we can all agree that if we duped ourselves into attacking China, we'd be worse off than we are today.

Moreover, infringing on our civil liberties and increasing the deficit were far from their goals. They didn't just want to be a thorn in our side, they wanted us all dead or worshiping their idea of Islam. No one blows themselves up to waste taxpayer money or cause people to lose privacy when traveling. They failed completely.

Peter Ustinov

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

Re:Well, Duh!

[Shikaku]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330857/Terrorists-likely-cancer-airport-body-scanners-scientist-claims.html

Oh sweet irony.

Re:Well, Duh!

[c6gunner]

Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government.

Eh, no. The US has laid out a set of requirements for passage through their airspace. Unless you're suggesting that our government should have said "screw you, we're sending our planes there anyway", we had no choice but to comply with those regulations. It's got nothing to do with bowing - it has to do with respecting the sovereignty of other nations. The only other alternative is to stop sending aircraft to (and through) the US entirely.

Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).

Yeah, because a segregated runway will stop someone from hijacking an airliner in flight, and crashing it into a building. That sounds reasonable.

but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it

If both parties really were opposed to it, it would never have happened.

like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.

It didn't push anything anywhere - the successful "surge" strategy was what finally made a US withdrawal feasible. Obama hasn't really done things any differently than McCain would have. He campaigned on the idealism of his supporters, but the realities of global policies quickly forced him to drop much of what he initially promised.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Monkeedude1212]

Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government.

Eh, no. The US has laid out a set of requirements for passage through their airspace. Unless you're suggesting that our government should have said "screw you, we're sending our planes there anyway", we had no choice but to comply with those regulations. It's got nothing to do with bowing - it has to do with respecting the sovereignty of other nations. The only other alternative is to stop sending aircraft to (and through) the US entirely.

Well yes - that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. We could have said "No, we're not doing that" and either the US could have forced our planes back, causing a huge uproar and likely made them revise their outtake on it - or not. It's exactly like bowing - we went to "respect their soveriegnty" in the same way Iraq is Respecting their sovereignty, fear of the consequences if we don't, despite it not being in our best interest.

Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).

Yeah, because a segregated runway will stop someone from hijacking an airliner in flight, and crashing it into a building. That sounds reasonable.

Which shows how ridiculous it is - I don't even have to fly to the US to hijack a plane and fly it into a US building. A flight from Calgary to Toronto, a Canadian domestic flight, can still make its way into the states and hit a building. So in effect doing it JUST for US flights is no different.

but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it

If both parties really were opposed to it, it would never have happened.

They weren't - because they've been playing off the fear of Americans. If Americans show that they are not afraid and are more concerned about their rights over this issue, it will sway both parties. They weren't against it when it happened, but now that they can see the consequences, they can change their mind.

like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.

It didn't push anything anywhere - the successful "surge" strategy was what finally made a US withdrawal feasible. Obama hasn't really done things any differently than McCain would have. He campaigned on the idealism of his supporters, but the realities of global policies quickly forced him to drop much of what he initially promised.

This is exactly what I'm talking about though - things wouldn't have been different if it were McCain or Obama, but the fact that enough Americans said "We want out" showed that they even had to THINK of US Withdrawl instead of continuing occupation and possibly moving into Iran next.

Like I said, it wasn't exactly implemented as promised - but it was a baby step in the right direction.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Chapter80]

I haven't heard any fondling stories taking place Canada (yet)

If the TSA had followed my recommendation, we'd all be eager to fly. Have five separate fondling lines. Passengers get to choose which examination they want:

1) The currently implemented fondle line
2) A line to get fondled by the Hooters girl
3) A line to get fondled by a Chippendale's guy
4) An OB/GYN
5) A GP/Prostate examiner

You could get fondled the TSA way, or get felt up by a sexy person of the gender of your choice. Or you could have a physical at the same time. We'd be catching ovarian and prostate cancer, while you fly.

Re:Well, Duh!

[c6gunner]

It's exactly like bowing - we went to "respect their soveriegnty" in the same way Iraq is Respecting their sovereignty, fear of the consequences if we don't, despite it not being in our best interest.

No, you're not getting this. Respecting their sovereignty in this case means not invading their airspace. We don't do that to anyone, other than nations we're at war with, and it has nothing to do with fear - it has to do with well established protocols regarding the way nations behave towards each other. You don't go around sending aircraft into other nations without first getting permission. You do that to North Korea and they'll shoot down your civilian airliners. Do it to the US and they'll probably just order the aircraft to land, imprison the aircrew, and deport the passengers. Either way, it's a bad idea.

Which shows how ridiculous it is - I don't even have to fly to the US to hijack a plane and fly it into a US building.

The other guy already addressed that point, so i won't go into detail. The US is enforcing it's rules within it's own airspace, and respecting our right to do as we see fit in our own. If our government was ready to "bow to them" - as you suggested - we'd be scanning all domestic flights, too.

Moreover, you're essentially saying "a kevlar vest won't stop a rifle round, so we shouldn't bother buying them for cops". That's poor logic irrespective of questions of sovereignty. The inability to eliminate all threats is not an argument against attempting to minimize the risk.

They weren't against it when it happened, but now that they can see the consequences, they can change their mind.

Sure. And if they do, the laws will change. I just don't think there's likely to be that much opposition to it.

but the fact that enough Americans said "We want out" showed that they even had to THINK of US Withdrawl instead of continuing occupation and possibly moving into Iran next

Heh. Well, yeah, sure if "they" had been considering such grandiose plans, the lay of popular opinion would have swayed them. But if you honestly think that any major part of the US government had any interest in maintaining an indefinite occupation, you don't really understand what happened in Iraq. The people who claim that the US is an eeeeeevil empire intent on crushing the globe under it's boot-heel have been lying to you. Don't believe the hype.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Unkyjar]

Actually, funny fact. Protecting the right of the individual is the function of a republic and not of a democracy. Didn't even realize that until I read this a few minutes ago.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

But I take the meaning of your point and agree.