After reading Clarke’s book and most of the 9/11 report (almost finished), Clarke seems to be the only one truly acting like he’s terrified of what terrorists can.
I’m not sure how you can say it’s fearmongering of the worst sort with a straight face after 9/11. A lack of imagination is precisely what the 9/11 commitee described as our greatest weakness in fighting terrorism. Bringing submachine guns to a shopping mall seems outlandish? Seems extremely obvious to me.
Clancy had a plane crash into the Capitol Building in one novel and terrorists bringing weapons to shopping malls in another one. Sure they are in works of fiction, but both are extremely plausible and possible. While every person in the country should have panic attacks about these possibilities, it really really needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness, and it makes it doubly important that the actions we take in the middle east aren’t bullshit driven to further drive the wedge between that region and the west.
Iran launches a cyberattack on US routers, infecting them with a worm that disables the entire backbone of the United States internet. Banks, freight trains, power plants, the stock market, major hospitals, power grids, and traffic lights grind to a halt.
What the hell? Traffic lights are part of the INTERNET?
The whole thing reads like the Left Behind series, or John Titor.
Anyone can write a “World is DOMED” article that ranges from semi-plausible to ridiculously insane. What we must do is keep a clear head and not act irrationally when Chicken Little tells us the Terror Alert Level is Mauve.
Being persuaded into a state of fear or panic by mere text is sad.
Imagine you are a citizen in a time and place just before a disaster (or series of disasters) plunges your country into chaos. With no certain knowledge of what is to come, how do you make the correct decision to protect yourself and your loved ones?
The best advice I have gotten so far on this whole subject is exactly the same as is given to people looking to survive an airplane disaster:
“Know where your exits are before the disaster occurs.”
I’ve got my eye on the door, and I’m putting together a plan to get to it… just in case.
If someone decides to do any one of those scenarios right now, I cannot think of a single thing we’ve done to make it harder.
A lot more people are going to want to do those things because our post-9/11 foreign policy is even worse than pre-9/11 when it comes to the Muslim world.
What the hell? Traffic lights are part of the INTERNET?
Actually, traffic light timing & control is handled across internet links now in some cities. The cyberspace think is the least plausible thing in there, though.
There’s a difference between having imagination and outright speculation.
I thought the article had some useful stuff in it, like I said. The bit about ignoring the fact that terrorists are (or were) gathering intel on Vegas and Disney. The bit about security at chemical factories not being beefed up - possibly because it was blocked by Bush. Even the bit about our lack of actual intelligence in Saudi Arabia (you’d think Iran would have taught us not to rely on intelligence from a dictator bent on keeping himself in power).
However, it’s diluted by Clarke taking potshots at people who have pissed him off (the NRA one is particularly egregious). Stuff like that and the absurd “omfg internet calamaity!!1!11!!!1! CHINESE OPEN SORES OPERATING SYSTEM!!1!1!!1!!” dilute the merit of the article in my eyes, and in the eyes of a lot of people. Clarke goes over the edge from imaginative speculation based on his experience and knowledge (which is valuable) toward outright absurdity.
Furthermore, reactions like “I’m thinking of leaving the country” really don’t add anything either - it just adds some noise to the debate (and inflates Jason’s postcount EVEN FURTHER).
Personally, I was especially apalled by the chemical factory stuff. There is positively NO REASON not to make sure factories and plants that could release those nasty gases.
JD
After reading Clarke’s book and most of the 9/11 report (almost finished), Clarke seems to be the only one truly acting like he’s terrified of what terrorists can.
I’m not sure how you can say it’s fearmongering of the worst sort with a straight face after 9/11. A lack of imagination is precisely what the 9/11 commitee described as our greatest weakness in fighting terrorism. Bringing submachine guns to a shopping mall seems outlandish? Seems extremely obvious to me.
Clancy had a plane crash into the Capitol Building in one novel and terrorists bringing weapons to shopping malls in another one. Sure they are in works of fiction, but both are extremely plausible and possible. While every person in the country should have panic attacks about these possibilities, it really really needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness, and it makes it doubly important that the actions we take in the middle east aren’t bullshit driven to further drive the wedge between that region and the west.[/quote]
And? Have you done anything to make your house harder to break into? ADT and other security systems prey on people’s irrational fears and profit from them.
A lot more people are going to want to do those things because our post-9/11 foreign policy is even worse than pre-9/11 when it comes to the Muslim world.
