I was going to write a response to Brad's comment on the 'Why Do They Hate Us?' post, but I decided that the topic was worth a post of its own. In that post, I wrote in passing that I hoped racial profiling wouldn't be necessary to stop terrorism. In his comment, Brad suggested that we should do racial profiling if it works. So, I wondered, does it?
To all outward appearances, it certainly seems as though it should. To take the reductio ad absurdum argument, let's say a flight has two passengers, and we're going to search one. One is Betty Lundgren, a 75-year-old grandmother of six from Indiana. The other is Abdul Mohammad Hussein, a 22-year-old student from Saudi Arabia. Hmmm, who should we search?
Part of the problem, of course, is that over 99.9% of all men with Abdul, Mohammad, or Hussein in their names are not terrorists, so to have a decent chance of catching those who are by racial/ethnic profiling, we'd have to search a very large percentage of them, which isn't practical. So, we can search Abdul, but we're very likely not to find anything. I do, absolutely, think it's stupid to search Betty. Doing that, I think, is pointlessly P.C., just to show that we're not profiling, we're searching everyone. Speaking as a man, I'm perfectly content if 95% of their random searches are performed on men.
After thinking about this question, it seems to me that there are two types of situations in which racial profiling might be used: to catch terrorists on international flights, and to catch criminals domestically. I find that domestically speaking, I'm absolutely opposed to it, even if it does catch more criminals than would be caught if it wasn't used. One reason is that profiling isn't going to catch violent criminals; if it catches anyone, it'll be drug users or dealers (since arrest-able evidence must be found on the suspect for profiling to work), and I don't view drug use as all that serious. The main reason I oppose it domestically is that the major 'suspect group' is young black men, followed by young Latino men. I belong to neither group, but I've talked to blacks who've been pulled over for DWB (Driving While Black), and I can imagine how it would affect them. Being searched just for belonging to a certain demographic group quickly creates resentment within the group searched, 95% of whom are perfectly innocent. I don't want any ethnic group feeling persecuted just for the sake of catching a few drug dealers.
Internationally, however, my feelings are less clear. I'll admit that I'm not as worried about making Arabs or Muslims feel less persecuted, as 1) terrorists tend to overwhelmingly be from their ethnic group, and 2) the crime, when it happens, can cause hundreds of deaths. Here, if profiling works, I'm all for it. The main question is, does it work? Not being an expert, I can't know. I believe that even the experts aren't in total agreement. My guess is that if you're going to search people, profiling works better than totally random searches, but statistically, the improvement in the success rate is going to be tiny. Millions of people travel by air each year, and on average, less than a dozen try to blow up a plane. To find one of those by a random search, even one assisted by profiling, would be a wild stroke of luck.
So, what to do? A few days ago, I was pointed by Andrew Sullivan's very good blog to an article about airport terror prevention that focused on how the Israelis do it. The Israelis, of course, have a large percentage of Arabs in their own population, and are the world's number one terrorism target. (Lest they seem too much like victims, let's remember that this is because they've been an occupying power against over a million Palestinians for the last four decades.) How do they handle it? The article explains it, and it's very interesting. You should read the article, but the very short answer is that they focus on looking into people's eyes rather than searching bags. Does it work? The record speaks for itself; Israel hasn't suffered from air terrorism for over three decades. Why don't we do this? I sure as hell don't know. I suppose the answer is that change is always difficult, that even for airport security, there's resistance to changing the way things are.
One of the important things I took away from that article was that we need to be flexible, to do what works rather than what we've always done. And most importantly, not to do stupid stuff just for the sake of appearing to be doing something. After the most recent terror attempt by this Nigerian guy Abdulmutallab, the airlines decreed that people wouldn't be allowed to walk around for the last hour of the flight. Oh, good idea! Now the terrorists will only be able to try to blow up the plane at 30,000 feet, rather than on approach! That'll help so much! I was stunned that this notion wasn't laughed out of whatever meeting it was brought up in. This kind of dumbass idea just shows that we're not serious about stopping terrorists. The Israelis are, so they do what works. Will we ever get serious about it? Hard to say. As I said, I don't know whether profiling works. If it does, let's use it, even if it's not P.C. If it doesn't, let's not use it just so we appear to be doing something. Ideology aside, let's do what works.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Why do they hate us?
That was a question many Americans asked after 9/11, and I heard it more than once around that time. Some people around me, knowing that I'm the type that reads history and the international section of newspapers, asked me variations on the question. But as the memory of 9/11 recedes, fewer and fewer people are asking.
The previous post dealt with President Obama's decision about sending troops to Afghanistan, and the fact that it's hard for people to make military judgments but within their power to decide whether we should be there at all or not. I said that it's perfectly reasonable for people to want the troops home, but one then has to face the fact that since Bush didn't do the job he should have done, leaving now would mean that there would likely be Al-Qaeda training camps there in the not-too-distant future. Obama is trying to prevent that outcome while insuring that U.S. troops will not be there indefinitely.
