Some Thoughts Regarding How We Can Best Protect from Terrorist Attacks

Recently, I read an article by Dennis Prager, which prompted these reflections on the state of the world today. One statement he made sums up much of what he believes to be the condition of the world today: "Almost wherever one looks, there are more reasons for pessimism than optimism." That statement, along with the accompanying posted comments drove this analysis. Let us begin by looking at the meat of his central thesis.

*Globally, the world is in worse condition then at some previous (unspecified) periods.

Although Prager briefly mentions some improvements in world conditions -- "...There are a few positive developments. But they are mostly technological and medical. More people are eating better and living longer than ever before. And the Internet gives more people access to more information (and more lies) than ever before."-- he then goes on to tell us that in his view, " the world is in a total mess with wars, famine, AIDS, African Genocide, and certainly we should not forget the rampant immorality and evil associated with all of this.

But is he right? World conditions could be far better measured if we used the metrics of social demography, taken over the last eight to ten decades. Among other sources to gain this information are the United Nations compiled world population statistics, and the CIA Fact Book.

*The Blame Game

After Reading both Prager, and a substantial number of the postings, two things are evident. Prager and the posting authors, in a majority of their writings, relive history, which even if it provides a view of how the current situation came to be, fails to provide solutions. Even less useful is the playing of the blame game. It is Bush, the Neo-Cons, Conservatives in general, the Liberals, the Democrats, Bill Clinton, agnostics, et al. Even if there were evidence that one or more of these individuals and/or organizations could be linked to the current world situation, the same problem applies. All are currently, or historically, part of the environment, and that does absolutely nothing to point the way to a solution.

I have a nasty surprise for you.There is NO SOLUTION.

*Good Condition or Bad, The United States Can't Change it.

Count the Natural disasters which have occurred in the U.S. during your lifetime: devastating earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes, and the Christmas blizzard which snarled air travel throughout the country, by stopping lights in but one city -- Denver.

Some of these, thanks to technology, are now predictable. They vary in precision with respect to both time, place, and magnitude

With earthquakes we know that they are going to happen and we know where they are likely to happen --- But we do not know either of these things with sufficient precision to provide ample warning. All we can do is to make the decision to maximize the resistance of buildings, freeways, and other structures to minimize damage. Yet, we have not the money nor the resources necessary to protect each and every building in a quake area from damage. We have, in some cases (specifically in California) retrofitted some large buildings and much of the freeway system to withstand major quakes.

With Tornadoes, we now save many lives by providing a few minutes warning in areas likely to be impacted, but can do absolutely nothing to lessen the damage.

With other forms of storms, we can predict these sufficient accuracy, giving us the ability to save many lives, and in some cases mitigate the economic costs and disruption they cause.

Here are two contrasting examples: Compare the effect on the lives of people in Florida vs. those in New Orleans. In Florida, timely evacuations begin long before hurricanes strike. Buildings are protected to the maximum degree possible. Citizens stock up on home generators, and survival kits. Authorities have pre-placed supplies and shelters, and alert law enforcement, medical, and other first responders so that they can move immediately into affected areas. That none of this was done in New Orleans by either government or the citizenry, while difficult to explain, was the root cause of the catastrophe that followed. After the damage was done, it was again the failure of government at all levels that resulted in greater disruption to the lives of the survivors, than would have been the case had these efforts been more effective.

If we divide world into two geographies, we have the United States, and the rest of the world. The problems which Prager lists can again be broadly segmented as threats to life and health, and changes to what he sees, what might be best categorized, as cultural deterioration. The presence of war , terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing,disease, starvation and poverty are some of the criteria for the former, while movement away from personal freedom, to an increasing level of control of personal behavior by others comprise the latter.

*Here is why we can't change the world.

Centuries ago, Sir Isaac Newton, developed what came to be known as the Three Laws of Motion. The first of these applies not only to physical objects, but to all living things, including human beings. This First Law states, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

All we need to do is to change the words "object" to "person," and "motion," to "behavior," and you have the crux of the problem we face. The "external force" needed to change behavior, psychologists call "reinforcement." In more common language we recognize positive reinforcement as a "reward" for desired behavior, and for aversive reinforcement, we substitute punishment..

In order to change undesired behavior throughout the world, we would have to find aversive reinforcements (punishments) which were (a) sufficient to extinguish the behavior, (b) consistently applied whenever the behavior appears, and (c) is immediately applied so that the doer(s) of the undesired behavior immediately associate the punishment with the behavior.

None of this requires explanations for how the undesired behavior originated, nor do explanations point the way to the needed reinforcements. What it does do is to make clear that no matter how much we want to change world conditions, we just don'tt have the resources to affect that change.