How do you know what other people are thinking? Are you psychic or something? While I agree with you that our foreign policy of late has been abhorrent, it doesn’t mean the results of those decisions will be completely positive or negative. Unlike computers, human beings don’t operate in binary mode and their motivations are far more complex than “if else” statements.
Actually, traffic light timing & control is handled across internet links now in some cities. The cyberspace think is the least plausible thing in there, though.
Holy crap, whoever made the decision to implement that was an idiot, if that’s true.
If someone decides to do any one of those scenarios right now, I cannot think of a single thing we’ve done to make it harder.
But see, that’s just it. It’s logically impossible to pre-emptively defend against every bad thing that might ever happen. Where’s the plan to prevent me from firebombing my local supermarket? Where’s the plan to prevent me from making some explosives at home, loading them on three trucks, then driving each one through an entrance at my local mall? Where’s the plan to keep me from infecting my followers with smallpox down in Africa, then send them all over the US to spread the plague?
What makes it read like bad fiction are the completely irrational results of each attack. Do you really believe that a terrorist strike on a casino would make a dent in the economy of Las Vegas? Do you really think that an attack on the Mall of America would prevent people from going to shopping malls? At last count, Palestinian terrorists have blown up about seventy-four million busses and coffee shops in Israel, but I’m pretty sure that Israelis still ride the bus and drink coffee in the shops that haven’t been blown up yet.
And? Have you done anything to make your house harder to break into? ADT and other security systems prey on people’s irrational fears and profit from them.
No, because I have no expectation that any crime will ever happen to me. I live in a nice area, my condo is fairly inaccessible, crime rarely occurs - why would I bother?
Contrast this with the current state of US foreign policy, which is basically “royally piss off everyone.” Either we should stop pissing everyone off or start locking shit down. We’re doing neither.
Milo: yes and yes. Note that shopping malls can be driven bankrupt by something like a 25% drop in foot traffic. Obviously people would still go to Vegas, but the numbers would easily drop enough to send the local economy into a tailspin. The airlines barely made it through the post-9/11 traffic drop, for example, and plenty of people were still flying.
Noun: not sure how “you can’t defend against everything” translates into “well, guess we’ll have to let them kill us.” There’s tons of easy things we could do that we simply haven’t.
I read the article a few weeks back and pretty much laughed at a big chunk of it. It really is pure and simple fear-mongering. Especially that bit about the wall going up along the Canadian border and all these terrorists arriving in the US from Canada. I mean, come fucking on. That’s insane, and I take real offense to Clarke’s pandering to the completely untrue notion that the American border with Canada is some kind of terrorist underground railroad.
If anything, I’ve historically found the US response to illegals a hell of a lot tamer than ours. Here’s an anecdote. I live in a town on the Ontario border with NY state. In the summer of 1994, when I was editing the local paper, a boatload of Chinese who’d been legally admitted to Canada, but prevented from entering the US, landed across the St. Lawrence from me in Ogdensburg, NY. Right in front of a Border Patrol van. The Chinese guys scrambled into the woods, but a good dozen were caught.
I followed up with a call to the head of the US Immigration officer in charge of the border port here, as this was fairly big news. First question: “When will the illegals be deported?” Answer: “They won’t be. They’ve been released, given money for bus tickets to get to relatives in Chicago and LA, but they’ve been given court dates.” Second question: “Uh, do you think they’ll return for those hearings.” Answer: “Probably not. But we don’t have the facilities to confine them or the ability to immediately deport them.” Incidentally, this guy was a senior official with 30 years on the job. The expanded and fortified border checkpoint built in Ogdensburg
after 9/11 was actually named after him.
Anyhow, awesome. Now, I’m sure security regs have changed since 9/11. But while the US was giving illegals bus money, Canada was immediately arresting Asian nationals trying to get into BC via boat, interning them, and then deporting them all within weeks. So if any Americans – like the always reprehensible Hilary Rodham Clinton – want to bleat about Canada being some historic weak link to US security, they can respectfully fuck right off.
The one Clarke prediction that I strongly agree with, however – and I’ve been waiting since the Bali bombing for someone in the US to make a big deal about this – is that any future al Qaeda operatives will almost certainly be from Indonesia. It only makes sense, with everyone in the US paranoid about Arabs.
Great points. There would be immediate damage, and then people would resume their daily lives, like in Israel. The problem is, part of the reason things got better with citizens in Israel is because the IDF took measures and started killing a lot of Palestinians for every attack. And, of course, resumed the occupation. The US won’t have that easy an option to deal with any attacks.
