Watch Out for Biplanes

 They killed the last two American troops who were attacked from the air (towards the end of the Korean war.)

That factoid from David Kilcullen's The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West. I'm about 100 pages in, finding it interesting and convincing.  So far he's using an ecological/evolutionary approach to the recent history (say from 1991 on) of war, and the changes in how the opposing parties have changed their tactics and strategies, mostly learning from defeats.

One observation is that NSA can gather much more data than they can analyze. Terrorist/insurgent organizations don't rely on privacy laws, but on hiding in the woods of all the other data. I think that also applies to the average citizen--we get lost in the mass of data, so we don't need to be paranoid. 

Almost 3000 Americans Died on 9/11?

 Nope.  As my cousin reminded me today, there were a lot of people in the World Trade Towers who came from other countries. Wikipedia says 372 of them, or over 10 percent of the total. I'm sure a lot of people have fallen into the error of talking about "almost 3000 Americans".  Here's one, which seems to be a DOD site for vets and families. 

I think that sort wrong generalization is something humans do. 

9/11 20 Years On.

 Just finished "Without Precedent: the Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.  Curiosity piqued by comparison with possible 1/6 commission and Ben Rhodes involvement.

It reads well as a straightforward narrative.  Some random thoughts:

• in 2004 we were still very worried about the threat of terrorism. Will historians conclude that we overreacted?  I think so--it was mostly a one-shot lucky blow.
• a couple times they note that in interviewing Afghanis the message was: "don't leave us again". In 2004 Afghanistan was looking okay, but it's rather sickening to read it now, when we're leaving in a hurry. A mistake on Biden's part, I think, though it could follow the course of Iraq--get in, get out, get asked back in.  
• on page 220 they observe that by 9/11 neither the NYC Fire Department nor the Police Department had demonstrated willingness to answer to an Incident Commander who was not a member of their own department.  I want to know if Bloomberg's reorganization of NYC government has fixed that problem.  I suspect not.
• on page 292 they decry the partisan atmosphere of DC then, the worse they'd seen in 30 years.  

I think they soft-pedal their failure to get Congress to reorganize their committee structure. 

Guantanamo: 1800 for 40?

According to recent reports there are now 40 prisoners left in Guantanamo, an installation which has 1800 personnel.  The way the Times report was worded it sounded like therywere all military and all devoted to the prison but that seems absurd.

If the facts are true, in my opinion we should either do as Obama wanted, move the prisoners to max security prisons in the US which presumably wouldn't require extra personnel at all.  Or, if you don't like that, let's just release the prisoners.  They've been detained for 17 years. 

Terrorists Capture Building Blocks from White House

John Kelly writes a local column for the Post.  Today he excavates a page from ancient history, 40 years ago today, the takeover of the DC Municipal Building, past which I'd walk home every night, up to a year before, and two other buildings by the Hanafi Muslim group.

It's a reminder of the turmoil of the late 60's and 70's, and a caution not to take current times too seriously.

High Probability of New Terrorist Attack?

I'm not quite sure what Nate Silver is talking about here:  

natesilver: I mean, the probability of an actual or thwarted terrorist attack in the U.S. or in some  NATO country over the next year or so has to be quite high. I’m not talking about something on a 9/11 or a Paris scale or anything like that, but something scary enough for Trump to use it as a cudgel to try to expand his powers. [emphasis added]
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-really-matters-from-trumps-first-3-weeks/

The Paris attacks involved 3 attackers, the 9/11 19.   The Orlando attack involved one, but killed 49.

Certainly there's some terrorist attack which could prompt Trump to ask for/get expanded powers, but what would it be?

Some possibilities:

• a multi-person attack by refugees admitted before 2017 from one or more of the seven countries
• an attack which claims victims in the triple digits or more, particularly if multi-person.
• an attack on a particular target, like a sporting event, a civic event, a notable politician or eminent figure.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I'm pretty sure in the months after 9/11 I was more optimistic than most about new terrorist attacks.  But I'm still surprised we've gone 16 years with only lone wolf (regarding San Bernadino as one) attacks, attacks with little innovation as to targets or methods. So my predictions for the future have very low confidence, but I'd still expect more of the last 15 years than anything which could be a pretext for more surveillance, enhanced interrogation, etc.  