Consider the threat of Terrorism. Not only is there no singular leadership, there is no credible threat which will stop terrorists, nor nothing we can offer them which will motivate them to end their destructive activity. Global terrorism most closely resembles the global pandemics which have historically swept through civilizations, causing thousands of deaths and leaving many others in severely weakened condition.

Interestingly, an article in Sci-Tech Today provides some possible clues as to how such pandemics come to an end.

Unfortunately, the alternatives available to combat pandemics cannot be applied to terrorists. We cannot inoculate against terrorism; we have no threat or reward to get them to change their behavior; the population of terrorists can be predicted to continue to have a higher "birth rate," than those who will be eradicated by death or capture.

Our inability to motivate the behavior of organized nation-states is no different than that of terrorists. This conclusion inevitably leads to the following predictions:

++ Ultimately, Iran and North Korea will possess deliverable nuclear weapons and will sell them to any who can meet market prices.

++ AIDS, genocide, and starvation will continue in Africa.

++ The middle East will continue to be a volatile and dysfunctional region.

++ Given its small size, proximity to its enemies, and its poor military performance in the recent Lebanon engagement, there is a significant probability that Israel may well disappear as a viable nation-state.

++ Human Rights in China will not be modified by the U.S. Taiwan could well be recaptured by the Chinese.

*We can't have everything we want.

Rather than consider the above as predictions of doom and gloom, we would be better served to understand these probabilities as simply what is likely to be, as opposed to what we want things to be.

Consider the following scenario: You are a husband and father of two young children. Out for an evening walk, you see flames coming from a home and hear screams of people inside. You are faced with the horrific decision to try and save the people (who you do not know) inside, knowing that there is a high probability that you will be seriously burned, or die in your effort. Your other alternative is simply to call the fire fighters, being quite certain they will arrive too late to save the residents. However tragic the terrible death suffered by the residents would be, would you be willing to have your family incur the emotional and financial loss they would incur if you are injured or killed in your efforts to save these strangers?

As a nation, that is precisely the situation we face at the national level. Currently, the President has made the decision to engage in a "short term" insertion of more troops into the Iraq war. Unknown is the likelihood that more military resources will end the violence. If it does, what is the likelihood that violence will return at current or higher levels, once withdrawn?

Any definition of "victory," or "success," in Iraq must have as a foundation, the ending of violence. After four years failing to achieve this stability, what is there in this new plan that should give us confidence that this goal can be achieved?

Regardless of the outcome, the threat of terrorist attacks within the United States will remain. Taking all factors into consideration, it seems almost a certainty that our ability to protect our homeland is less than it would be had we never initiated this war; it is less than it would be had we cut our losses when we found that whatever our goals had been, they were not being achieved.

We don't know when, or where, but we have a good idea what targets have the greatest probability of suffering an attack -- those where the death and injuries will be high, where major economic impact will result, and most of all, where the populace will feel fear and vulnerability.

In recent months, those who propose redeployment of the military out of Iraq, and a lessening of our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs have been targeted with labels which essentially describe advocates of this strategy as quitters, cowards, and isolationists. Yet, if we consider the risk to the homeland which must be addressed, is the notion of a "Fortress America," really so unreasonable?

*Four conditions threatening our country

There are several threats which must be addressed. The greatest, by far, is the ease with which our borders can be penetrated by terrorists and their weapons. Not only the Mexican and Canadian borders, but those that face the water, in the form of ports, as well as airports are ripe for entry. Increased physical security (fences) covering the entire border has proceeded at a snail's pace, resulting from political opposition, limited human (military and border patrol personnel), and technological deficits (cargo scanning in ports and airport security.)

A second, far less obvious threat, is the unwillingness to address these issues, driven by political polarization, influence of special interest groups, individual's personal emotional agenda, and corruption of the legislative and executive process. It ranges from domestic issues regarding the prevention of illegal immigration, and the treatment of those who have been successful in doing so, to outcries related to privacy rights, all the way to this country's role in the world outside our borders.

Third is the incredible level of incompetence that pervades every level of government, from the DOD to the FBI, to Homeland Security and FEMA. While everything else preceding this statement is certainly going to be open to dispute, this statement will gain near universal agreement. What is even more discouraging is the failure of Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities, to, in some measure, reduce this pervasive problem.

Finally, there is the terrible failure of education, from Primary to Graduate schools throughout the nation. The system fails to provide the most rudimentary core intellectual competencies to those subjected to its operation. Without those skills, the graduate at any level fails to acquire the critical analysis and evaluative tools so necessary to prepare for life in today's society.