I haven’t been posting a lot lately. That should change here when my life and work calm down a bit. I logged on here with the intention of writing five posts for the day. Instead, you’re only getting one, but it’s five times as long.

You may have heard of the article over at the NYT opinion page asking “If you were a terrorist, how would you attack?” The author then invites his readers to pollute the comments with their best ideas on how to kill as many Americans as possible while causing maximum terror. And pollute they do.

Being some of the best thinkers on the net and not wanting to be outdone by those Freakanomics morons (who apparently feel that dreaming up the best way to kill Americans is relevant to an economics blog), we here at the CC will now provide you with no less than eleven fun and thought-provoking brainstorming activities for your noggins to munch on. Have fun:

If you were a democrat candidate, how would you snuggle up to the extremist kooks without alienating the other 10% of liberals?

If you were strong on defense, how would you try to look anti-war while advocating victory in Iraq? (it’s opposite day!)

If you were Scott Thomas Beauchamp, what false accusations would you write about your fellow soldiers?

If you were an editor at the New Republic, how would you ask a colleague what the phrase “fact checking” means without looking like you didn’t already know what it means?

If you were a guest at Abu Gharib, which would you prefer - the naked pyramid or panty-head torture?

If you were an Islamist, how would you make your beard more distinctive and memorable?

If you were an Islamist and could choose one joke for your martyr video, what would it be, and why?

If you were Osama bin Laden, would you prefer Lowes or HomeDepot for all your cave-improvement needs?

If you were an ACLU lawyer, whose side would you take if an unemployed female black muslim sued an undocumented latino transgendered atheist?

If you were the Goracle, would you take a vow of silence to reduce your carbon footprint?

And finally

If you were a NYT opinion writer, how would you fantasize about Islamic terrorism without coming off as a lunatic enamored with slaughtering Americans? (Trick question - you can’t)

OK, OK. Time for the serious commentary to commence. I have a real problem with that kind of discussion. In a way it’s giving them access to the part of our minds that they’re most interested in. It’s as if the terrorists are sitting us down and quizzing us about what it is that terrifies us, taking notes about where our national psyche is right now. Except in this case, Mr. Levitt is doing the honors, setting up a sort of terrorist pseudo-thinktank.

It does us no good to brainstorm terrorist strategies out in the open like this. Several people in the comments section of that article make the unsound assumption that it’s impossible to give the terrorists ideas since they’ve already thought of everything. That’s a bunch of bull. Your average Jihadi just ain’t that smart - even if he happens to be “educated”. He’s not always a step ahead of us. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. I’d say that many of the scenarios listed in the article and comments are superior to a lot of the terrorist attacks that have been attempted in this country and others. Look at the geniuses who rammed their SUV into the Airport in Scotland, then as the grand finale lit themselves on fire. Those were Doctors and that’s the best they could think up! I could think of a dozen better ways to wreak havoc with a car and a gas can. (But I won’t be sharing them with you or - ahem - them) The fact is your typical Jihadi is a mad but scared little man who has every excuse he needs to cause carnage but is just waiting for the “perfect opportunity”. Really, let’s not give them any ideas please.

Some of the commenters in the Freakanomics article believe that brainstorming terrorist attacks on a website is productive because the government can take steps to prevent the scenarios they dream up. Dream on. There’s so much wrong with that I don’t know where to begin. Realistically there can be little guarantee that a tactical defense against most forms of terrorism would be even marginally effective. In a free society it is practically impossible to defend against what amounts to a spontaneous random act of violence. And seriously, our government is going to proactively curtail our freedoms as necessary to defend against all conceivable terrorist tactics? Is that really what they think will happen? And this is from readers of the NYT? The paper that has repeatedly proved itself an impediment to our nations efforts to prevent terrorist attacks? They’re giving the government a hard enough time implementing the changes necessary to defend against types of attacks that have already happened. People complain about security at the airports even after watching the jet crashing into the WTC looped a million times over. Like there wouldn’t be massive resistance to security measures aimed at preventing a type of attack that hasn’t already splashed over every television in the world.

Lastly, this is an entirely unnecessary exercise because the government already has people exploring these possibilities behind closed doors. People smarter and more creative than Joe Blogger who reads the NYT and knows nothing about counter terrorism, or explosives, or weapons or anything. I recall after 9/11 they brought in Tom Clancy himself, along with other writers, and asked them to come up with scenarios. Trust me folks, you’re not going to come up with anything scarier than Clancy, so just don’t.

In conclusion, no, these discussions are not productive. Yes, you might actually give them an idea they didn’t have before. And yes, there are more creative and knowledgeable people than us already thinking up these scenarios in private to see what if anything can be done about them. I think this freakanomics article served only as a vent for a bunch of wannabe hellraisers to express their repressed violent tendencies in the context of a pertinent issue. And I got the impression that Levitt enjoyed this thought exercise a little too much.

The best way to combat terrorism is not to sit around coming up with worst case scenarios to which it is unlikely a meaningful defense can be formulated. It’s to do exactly what our leadership is already doing - and I might add - in the face of massive resistance:

1. Fight them over there. Take away their safe havens and state sponsors. The opposite of the left’s strategy which is to create safe havens (by retreating from Iraq) and propping up states sponsors of terrorism (by taking military options off the table and opening unconditional diplomatic efforts with Iran et. al.).

2. Massive Intelligence Nets. Allowing those spooks and analysts to do what they do best. Trying not to make certain people, places or activities out of bounds to them. Basically the opposite of the left’s strategy which is to bitch and complain about the Republican administration not finding a needle in a haystack, while simultaneous demanding certain haystacks remain unsearched (see terrorist wiretapping).

3. Public Vigilance. Encouraging citizens to keep their eyes open and report suspicious activities, spine tingles, gut feelings, whatever. The opposite of the democrat strategy which is to form an unholy alliance with CAIR to facilitate intimidating citizens into silence with reprisal lawsuits.

4. Freeze their assets. “Jihad don’t come cheap”. Not as expensive as a conventional war to be sure. But expensive nonetheless. Freezing their assets is a must. But don’t let that stop the BDS crowd from bellyaching about unprecedented abuse of power when Bush signs an executive order authorizing the freezing of funds arming the Iraqi insurgency.

5. Uh…defend the border? HA! Just kidding. And that’s why I cry.

And here’s the most important one.

6. People taking charge of their own emergency planning. Why the heck would you depend on the government in an emergency? Yea, they’ll be there to help you pick up the pieces afterwards. But when coming your way are the walls of flames, the clouds of toxic gas, the nuclear fallout, the hurricane, tornado, or angry mob, the best person looking out for you is YOU. Have your disaster plans in place before the stuff hits the fan. Plan your escape routes to avoid congested arterials. Have your gobags (duffel bags with supplies, gas masks, etc.) stored somewhere close by the door. Keep several days of food and water in reserve. Own a firearm and be prepared to use it. Don’t be the chucklehead standing in waist-deep water wondering when the government is going to come rescue you. This is the opposite of the left’s broad strategy, which is to take away your guns and condition you to be reliant on the government for everything including your own personal safety.

These items are the best way to prepare for or prevent a terrorist attack. The best thing the staff at the Old Gray Hag could do is shut up and get out of the way, instead of fantasizing about mass casualty attacks. Oh, and it wouldn’t hurt if they’d stop constantly revealing our intelligence secrets to the whole world.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS