Asymmetrical Information

I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with former Sen. Gary Hart (cochair of Hart/Rudman commission on terrorism) as part of a class. He very clearly believes that there will be more terrorist attacks, but that New York will not be the target next time. As he says, the terrorists have shown that they can hit NYC; the next goal is to show that they can hit other places of their choosing and that we can't stop them. He also thinks it likely that the next large attack will attempt to use something different than "blowing things up."

The scenario that seemed to be at the top of his list involved smallpox. Several countries are known or believed to have smallpox in their weapons labs, so it is easily conceivable that terrorists have obtained samples. Suicide carriers with tourist visas get injected just before flying to the US, and visit Cleveland (for example). They attend sporting events, go to museums and rock concerts, and cough on as many people as they can. Smallpox can be transmitted by such casual contact (although people are much more contagious after the rash develops), and the incubation period is 7-10 days.

The US strategic national stockpile now has 300 million or so doses of smallpox vaccine, and plans for delivering it to the entire population of the country, but it is likely that several thousand people would die before the potential epidemic could be contained.

The article ignores the "911 was a fluke" theory. If 3000 people had been killed by a meteor on 911, would we be asking why there had been no additional strikes? Why should we believe that the probability of 911 type events is high enough to make there absence since at all surprising. After all there were no such events in the five years before 911. Why should we believe we are at more risk now than in the years preceding 911? What has changed?

The flip side of the "911 was a fluke" theory, the "we have been lucky" theory, is also ignored by the article. Perhaps we can expect about 1 major attack a year in which case the absence since 911 is lucky but not unbelievably so.

I have lived within 5 miles of the San Andreas fault in the San Francisco area for the past 53 years (that is to say, my entire life). There will be a very great (7.0+) earthquake in the San Francisco area--probably across the bay, near Oakland) within my lifetime. The death toll and the infrastructure destruction will be very high.

But, despite great efforts to educate and inspire people, very very few residents have made even the minimal preparations--stockpiling food and water, having medications on hand, learning the rudiments of first aid, and so on.

I believe the planners call this "threat fatigue". I believe that most New Yorkers are no more prepared than my neighbors are.

Yes, we should bend a lot of effort to interdict terrorism, both international from Islamic extremists and domestically, but we should moderate that with an understanding that the risk exists in a spectrum or landscape of mass-casualty risks.

Ever hear of the JTTF's? The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces? Perhaps the activities of 'persons of interest' to the counter-terrorism community are 1) penetrated & 2) monitored?

If Al Qaeda sees even a small chance of obtaining a nuclear weapon, it would be best to "lie low" --do not get us more actively perusing the terror landscape - - get us self-assured that we have our act together. The one exception to this plan of lying low: continue with diversionary communications("chatter"), to see what American response is reported by our mainstream media.

We may be inherently ignorant about the terrorists' perspective. Here's an idea I developed about six to eight weeks after 9/11. I was fed up with the excessive fear-mongering, "they're out to get us!" .. "they want to KILL us all and DESTROY our entire country." Even at the time, I considered it embarrassing self-centered histrionics. So I disseminated an alternative interpretation of why it happened and what's to come.

Bin Laden did not intend the attack to initiate the destruction of the USA or the west. It was, quite deliberately, a means to an end - - an 'end' of considerably more consequence.. to the the folks in Al Quaeda. The goal is more attainable, more LOCAL both culturally and geographically; more significant by far than the Quixotic windmill-tilting attacks on the West in general and the USA in particular.

The goal is the downfall of the House of Saud, the ruling clan in Saudi Arabia. Libya saw an overthrow; Iran saw an overthrow. The home of Mecca and Medina -- the two holy places - - could have an overthrow. Bin Laden has repeatedly stated his anger after US military forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia. If he became incensed at the US because of THAT revoltin' development, consider how infuriated he became about the Saudi leaders who let our INFIDEL soldiers into the homeland of Mecca and Medina !

The 9/11 attack may have served as a high-visibility event to draw more attention and therefore more recruitment. It might also have served to demonstrate to backers inside Saudi Arabia, that OBL had the balls to keep the campaign moving along("that guy is doing HIS part.") Great literature includes numerous stories, plot lines in which the King is to be brought down by a jealous brother or cousin, or by a faction with the intent of appearing loyal
only until it can implement an overthrow. There are story lines in which a king's sponsoring of a person or endeavor ends up being THE element in the king's downfall("blowback" is the current jargon.) This is similar to the funding of madrassas(akin to western seminaries), and backing to-the-point-of-fostering fundamentalist Islamic groups.

I never saw in print or on TV, any mention of the "Saud family downfall" scenario, before June, 2004 - - which happened to be preceeded by at least three terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. So no major 'authority' or 'consultant' speculated about such a scenario prior to multiple attacks getting them either to make such an "imaginative" assessment, or to divulge a possibility that has been considered for years but has not been stated publicly because the Family of Saud will absolutely not permit even mentioning the POSSIBILITY that ANY person within or without Arabia would countenance an overthrow.

The fall of King Saud, in the manner of similar events in other middle eastern countries, could occur within ten years.

Comments are Closed.