over whether or not to allow a United Arab Emirates company control over shipping operations at six major US seaports is a red herring. The real issue is the shameful state of port security, part of an overall slackening of security measures.
Following 9/11 a wave of public outrage forced the formation of the Transportation Security Administration to replace private security firms at the nation's airports. The plan then was for the TSA to live up to the ""transportation" part of its title and eventually take over security at seaports, railroad stations, bus stations...everywhere that mass transit operated.
But the TSA hit a funding wall and was forced to lay off thousands of screeners. While the screener forces at the large, high-profile airports increased, the Federal Security Directors (FSDs) at smaller airports lost manpower. The inexperience of many FSDs and their command staffs has led to extremely high turnover rates, further aggravating the manpower shortage. Many Federal screeners are now part-timers.
The fact is that many airports don't have enough screeners to provide adequate security. Some regional airport checkpoints are run with as few as five screeners. That means that the screeners aren't allowed breaks or lunch. If one of them needs to use the can, the checkpoint must be shut down while he or she is gone.
So the plan (and there were colorful brochures and everything) for TSA to take over port security was abandoned, and we currently check perhaps 2 percent of containers entering the US on a good day. Port security reverted to already overstretched outfits; the Coast Guard and Customs Service.
The bottom line is that Islamist terrorists don't really need help from a middle eastern company to penetrate security at our ports.
1
So your arguement that it's a red herring is this?
"The bottom line is that Islamist terrorists don't really need help from a middle eastern company to penetrate security at our ports."
Nice. We should just give 'em visa's too. You know since they can cross the northern and southern borders what's the point in preventing them from entering via an airport?
We can be all up in arms over China filtering free speech ... but don't stand in the way of free trade no matter who the trading partner is.
Posted by: David at February 22, 2006 12:41 PM (BhVb3)
2
Bluto is right, I'm not sure of the reasons or the purpose but bluto's reason is as good as any. This frames some issues in some very interesting ways in some very interersting places. It's not what it appears at first glance. Could be realted to framing the security issue for the elections. It gives both the left and right in congress a way to distance themselves from Bush among other things I mentioned on Rusty's thread a few posts down. It helps congress domestically and Bush abroad.
Posted by: Howie at February 22, 2006 12:52 PM (D3+20)
3
That's right. The UAE port deal squabble is just a feelgood-look-at-how-brave-and-vigilant-I-am clusterfuck that doesn't mean shit.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 22, 2006 12:53 PM (RHG+K)
4
Don't worry about it, the UAE muslims are our friends. They really like us, they are the moderate muslims.
Posted by: john ryan at February 22, 2006 01:04 PM (TcoRJ)
5
You make a good point, but I'd especially disagree with what you wrote about screeners at our airports. We spend far too much on airport security. It's dispraportionate to the threat.
I think I'll post something on it with reference to "prospect theory" and the "status quo effect"
Posted by: Rusty at February 22, 2006 01:24 PM (JQjhA)
6
I disagree, Rusty, but if you want any information for your post just ask. There are some things I can't tell you without going to Leavenworth, but enough info is unclassified and/or already out there to curl your toes.
Remember, the big show is at the major airports. TSA makes sure that they have a surfeit of screeners there to convince the public that all is well. The small airports have been stripped to accomplish this. Of course, some of this is just because an FSD at a Cat X airport just has more juice than one at a Cat II, but the result is the same.
Ask yourself this:
"Am I comfortable with regional airports
near the Canadian border being understaffed?"
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 22, 2006 01:37 PM (RHG+K)
7
Yes, I am. Since 9/11, the danger to us has been severely minimized. Sreeners are, in my estimation, mostly wasted money. Unless the target is blowing up an airplane--unlike 9/11--then terrorists probably won't use planes again.
Why? Because they're not stupid. They know that people on board the plane will not let them use it as a bomb. Thus, the probability that they will hijack planes for the purpose of turning it into a missile, are much lower today than prior to 9/11.
The "status quo effect" is when people use past phenomenon to judge the risk of future events. It is a risk aversion fallacy becaue we tend to overestimate the risk of events that have already occured (another 9/11 plane scenario) and underestimate scenarios that have never happned (nuclear bomb in NY Harbor).