Terrorism, What I Wrote 10 Years Ago

vIt's not quite 10 years since I (very tentatively) ventured a prediction on terrorism.  My complete post of Sept 30, 2006:

Saturday, September 30, 2006

What Does The Future Hold?

The Times has an analysis of the new legislation on terrorism which includes these thoughts:

How the measure will look decades hence may depend not just on how it is used but on how the terrorist threat evolves. If a major terrorist plot in the United States is uncovered — and surely if one succeeds — it may vindicate the Congressional decision to give the government more leeway to seize and question those who might know about the next attack.
If the attacks of 2001 recede as a devastating but unique tragedy, the decision to create a new legal framework may seem like overkill. “If there is never another terrorist attack and we never obtain actionable intelligence, this will look like a huge overreaction,” said Gary J. Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton.

The last paragraph is what I'm inclined to think.

Obviously we've had terrorist attacks since.  I think, however, if you'd told the US in 2006 that deaths in the US from terrorism would be low, we'd have been very happy.  (Can't find a handy up-to-date source for these deaths, but I'm going to say 2006 through 2015 saw fewer than 30 such deaths per year, at least for deaths from terrorists with some affiliation to Islam.)

Hijacking in the Past

Vox has a discussion of the airliner hijackings we used to have in the US (and elsewhere).

I remember the time, didn't remember we reached 130 in 1968-72, but a lot.  It's part of the fact that that period was also more violent: deaths due to terrorism were higher before 9/11 than after.  The discussion touches on the idea that publicity spurred the hijackings, making them in some respects similar to today's mass shootings.  You get a nut who wants attention, in 1970 he hijacked a plane, in 2016 he shoots a few people.

Deaths by Terrorism, Past and Present

Now we're in a relative lull in deaths by terrorism.  That seems an absurd statement, but it's the truth, as shown by this chart.  What's the difference between the past (i.e. 1970's and 80's) and now?

We forget how active the IRA groups and the unionist opposition were on the killing front.  We forget the Palestinian groups were terrorists in the 70's and 80's.  We forget the Basque groups.  We forget the small leftist/anarchist groups.  Put them all together and they caused more death than ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Perhaps it's just our amnesia. It's not the motivation--murdering because of religion was arguably what the IRA did--were they radical Catholic terrorists?  I think not.

More likely it's familiarity--most of the groups had a history and their terrorism was something we were more accustomed to so it somehow seemed less dangerous.  And importantly, most of the groups seemed to have a defined target, where today the ISIS terrorists seem to be attacking "Western civilizations". 

Bottom line for me: chill and think historically.

Meanwhile 125 People Died Today of Drug Overdoses

Currently 36 dead in Brussels.

Peter Moskos notes the drug overdose death rate.

I link the two.

EU Terrorism Deaths, Higher in 1970's

I vaguely remember the terrorism of the past, but I'm dumbfounded by this graph, which comes from a Fivethirtyeight post on terrorism.

I recommend the whole thing.  "terrorism" has different causes, which is well to remember.

What Happened to Piracy?

Idly looking at Blogger stats, I see one of the most popular posts was one from 2008 suggesting a convoy system to deal with piracy.  Seven years later piracy seems to be a non-issue, at least in terms of media discussions. (The wikipedia article has a paragraph headed "Collapse of Piracy in 2013".  I wonder what happened--Tom Hanks made a movie, Captain Phillips, and that scared all the pirates into law-abiding citizens.  Or Somalia gradually got more orderly?  Or something else? (The wikipedia article suggests a mixture of measures, including effective government.)

From Seeds to Tanks, the History of Government Giving

Lots of publicity these days about the government giving surplus military arms and money to buy equipment to the nation's police forces.  It reminds me of the good old days, back when Congressmen gave out seeds--no I wasn't alive then but those gifts are credited as the seeds (pun intended) which grew into the USDA.

