Articles

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Breaking the Siege Mentality of Airline Security

The debate over the TSA security measures comes down to two options. Either subject everyone to strip searches or accept the possibility of being blown out of the sky. The authoritarians champion the first option and the libertarians champion the second option. But there is another way. A third option.

To understand what that is, we first need to understand why things are the way they are. Security measures at airports are a defensive measure. And a society on the defense develops a siege mentality. In a society under siege, civil rights quickly go by the wayside. The longer the siege goes on, the more rights vanish, never to be recovered again, as people adopt the siege mentality. "If you don't want to die, then just cooperate with the authorities", is the byword of the siege mentality.

There is a very simple reason why we need airline security. Because we have Muslims living in the United States, and traveling to the United States. Unlike the old leftist terrorists, Muslim terrorists like to kill everyone on board and use the planes as weapons too. That makes the consequences of allowing them to succeed completely unacceptable. But we have spent so much time talking about the consequences, that we refuse to admit what the problem is.

Israel's national airline, El Al (Skyward), was a popular target for terrorists. But the common sense approach there is to profile suspected terrorists. That's something we refuse to do in America. Because the authorities refuse to admit that there's any specific group that engages in terrorism. Instead we treat everyone like terrorists. And that leads to ugly abuses of authority and a general feeling of helplessness. It is also means that airline security ends up being spread too thin and becomes useless.

Last month, Juan Williams was fired for even mentioning that he was nervous around flying Imams. Passengers and airlines who profile are sued and denounced as racists. Officially we're worried about terrorists, but they have no profile. Which means every passenger has to be treated like they're headed for Gitmo. And in order to avoid hurting the feelings of that 1 percent of moderate Muslims, we have to demean and intimidate everyone else.

Profiling alone is no solution. It's just a more sophisticated defensive tactic. And that still means living with a siege mentality. The psychological consequences of living that way carry their own toll. As is the case in Israel. It leads to anger, frustration, weariness and self-hatred. Cage up enough animals in a box, and they will begin chewing on each other. People are different, but not that different. In a siege, there are acts of great heroism, but also acts of cowardice and treachery. And when the siege seems endless, where there is no end in sight-- then morale drops sharply.

America is caught in a War of Terror with no end in sight. Because we won't admit who the enemy is. Instead we engage in appeasement. We keep reaching out to all the world's Muslims, hoping to convince them to stop trying to kill us. We humiliate our own citizens. We learn to be afraid of our aircraft. Boarding a plane becomes a suicide pact, as we accept that the air force will shoot us down, if we are hijacked. And as time goes on, it will only get worse. We have still not even begun to learn the real meaning of terror.

The basic problem comes down to this. We have failed to put Islam on the defensive. We did briefly after 9/11, but no more. Today and for the last ten years, we have been on the defensive. Islam has been on the offensive. If we want our lives back. If we want our countries back. And if we want to fly without fear, then we have to change that. We have to put Muslims on the defensive. Or go on living under siege.

And that's the third option. It's the option where we turn the tables on them.

Right now, Muslims can infiltrate America and plan and carry out attacks. Mostly those attacks will fail, but some will succeed. It doesn't have to be very many. Terrorists operate in small groups. They can fail a dozen times, without losing more than two dozen people. But when they succeed once, they will kill hundreds of us. And they only have to get lucky once. Only one of their half-assed and poorly thought out plans has to succeed. Because as comical as the Times Square Bomber or the Underwear Bomber may look as failures, if they had succeeded in killing hundreds or thousands, then there wouldn't be laughter, there would be tears.

Under our current system, all we can do is wait. Gather intel, tighten security, send out alerts... and wait. Wait for another attack.

But we're not on the defensive because we have to be. We're on the defensive because we choose to be. We stand around getting shot at, and insist that it must be raining. We have a gator chomping on our leg, and we blame muscle aches. We have Muslims trying to kill us, and we insist that it's religiously undifferentiated extremists. Like Glenn Beck.