In this post, I want to talk about what we would have to think about if Obama had brought the troops home and abandoned the mission. First of all, it's entirely possible that nothing at all would have happened. Terrorist plots at varying stages have been foiled in the past, and will probably continue to be in the future. It might take some luck for Western governments to foil every one, but it's not out of the question. And it's going to be much harder for Arab terrorists to do anything like another 9/11, since at this point anyone who looks somewhat Arabic in America is going to get looked at the same way as a gangsta-outfitted young black man in a jewelry store. Not that all Arabs are terrorists, but most terrorists do seem to be Arabs. Hopefully, of course, racial profiling won't be necessary to do good police work.
Secondly, and more controversially, we could always dry up the supply of terrorists by doing less to offend the Muslim world. That would have been much easier six years ago, but the abuses (torture, Abu Ghraib, indefinite detention of innocents) of the Bush government will be recruiting tools for Al-Qaeda for the next few decades. Still, the election of a black man in America has had some positive impact on America's image in the world, and a change in policies would help the situation greatly. I'm referring specifically to America's Israel policy, in which America funds and arms a country that dominates and rules a few million Arabs, and is methodically integrating (i.e. stealing) and populating land which according to every international treaty and map does not belong to them. But might makes right, the Palestinians cannot fight back in any effective way, and the U.S. has been Israel's unwavering patron and supporter. A Palestinian who lost his brother, whose uncle's family was pushed into another country, whose father is in an Israeli jail, or whose grandfather who tells over and over again the story of how in 1948 Jewish militants pointed rifles at him and his family and told him to get off this land... why should he not consider America his enemy?
What, you ask, does this have to do with Al-Qaeda? Nothing, directly. But indirectly, it does. Famous images aired at the time show Palestinians firing rifles into the air in celebration the day after 9/11. Not that many did, of course, but while most Arabs were not happy that three thousand innocent people had died, many at the same time were pleased that finally someone had given America a bloody nose. It's that feeling that Obama wants to change, and this is a part of his outreach to the Arab world (including bowing more than the Right would like to see him do). It's called draining the swamp. Osama bin Laden will plot as long as he has money and men. We could bite into his supply of both with a more even-handed Israel policy.
The Right won't hear of this, because the last thing they want to do is what terrorists want us to do. But the irony is that while Al-Qaeda says they want America to get out of the Middle East, they really don't. What they want is an escalation of the conflict, because extremists on both sides of any conflict want it escalated, not solved. Fighting America raises Al-Qaeda's stature, whereas fighting Middle Eastern governments would be physically and politically dangerous. Al-Qaeda wants the whole Middle East to be united under their extremist version of Islam. They claim to be acting for the benefit of the Palestinians, but they don't give a damn about them. They cynically use the suffering of the Palestinians as a way to sweep up the anger and resentment of the Arab world and use it for their own ends, trying to be seen as standing up for Muslims. If America improved its Israel policy, Al-Qaeda wouldn't stop its activities... but support for it in the Arab world would ebb, and that's the important thing. Obama understands this, and he's been trying to make Israel policy less one-sided, but he can't change the political climate by himself. Unfortunately (more on this in a future post), putting real pressure (i.e. threatening to withhold aid unless certain policy changes are undertaken) on Israel isn't a politically feasible option in the U.S. right now.
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, they positioned troops to continue on into Saudi Arabia, but never did; this seems to have served as a near-death experience for the Saudis. Understandably nervous even after Kuwait was freed, the Saudis requested a U.S. troop presence. Al-Qaeda used this as a talking point, saying that infidel troops shouldn't be stationed on the holy soil that hosts Mecca and Medina. The troops stayed for over a decade, then finally left after the Iraq invasion in 2003, as Saudi Arabia no longer needed protection. Al-Qaeda, of course, did not give America any kind of credit for this, or ease up on their anti-American threats or activities. They threaten and attack America because it suits their political purposes. This wouldn't change if American was able to secure a just peace and independence for the Palestinians, but doing so would do much to ease the resentment from which Al-Qaeda derives its support.
In any case, just because Al-Qaeda wants us to do something doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to do it. This has been a real article of faith among the American Right: if Al-Qaeda wants us to do something, we must absolutely not do it, or we have surrendered to terrorists, or some such thing. This is as stupid as it is wrong, as it fails to consider that what Al-Qaeda says it wants and what it really wants may be different things. But those who use fear to support their policies have never been much for subtlety.
So, whether you favor or oppose Obama's Afghanistan policy, it's good to understand the background of the situation, and the consequences of your choice. There are alternatives to more troops; they're just more difficult, and require a bit more knowledge and thought. We just need to look at the situation from a point of view other than our own. That's never easy, but always useful, whether you're an individual or a country.