Much the same political dynamic may be going on today.  The public always asks its government: "what have you done for me lately" and it's nice for Congresspeople to be able to point with pride to their gifts.  Used to be that they pointed to "pork", once they distributed seeds, in the 21st century they can point to shiny objects from DOD or money from TSA.  All part of GWOT.

Would Reagan Have Made the Bergdahl Trade?

I follow the Powerline blog.  Disagree with 90+ percent of what is said, but it offers a view into the right wing.  Currently all the bloggers there are up in arms attacking the Bergdahl deal. 

I see this post reporting on a discussion tomorrow at the Reagan library.  No mention of the subject matter, but I have a suggestion:  Pro or con--would Saint Ronald have made the same decision Obama did?

Amazing Sentence of Today: Judges Err

"n ordinary litigation, the judges misunderstand things all the time and reach decisions anyway, and they rarely discover all that they’ve misunderstood.  "

This sentence is from a very good post by Stewart Baker at Volokh Conspiracy discussing the recently declassified FISA court materials.  Don't know whether he's right, but two points he makes:

• the "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence which played a disputed role in the failures to prevent 9/11 was unreasonably enforced by Judge Royce Lamberth.
• cultural differences between IT types and legal types may have played a big part in the problems.  (That's an attractive argument to me: I believe in Murphy's Law.)

What the Government Can Do With My Phone Records

As a Verizon subscriber, the government has my phone records or rather the records of what my number was doing: what numbers called my number, what numbers my number called, etc.

Even though I'm a longtime supporter of ACLU, it doesn't particularly bother me.  I do wish, however, that NSA and FCC would put their heads together and stop all the automated calls I get.  My number is on the Do Not Call registry, but it doesn't stop the machines calling my machine.  Surely NSA has all the data FCC would need to identify the callers and stop the calls?  IMHO those calls are a more serious threat to the safety and sanity of the country than Al Qaeda is.

bin Laden Alive: Would It Be Better?

Read a thoughtful op-ed by David Ignatius in the Post today, keyed to the new movie " Zero Dark Thirty" and the argument over whether torture works. He argues that it may have in the case of bin Laden, but we need to accept the idea that torture can work, can have benefits.  So in weighing whether to torture we weigh the moral costs versus the possible benefits.

The op-ed caused me to muse about another possibility: suppose we had never gotten the info on bin Laden so we never killed him.  Is it possible that would have been better for us?  Certainly his death satisfies the visceral need for revenge we feel, but are we better off?

As I understand it, bin Laden was having great difficulty communicating with his organization and in getting people to do what he wanted.  I'd assume as time passed that difficulty would increase, bin Laden would be more isolated, more out of touch, less effective.  But we killed him. So now what's left of the organization are perhaps free to form organizations more local in scope, with perhaps more effective leaders.  So in weighing costs and benefits, maybe we traded one big organization with an aging, out-of-touch leader for several smaller organizations with younger and possibly more effective leaders? 

Misguided Obeisance to the Military

The Post's blog writes about a directive to TSA to expedite clearances for military personnel which was included in the appropriations bill.  As I comment there, the biggest terrorist toll in the U.S. since 9/11 was the work of a uniformed military man.  Our military thankfully still reflects our society, for all its good and bad.

12 Percent of Emergency Response Officials Are Idiots

That's my take from this sentence, from a Government Executive post addressing the use of emergency response grants in the wake of 9/11:

And a newly released survey found that a whopping 88 percent of emergency-response officials believe that grants are allocated according to what's best for politicians, not what's best for emergency preparedness.

Perhaps I should be charitable and say 12 percent have a surplus of charity and a deficiency of cynicism.

Two Takes on TSA

In the Times:

• David Carr views the uproar over TSA's patdowns and body scans as a media-fueled tempest in a teapot. 
• Ross Douthat uses it as the hook to build a discussion of how partisanship alters one's view of reality, reviewing controversies over the last 15 years where Dems and Reps have switched positions.

I agree with them both.