After 9/11, our goal was to kill terrorists. We went on the offensive and we actually succeeded. Not just in killing terrorists, that's not hard to do, but in frightening them. In terrorizing them. And then we decided to turn their countries into humanitarian projects, rebuild them, provide free electricity, dig their wells and protect them. And not only did we get played for suckers, but the terrorists rebounded. They were back in their element, trying to bring down a regime and terrorize the occupation forces. And we were on the defensive.

And we're still on the defensive.

We could end 99 percent of the threat of terror by shutting down every mosque and deporting every first and second generation Muslim immigrant from this country. And every convert. But of course we can't do that. That would be "Un-American". On the other hand TSA agents groping female air travelers, now that's properly "American".

In the same way, we could save the lives of our troops, by dropping all the "Hearts and Minds" nonsense, and focusing on wiping out terrorists and anyone who collaborates with them. Not to mention take back the American oil fields that the Saudis nationalized, and turn off the money tap for Al Qaeda. But that too would be "Un-American". But burying fallen soldiers every week, who aren't allowed to defend themselves under the "Hearts and Minds" Rules of Engagement, that is just very "American". Isn't it?

It's possible to do anything, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences. But on the other hand if you're not, then the options are limited. If we go on living in a world, in which Islam is the "Religion of Peace" and our primary goal is to appease them, then we will always have the choice between being oppressed by the authorities or murdered by the terrorists. Which one we choose doesn't really matter. Because they're really a balance. More security, less security. More killing, less killing. As long as we remain in denial, then we'll have to live with a measure of both at the same time.

That's life under siege. And the only way to change that is to break out of the siege. We are under siege by Islam. By Muslims, inside and outside our country. The goal of their siege is to wear us down and beat us down to the point where we'll give them anything they ask for, so we can just have some peace. To the point where we'll give up our freedoms, our religion and our country-- and accept slavery, just to bring the terror to an end.

The Third Option is breaking the siege mentality. And breaking out of the siege. Muslim terror hopes to contain us, isolate us and then move in, and take over. But the effectiveness of their siege depends on our unwillingness to name names, to call them out for what they are doing, and deprive them of their ability to wage war on us. That is how we break the siege. That is how we break them.

29 comments:

nanette said...

You are so right. I don't care about hearts and minds, or humanitarian building of countries. We should have continued to terrorize them back. How about we stop allowing them to do whatever they want here too and using our democratic ways to turn us into Saudi Arabia? The TSA agents area also taking advantage and molesting people.

I say name the enemy. The enemy is Islam. There. Now maybe we can fight back hard. VERY hard. This is war, the fight of our lifetimes. No more bowing and making our lives miserable to accomadate them..they want to be here, they bow to our rules and laws.

mindRider said...

The entire airline security hassle is the logical result of the leniency with which the first PLO hijackers in the 1970's where treated by the countries they fled to after their crimes and the complete lack of response by the European countries who's planes and citizens had fallen victim. If at that time Europe would have blocked all air-traffic with countries that gave refuge to these terrorists, things would have never spiraled out of control. BTW suggesting to re-take control of Saudi oil wells, even if I have no love lost for Saudi's is a bit too neo-colonial and devoid of realism.

Will48 said...

The only and true way to contain islam is STOP ALL TRADE with Islam NOW.

Put an Iron Wall around it - no trade, no tourism, nothing.

If they manage to build weapons, bomb their military. If they rebuild, then bomb them again, and bomb their heavy industries out of existence. You dont have to put any troops on the ground for that.

The only question is, will it be done right now, or after terrible war and countless tragedies - ours and theirs.

But the power elites of the Western World (note I didnt say "Free") want to have that lucrative trade at almost any cost to our societies, as long as it continues to pay billions upon billions of dollars.

And it is easy for them, too. All they have to do is to pretend there's merit to Arab/Muzlim claims, and it's all Israel's fault.

It works wonders for them, for now, that is. To pretend is to lie to oneself, and that is never good, in the long run.

Mikec said...

Politicians are not interested in fighting, they are interested in the influnce, the money and the power that these things bring.

They are happy to sacrifice you and me, they will happily allow a holocaust in Israel, as long as it does not threaten the root source of their influence and money.

The battle is not really with Islam, for Islam is a symptom of something else; a sick political system that has lost sight of its core objective.