But that leads to another huge problem I have with Clarke’s story. He never lists any external US responses to this onslaught of attacks. If even one of these events took place, there would be major reprisals against foreign targets sponsoring them. Like with Iran. If Hezbollah was ever involved with any attack on the US, the US would take that as a declaration of war from Iran, and fully respond.
And rightfully so. Which is why Iran keeps a tight rein on Hezbollah when it comes to the US and the West. Every government on the planet knows that Hezbollah is essentially an arm of the Iranian government. If anything like Clarke postulates were to actually happen, you could measure the lifespan of Teheran in days.
I would wager you’re more statistically likely to suffer from your house being broken into, than the US has of having another major terrorist attack.
Contrast this with the current state of US foreign policy, which is basically “royally piss off everyone.” Either we should stop pissing everyone off or start locking shit down. We’re doing neither.
I don’t believe the world community is pissed off at the US for engaging in its foreign policy, but for how it was presented. Expecting the world at large to believe the “evidence” was foolhardy. For the most part, they’re not as gullible as the average american.
To paraphrase Franklin: Those who are content to sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither.
I think we need Koontz to do a count of how many time Jason has been terrified by something that he’s read. Man, you must go through underwear like a Gone Golder goes through IV drips.
Yeah, because the idea would be to take out the regime ASAP. And what would you have to lose at that point, anyhow? Hezbollah’s already started to hit the US. Iran’s essentially declared war and all bets are off. Are you supposed to just wait around for the nuke to be smuggled into New York? Or for Iran to complete its missile program and be able to hit European capitals at will?
Clarke’s story also offended me because it depicted the US meekly acquiescing to attacks that would destroy the country within decades. And that’s nuts. If battle lines were to be drawn as clearly as Clarke indicates, we would be plunged into World War III. I mean, when attacks start rolling in like that, what alternative would there be but to go offensive and try every possible military avenue to save your nation from an enemy determined to incinerate it?
As for the Canadian comment, I’m actually a dual citizen. So I get to tell people to fuck off like an American and then thank them for it when they do so like a Canadian. It’s the best of both worlds!
Wasn’t talking about the Iraqi justification; they never believed that in the first place. They hate us because 1) we suck up to the idiots in Saudi Arabia 2) whenever it comes down to “freedom and respect” vs. “gain a slight bit of power”, the US chucks the interests of the Arab world out the window every time.
Yes, Al Qaeda is flat-out evil, but the reason Al Qaeda has support in the region, in spite of their appalling nature, is that they’re legitimatelly royally hacked off at us for other reasons.
As long as our strategy is to suck up to Isreal, the Saudis, the murderous dictators of the region, and occasionally engage in a ham-handed power grab in the region built on the bodies of Muslim civilians, they’re going to attack us. Over and over, we make this decisions that look like a good idea over very short time horizons, screwing ourselves in the end.
I mean, when attacks start rolling in like that, what alternative would there be but to go offensive and try every possible military avenue to save your nation from an enemy determined to incinerate it?
You have a point on Hezbollah, but who do we invade to stop pissed-off Iraqis from going after shopping centers? Invade Iraq again? The entire thing the old guard in charge doesn’t get is that this is a war that can’t be chopped off by going after leader X.
The reason we don’t have clandestine, constant low level terrorist activity is that we don’t border a Middle Eastern country. All these scenerios that Clark envisions would be more likely if that were true. As it is, from an Islamic terrorist’s perspective, America is an island, and so when you go in, you have to go in with something better than a few handguns.
The suprise and the telltale flag is America’s own resident Middle Eastern expat communities haven’t turned against their host country. They probably don’t, of course, because it would set off a chain of events throughout the western world that would lead to something close to the banning of Islamic religions and the deportation of thousands. They are also a very heterogeneous population from dozens of different countries and ethnic groups, and lack a unified voice in the American political system. All these low level attacks would become inevitable if that community suddenly decided to try to wrest control of political events in the ME affected by US actions through force, or that they identified more strongly with the ME culturally and politically, to the point where sacrificing their place within America was no longer seen as a barrier.
Jason- We haven’t made them necessarily harder, but those things were damn hard to do in 1996. We starting pissing people off in 1776. Arabs have been pissed at us for the past 15 years.
John Reynolds- Yes, that’s exactly what I said, you giant fucking idiot.
