Terrorist attacks and the false specter of security

the hijacked planes, but rather the political chaos and confusion it caused in its aftermath. Because of the attacks, the United States launched a global war on terror, two land wars, and passed sweeping legislation that granted broad domestic policing and surveillance powers to the government. In addition, 9/11 elevated al Qaeda and terrorism into ideas that struck fear into every American. Al Qaeda achieved all this by mobilizing the mass media to spread terror across the nation when images of chaos, destruction, and panic stricken individuals were endlessly repeated.

To counter these feelings, the United States attempted to generate a narrative of invulnerability through decisive action. For instance, on 31 January 2007, Boston Police believed they found a series of bombs placed strategically throughout the city in highly trafficked public locations. Local officials shut down freeways and parts of the city’s mass transit system as a legion of law enforcement agents proceeded to examine, dismantle, and detonate the devices in an impressive show of force.

The devices turned out to be simple LED drawings of a popular cartoon character making an obscene gesture, and had been placed throughout most major cities without causing any trouble.

This example is not meant to mock law enforcement officials, but rather to illustrate the spectacular nature of terrorism and counterterrorism. Regardless of whether the threat was real or not, the government launched a tightly coordinated fast reaction campaign that employed technology, expertise, and manpower played over the media to assure the public that the government could guarantee their safety.

Compared to the number of deaths resulting from traffic accidents, gun violence, or smoking, a terrorist attack should be the least of our worries. However, it is the efficacy of terrorists in their use of spectacle that terrorism has become the highest priority in our national debate. Discussions that portray attempted attacks, like the 2009 Christmas Day attack, as a failure of the system play into the terrorists’ hands as those arguments focus on the absolute prevention of terrorism. This frames the national security debate as zero-sum and cedes terrorists a sizeable advantage as even a failed attack is seen as a failure of the government. That is to say, the terms of the current discussion of terrorism are set by terrorists and ensure their success – at least in the arena of psychology and perception.

It is smart for U.S. policymakers to conduct an after action review of what failures, if any, allowed a terrorist act to occur. But it is also okay for policymakers to come to the realization and acknowledge that no systemic failure took place and that one attack could never bring down the largest defense apparatus in the world. If we can acknowledge this fact now, we can start operating on the offensive in the theater of spectacle – and start winning.

Eugene K. Chow is the executive editor of the Homeland Security NewsWire