Instead of defending the people, the political establishment seeks to exploit the people, and Islamic terror thus becomes a 'useful tool'

noboat1 said...

"May god have mercy on my enemies,because I will not."
George S. Patton

Mike Elmore said...

If I read you correctly you are saying Glen Beck is a dimmie? I couldn't agree more. I know that sometimes he's on the right track overall but his take on Islam is one of complete ignorance, which is the real existential threat to Western Civilization. Yea, talk about Van Jones , George Sores or the Left makes easy talk, but the real threat is Islam and Dimmie Beck is so wrong on this that it makes me wonder about his take on everything else. I know he's no rocket scientist but he can't be consciously this far off. What's scary is that Beck is unable or unwilling to connect the dots. Is that because now he might piss off one of his bosses Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Thanks for your insightfulness once again..Mike Elmore

Saoirse O'Malley said...

Excellent article!

I think part of our problem (very small part) is that in our society of instant-gratification, no one has the strength to do what it takes day after day to stop the terrorists.

We, as a society, don't have what it takes to fight the good fight for a prolonged time. We are used to pushing a button or two and having the information we want or having a problem solved.

The people who want us dead are more than willing to take whatever time needed to make it happen. We need to think the same way.

Ted said...

Is that a raghead security guard frisking the catholic nun?
Totally unreal and unacceptable. It is time to come down hard on Muslims and anything to do with them. And remove them from our Western Nations!

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

nanette, that would be the rational course of action, but our security is run on PC, not on reason

Will48, I strongly agree

Mike, unfortunately yes. Our system is based around professional politicians, but it's more than just a political problem, it's also a cultural problem

Saoirse, that's part of the problem yes. And we tend not to learn from history, rather repeat the same mistakes again.

Ted, yup. Quite a picture ain't it

Marc said...

Unfortunately, it will take another "911" or worse for the Third Option to be considered.

Anonymous said...

Has a single Republican politician or a single prominent conservative commentator pointed out that the way to make the naked body scan and grope regime unnecessary is to profile possible terrorists in airports, as the Israelis do?

I’m not aware of one.

We are so far gone, that not only (it goes without saying) will not a single prominent person in America argue that we should start removing sharia-believing Muslims from this country; and not only will not a single prominent person in America argue that we should stop importing unassimilable peoples (such as Somali Muslims) into this country; but not a single prominent person will even argue that we should profile airplane passengers and limit special security measures to those who are likely to pose a risk. It doesn’t even occur to anyone to raise the question. Thus has the anti-American, pro-Islamic airport security regime that was initiated by the calamitous George W. Bush taken over the American mind.

Think of the absurdity of it: An African Muslim and al Qaeda agent named Abdul Mutallab flew into the U.S. and tried to blow up the plane he was on with an explosive sewn into his underclothing, and as a result of that event the U.S. authorities now view all airline passengers—including ourselves, including even airline pilots!—as equally likely as Abdul Mutallab to be carrying explosives sewn into their underclothing.

Anonymous said...

Profiling is the only rationale and effective approach to airline security.

Latma demonstrates how idiotic our homeland security regarding air travel is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9BCco9hb94


Keliata

Paul said...

Yes, Islam is the enemy of humanity and the US in particular and must confronted as such. We did it for a while with communism, we can do it with Islam.

But I think its way out of line to suggest that we take away oil from the Arabs, "Not to mention take back the American oil fields that the Saudis nationalized, and turn off the money tap for Al Qaeda." Those aren't American oil fields, they are Arab oil fields. That oil belongs to them. It's on their land. It's enough that we understand that when we spend money on Arab oil, we put money in the hands of Islam. Get the word out on that and it will do alot to temper the atitudes towards oil that many citizens have. Changes in consumption habits will follow and these have economic consequences. Always remember that a significant part of the economy of oil is plastic, which we squander at a pathological rate.

Vicky said...

Interesting read !!!
May I suggest a fourth option ???
Why not make an airlines just for muslims,,,, which caters specificallly to their kind,,, halal food,, prayer rooms onboard,,, all flight originate from and end in Saudi,,,,Hell then,,, no more issues with random frisking(the pious saudis can do that for us),,,,What say people????