The previous post dealt with President Obama's decision about sending troops to Afghanistan, and the fact that it's hard for people to make military judgments but within their power to decide whether we should be there at all or not. I said that it's perfectly reasonable for people to want the troops home, but one then has to face the fact that since Bush didn't do the job he should have done, leaving now would mean that there would likely be Al-Qaeda training camps there in the not-too-distant future. Obama is trying to prevent that outcome while insuring that U.S. troops will not be there indefinitely.
In this post, I want to talk about what we would have to think about if Obama had brought the troops home and abandoned the mission. First of all, it's entirely possible that nothing at all would have happened. Terrorist plots at varying stages have been foiled in the past, and will probably continue to be in the future. It might take some luck for Western governments to foil every one, but it's not out of the question. And it's going to be much harder for Arab terrorists to do anything like another 9/11, since at this point anyone who looks somewhat Arabic in America is going to get looked at the same way as a gangsta-outfitted young black man in a jewelry store. Not that all Arabs are terrorists, but most terrorists do seem to be Arabs. Hopefully, of course, racial profiling won't be necessary to do good police work.
Secondly, and more controversially, we could always dry up the supply of terrorists by doing less to offend the Muslim world. That would have been much easier six years ago, but the abuses (torture, Abu Ghraib, indefinite detention of innocents) of the Bush government will be recruiting tools for Al-Qaeda for the next few decades. Still, the election of a black man in America has had some positive impact on America's image in the world, and a change in policies would help the situation greatly. I'm referring specifically to America's Israel policy, in which America funds and arms a country that dominates and rules a few million Arabs, and is methodically integrating (i.e. stealing) and populating land which according to every international treaty and map does not belong to them. But might makes right, the Palestinians cannot fight back in any effective way, and the U.S. has been Israel's unwavering patron and supporter. A Palestinian who lost his brother, whose uncle's family was pushed into another country, whose father is in an Israeli jail, or whose grandfather who tells over and over again the story of how in 1948 Jewish militants pointed rifles at him and his family and told him to get off this land... why should he not consider America his enemy?
What, you ask, does this have to do with Al-Qaeda? Nothing, directly. But indirectly, it does. Famous images aired at the time show Palestinians firing rifles into the air in celebration the day after 9/11. Not that many did, of course, but while most Arabs were not happy that three thousand innocent people had died, many at the same time were pleased that finally someone had given America a bloody nose. It's that feeling that Obama wants to change, and this is a part of his outreach to the Arab world (including bowing more than the Right would like to see him do). It's called draining the swamp. Osama bin Laden will plot as long as he has money and men. We could bite into his supply of both with a more even-handed Israel policy.
The Right won't hear of this, because the last thing they want to do is what terrorists want us to do. But the irony is that while Al-Qaeda says they want America to get out of the Middle East, they really don't. What they want is an escalation of the conflict, because extremists on both sides of any conflict want it escalated, not solved. Fighting America raises Al-Qaeda's stature, whereas fighting Middle Eastern governments would be physically and politically dangerous. Al-Qaeda wants the whole Middle East to be united under their extremist version of Islam. They claim to be acting for the benefit of the Palestinians, but they don't give a damn about them. They cynically use the suffering of the Palestinians as a way to sweep up the anger and resentment of the Arab world and use it for their own ends, trying to be seen as standing up for Muslims. If America improved its Israel policy, Al-Qaeda wouldn't stop its activities... but support for it in the Arab world would ebb, and that's the important thing. Obama understands this, and he's been trying to make Israel policy less one-sided, but he can't change the political climate by himself. Unfortunately (more on this in a future post), putting real pressure (i.e. threatening to withhold aid unless certain policy changes are undertaken) on Israel isn't a politically feasible option in the U.S. right now.
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, they positioned troops to continue on into Saudi Arabia, but never did; this seems to have served as a near-death experience for the Saudis. Understandably nervous even after Kuwait was freed, the Saudis requested a U.S. troop presence. Al-Qaeda used this as a talking point, saying that infidel troops shouldn't be stationed on the holy soil that hosts Mecca and Medina. The troops stayed for over a decade, then finally left after the Iraq invasion in 2003, as Saudi Arabia no longer needed protection. Al-Qaeda, of course, did not give America any kind of credit for this, or ease up on their anti-American threats or activities. They threaten and attack America because it suits their political purposes. This wouldn't change if American was able to secure a just peace and independence for the Palestinians, but doing so would do much to ease the resentment from which Al-Qaeda derives its support.
In any case, just because Al-Qaeda wants us to do something doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to do it. This has been a real article of faith among the American Right: if Al-Qaeda wants us to do something, we must absolutely not do it, or we have surrendered to terrorists, or some such thing. This is as stupid as it is wrong, as it fails to consider that what Al-Qaeda says it wants and what it really wants may be different things. But those who use fear to support their policies have never been much for subtlety.
So, whether you favor or oppose Obama's Afghanistan policy, it's good to understand the background of the situation, and the consequences of your choice. There are alternatives to more troops; they're just more difficult, and require a bit more knowledge and thought. We just need to look at the situation from a point of view other than our own. That's never easy, but always useful, whether you're an individual or a country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
