More on the illusion of 'perfect security'

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 4:58 PM Share

A quick follow-up to my previous post on the illusion of achieving perfect security against terrorist attack: Today's NY Times has an op-ed by Clark Kent Ervin, a former State Department official who know heads the Aspen Institute's Homeland Security program. Ervin makes a number of good points in his piece, but his wrap-up reveals a curious lack of understanding of the basic problem. He writes:

Perhaps the biggest lesson for airline security from the recent incident is that we must overcome our tendency to be reactive. We always seem to be at least one step behind the terrorists. They find one security gap -- carrying explosives onto a plane in their shoes, for instance -- and we close that one, and then wait for them to exploit another. Why not identify all the vulnerabilities and then address each one before terrorists strike again?"

Sorry, Mr. Ervin, but it is impossible to "identify all the vulnerabilities and address each one" beforehand. That is like asking a football coach to identify all the different ways the other team might try to score, and "address each one." The problem is that the other side can think and plan and innovate too, and develop creative new ways to deal with any security measure we might dream up. In any competitive, strategic interaction, there's rarely if ever a "last move" and one is sometimes forced to be reactive because the other side takes the initiative in ways we simply didn't think of. The best we can do is try to make it very hard for terrorists to attack us, which can both protect us directly and force them to take more elaborate measures that in turn makes it easier to find them beforehand.

But it is a little worrisome to read that a knowledgeable official with lots of experience still thinks it is possible to achieve some sort of perfect defense.

Tom Pennington/Getty Images

EXPLORE:INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, TERRORISM

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

KASSANDRA

7:16 PM ET

December 29, 2009

Singed underpants

After BBC showed the world the Detroit terrorist's singed underpants with the apparent explosive stitched into the crotch, I have this overwhelming feeling that the West is being played for a fool. A simple-minded diversion and more chaos and money spent. These guys should be writing a book on cost-benefit strategies.

GRANT

6:03 AM ET

December 30, 2009

I suspect Mr. Walt is already

I suspect Mr. Walt is already aware of this, but no official can say that they can't close every gap. It's possible that Mr. Ervin is deliberately suggesting something that he knows can't happen due to the nature of the problem (that is, identifying gaps after you've created a security system that is supposed to be fool-proof) but more to the point no official can publicly say that it is impossible to prevent every attack.
This is true of every nation, the legitimacy of a government rests largely on the fact that the government has a monopoly on violence, but in a nation that is so rarely attacked like the U.S it is even more pronounced.
Therefore, even if they can't identify every flaw until it is made apparent they will still claim that they will fix things. Get used to it, or if you're that frightened by the unlikely event of a terrorist attack then don't fly.

ANON_ANON

6:25 AM ET

December 30, 2009

i'm not so sure the

strategic interaction model is always appropriate. On its face, it looks entirely appropriate: two groups, one trying to accomplish something, the other trying to thwart its antagonist. Yet the moves DO seem kind of finite; in military terms, the terrain is known, and "the game" has been played millions of times already. There are finite ways to destroy an airplane. Again, El Al seems to have done well. Maybe they're not impregnable and have simply shifted terrorism elsewhere, but maybe appropriating their models - and overall philosophy - would be the right way to go.

KIMAC

6:38 PM ET

December 30, 2009

Don't get confused here: this is a Political Problem

The reality is that all the inevitable (over) reactions, from 911 to this incident, are political. No ambitious elected official or bureaucrat, or one that hopes to keep his job, can do less than what the Cheney adm did then or what Obama is doing now (at least up to the point of invading Iraq). The drumbeat, in any case, will build and the lowbrows will continue to shout "why didn't they do more???" (increase the volume volume realistic).

Walt et al: The only thing a "realist" can do is LEAD the hue and cry publicly, and wait for the next anything event to break the needs of the 24-hr news-cycle.

REALISM, as opposed to what this putz at the AI says, is precluded by the above, AND by the engineering and closed-system mindsets you typically find in security types. By security I don't mean national security necessarily, but the sort of guys who in a slightly different world/time would be selling home security systems; people who are really just under-endowed and over-educated beat-walkers.

You're right in general. Layered defenses that ASSUME a dedicated and relentless adversary are what works relatively, but NOT politically. Notice how the passengers stopped this thing cold; In terms of bang for the buck, reinforcing the cockpit door was a great idea, but from then on the good ideas/programs have tapered off sharply.

The real solution, to the extent there is one (who can hope to cure teenage alienation throughout the society?), is to address the underlying problems and the souce/s of this evil. That could means spending the money to drain the various swamps or adapting our our foreign policy, which ---once again--- leads to this really being much more of a political problem

SOLDIERSDIARY

8:38 AM ET

January 4, 2010

War is a duel

If you consider Clausowitz and his insight that war is a duel. When planning against other countires, armies, or even terrorists, we are not planning against a sttic enemy. The best metaphor would be to think of two wrestlrs, each is deciding what move to make next while at the same time reacting against what his opponent is doing. You can not just plan to counter what you think the enemy wil do (albeit you still must do this). you still have to react aginst them. This is the crux that those in our government do not seem to understand.