Steel Turman said...

You've made it far too difficult.

Nuke Mecca without warning.

During Hajj would be a nice touch.

Give the rest of Islam 24 hours to cough up Bin Laden, swear allegiance to Israel and eat a pulled pork sandwich.

Tell them that if we so much as hear a peep out of them henceforth, we will reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile, one Muslim city after another.

See?

We get rid of some rusty old nukes AND give a big boost to all the pig farmers of the world.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Kevin said...

Nobody owns oil (or other minerals) while in the ground. By mixing labor and capital with the estate of nature, we acquire ownership of our improvements, per Locke.

The Arabs as a group do not own anything, including land. Only natural persons may own anything. Just because oil is found within the estate of the Saudi government, does not mean that government (or the people it represents) own the oil (or anything else).
Using that logic, we would have national socialism. That is, the government would own everything within it's jurisdiction.

Western companies developed the oil infrastructure and are the rightful owners. Nationalization was an act of war.

There is no effective way to organize a boycott, because of the "Prisoner's Dilemma". Somebody will always break the boycott to reap windfall profits.

To prevent Iran or Saudi government from getting oil from nationalized oil infrastructure, we must seize or destroy the infrastructure. The Saudis have theirs rigged to blow up in theirs is attacked. Oh well, that is good, provided the US removes political barriers to exploiting our 300+ year supply of oil in sand and shale.

Destroying their export facilities would be easier than seizing/holding them. The side benefit to us would be, higher oil prices, allowing the US to reap windfall profits.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, instead of subsidizing Taliban and Al Queda through prohibition, the US military should purchase the entire poppy crop, outbidding Taliban. Then sell to medical dispensaries. This would finance our operations in Afghanistan, instead of the other side.

Kae Gregory said...

This reminds me of when I was a child and I fostered the dreams of ‘practical perpetual motion’. I would tell my father of my designs for these devices and then ultimately, perhaps in exasperation, my father explained to me, in the way that one can explain such things to a child, the laws of thermodynamics. That event sticks with me as the moment when I began to think rationally.
I wonder when it became practical for us to allow those in positions of responsibility to implement irrational solutions to our problems? And I wonder whether or not, if we could identify that moment, whether it would be possible for us to correct it?
It’s not only this rendering of our airline industry impractical as a mode of travel, but the responses to the economic crisis, the response to health coverage shortage, the government takeover of private companies, the remediation of the spill in the gulf, etc., etc.
These problems aren’t like perpetual motion. There are rational solutions to these problems and we should not expect less.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

There are rational solutions, unfortunately our ability to develop and implement them is impeded by an overregulated marketplace, and by a gasoline fueled economy where corporations that benefited from oil dependency actively destroyed trolleys and train systems

DP111 said...

Quote:We could end 99 percent of the threat of terror by shutting down every mosque and deporting every first and second generation Muslim immigrant from this country. And every convert. But of course we can't do that. That would be "Un-American". On the other hand TSA agents groping female air travelers, now that's properly "American".

We cannot get to that situation in one step. As our societies are liberal and democratic, we can only get to the situation when it is politically feasible to repatriate all Muslims, when everything else has been tried. In other words, we have to play Chamberlain to show to all, specially ourselves, that we have tried everything.

We are getting to that situation step by step, with Iraq and Afghanistan making significant contributions.

With this "scan and grope" security measures, the tipping point could be near. All it requires is for the authorities to get obstinate and demand ever more intrusion into the private space of individuals, while giving the nod to Muslim women, and pent up anger will explode in fury.

Be patient. Muslims have a penchant overreach. They will trip up big time, just as they were doing on Remembrance Day in London. All this will count when the final bill comes in.

Moriah said...

CAIR is trying to persuade TSA to only pat down the heads and necks of women in hijab ---and nothing below the neck!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/hamas-linked-cair-tsa-may-only-search-around-muslim-womens-head-neck.html

I suggest that 50 or more women fly to Washington DC in hijab. --that ALL women buy a hijab (they're cheap)and whenever they fly, wear the hijab!

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

... which unfortunately is exactly what Muslims want

Paul said...

The key to Islam is the Koran. Recall our recent controversy during the 9/11 anniversery where everyone was upset because somebody announced in public that they were going to burn a Koran that day. The Koran is the problem and without the Koran, there is no Islam. The Koran speaks for itself as an instigator of terror. It cannot hide from the accusation. Those who blame isolated radicals on terrorism have no defense for the Koran. This is where the confrontation should begin.

There is nothing fundamental about Islam to the Middle East. The people living under Islam deserve respect as a people as something distinct from their beliefs. Their beliefs are a threat to humanity, but they are a part of humanity and they suffer first under Islam and at the hands of those most in touch with Muslim belief. They deserve respect as people and as nations among nations. And that goes especially for the wealth they possess as nations.

4infidels said...

What about collective punishment? The humiliation of the checkpoint?

Isn't that what is happening at our airports?

Oh wait, those things only matter when they can used as weapons to attack Israel.

Gary said...

From:Gerald
Are Muslim women exempt from all this groping and frisking?

Xanthippa said...

There is another problem with our current 'siege mentality': we are under siege, that is true, but we are forced to face this unarmed and unprotected. No wonder we are cowed!

Instead of ensuring all airline passengers are unarmed and reduced to the mental state of cattle, we would all be much safer if each and every adult airline passenger were required to be armed!

To purchase a ticket, all you need to do is provide proof of arms training.

To board an airplane, prove you are carrying a loaded gun.

Don't own a gun - the TSA will lend you a loaded one, Just hand it in on your way out when you land...

Any attempt at hijacking would be thwarted before it succeeded if even 50% of the passengers on each flight (and at each airport) were known to be fully armed.

While we might remain under siege, we will be ABLE to do something to protect ourselves and our families....if necessary.

That would do wonders for the morale of the whole population!

2sloe said...

@Paul,
your 1st paragraph, OK.

Your 2nd: What the hell is all that blather about? In particular, the 1st sentence, "There is nothing fundamental about Islam to the Middle East."
Except, of course, THEIR view of the middle east.

What is "The Nation of Islam".
?
It is a belief IN THE KORAN. It is submission and obedience to that belief. It is PEOPLE, in action... allowed by people, perpetrated upon others by those same people, even their own family.
Humanity, shumanity. and WTH does
"the wealth they posses" have anything to do with being deserving of respect as part of "humanity"?
Reaching too far up our asses to pull a thought out, may just produce a terd (or is it turd?).
*Sorry*, but you lost me completely here.

Paul said...

2Sloe, sure.

"There is nothing fundamental about Islam to the Middle East. The people living under Islam deserve respect as a people as something distinct from their beliefs. Their beliefs are a threat to humanity, but they are a part of humanity and they suffer first under Islam and at the hands of those most in touch with Muslim belief."

The history of Islam is not as old as the people of the middle east. There is no force of nature condemning the people of the middle east to suffer believing the beliefs of Islam. Beliefs can change, even among vast populations of people. Before Muhammad, there was nobody who believed in Islam and nobody was the worse off for it. There are other things to know and believe outside of Islam. Who knows what the middle east could do freed of the shackles of Muslim belief and under some new and improved system of beliefs that we haven't seen yet. It is not necessary for the middle east to surrender to the beliefs of others as they expect the rest of the world to surrender to theirs.

And I simply respect the rights of people of a land to exploit their resources for their own benefit first. This is, for example, why we pay the Arabs for their oil instead of just taking it away like some colonial power.

Anonymous said...

curmudgeon says..... dont worry about the radical muslims. we will defeat them. it is the "peaceful" muslims that will breed us into a powerless minority at our own expense, and convert our country into another islamic hellhole. we should be grateful to the impatient ones, the "radicals" who are showing islams' intentions prematurely. they are the ones that will save us, if anyone can. a few more really bad terror events, and we might be ready to the only rational thing........send all muslims, both domestic and imported, to some country they dont hate. when that happens, we can thank the terrorists for saving our nation.

STS said...

Start by not letting any more Moslems into this country.

Post a Comment