The example of 9/11 clearly illustrates the "status quo effecc". Prior to 9/11, airport security focused on screening for a) hijackers who had no intention of dying b) bombs set to blow up the plane. Because those two types of events had happened in the past, we misallocated resources to screen for them in the future.
However, because learning occurs, risks change over time. Risk estimation tends to be "sticky" because it is difficult to estimate the probability of an event occuring in the future which has never happened in the past.
It seems to me that we should be using our scarce resources to protect against terror events that have not yet occured, and therefore seem exploitable weaknesses to intelligent terrorists.
Posted by: Rusty at February 22, 2006 02:08 PM (PEYEf)
8
I find the President's personal position to be even more curious, under this red herring theory.
When the
inevitable security failure occurs, which it will with 2% lowfat inspections, you know the evil UAE infrastructure will be blamed, instead of the incompetent government flunky. This points the dagger of blame to President Bush, instead of the TSA.
National security is priority one.
.
Posted by: Insolublog at February 22, 2006 03:00 PM (DSeW+)
9
Rusty, I am in complete agreement with you. I think it is highly unlikely that we will see another 9/11 airliner-missle type scenario, but a dirty bomb or even perhaps a small nuclear device is possible, although not likely.
I think that the terrorists are much more likely to hit a mall, perhaps(and I dread to say it) a school, or a hospital, in a series of small attacks that could cause more casualties than 9/11. We are vulnerable to these attacks, especially in blue states where citizens do not have firearms or know how to use them. The local police are woefully unprepared to deal with this kind of terrorism, and that is why it is so important for citizens to be alert and armed. Our best defense against this type of attack is an alert citizen.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 22, 2006 03:40 PM (rUyw4)
10
Rusty, it may surprise you to know that I agree with you
vis-a-vis the nature of the threat - and so does the TSA. Terrorists will likely be ripped to shreds attempting a 9/11 type hijacking today.
That's why the emphasis in screening has moved to IEDs. If a terrorist gets a plane-destroying IED past security (and you would be amazed at how small a main charge that takes) and detonates it say on final descent to JFK; well, sir, we'd have a casualty rate that would be just unacceptably high.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 22, 2006 04:30 PM (RHG+K)
11
Bluto
Reference the TSA taking over all those responsibilities including mass trasit - they were over-reaching coming out the gate.
Multi-state, state and local authorities were no way going to give them up or lose any control (security or otherwise) over them. It was a dead issue from the start.
Federal money & funding after 9/11 has been a giant cash cow, and non-federal govt entities were not going to give up any access or control because of it, and jeopardize their cut.
Posted by: hondo at February 22, 2006 04:49 PM (fyKFC)
12
One more thing Bluto
when it comes to "security" - look at all the local pols screaming for "more funding". Accountiblity of money has been virtually nil - diversions have been widespread and massive. There is a scandal brewing under the surface that probably will not see the light of day for 20 years.
Just a taste - city of NO & state of LA was awarded millions in security funding for communications, emergency response services etc. The money was "spend" but nobody knows on what.
Posted by: hondo at February 22, 2006 04:58 PM (fyKFC)
13
Sorry, hondo, you're wrong on this one. That was the plan out of the gate, but TSA management squandered too much of their budget.
As for the state and local folks not being willing to give up control. They weren't willing to let the airports be Federalized, either, but that's what happened. Whether they stay Federalized or not is another matter.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 22, 2006 05:25 PM (RHG+K)
14
What's shameful is that the people of this country have become degenerate to the point that we will allow such things to even be contemplated. We need a good, old-fashioned revolution, complete with the mass hanging of scumbags; liberals, politicians, lawyers, muslims, et al.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 22, 2006 05:44 PM (0yYS2)
15
Bluto -
After reading your comment, I revised my blog post to reflect that you and Rusty had different perspectives on the issue. You will be happy to know that NEITHER of my readers is likely to be confused in light of my revised post.
- Eman
Posted by: Eman at February 22, 2006 09:16 PM (c/4ax)
16
You are all right . The Dubai authorities lack in transparency and past of being among only 3 countries recognizing the Taliban government does not make UAE or even Saudi any safer. On the other hand their option to join hands with terrorists can not be ignored after reading about what Koran says about Muslims vs. Non - muslims.
Posted by: M RAJ at March 01, 2006 03:23 AM (P7+MR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
