The "what if?" counterfactual on the Times Square bombing
Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:05AM 
Mohammad al-Corey Feldman, according to Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"; a "clean skin" according to AG Eric Holder.
The bomb-training unit that supposedly prepped Faisal Shahzad was previously targeted by CIA drones, so there's that sense of payback.
The counterfactual to consider: What happens if a max death count ensues? Say, maybe a couple hundred bodies?
Well, first off, Obama is mercilessly targeted by the GOP in the usual, turnabout-is-fair-play mode.
Second, the Obama administration is required to make a big show of bombing the hell out of the direct links back in Pakistan.
Third, the US puts on a big show of calling Pakistan on the carpet.
Fourth, the US announces some sort of strategic review of our approach to NW Pakistan.
Fifth, we move according to the decisions of that review, and Pakistan counters with its own charges, moves, and diplomacy--likely to involve the Chinese?
Put the death total at a lot higher (better, bigger bomb and it works) and you just turbocharge that whole process.
But when the event fails, everybody breathes a sigh of relief--especially the Chinese!
And yet, if we move into the many-and-small-attacks world, every once in a while they will be successful, and so we'll need to get used to that, and develop some sense of proportional response that doesn't unduly freak out ourselves, the host nation, or its allies.
Reader Comments (5)
Being a natural born cynic, an old military Range NCO, among other things . . I tend to believe that, had they given that kid "Any Kind of explosives training" he could have, in the least, caused a small explosion and fire . . based upon what he had apparently put in the SUV . .
And They (al Queda Pak or the Taliban) didn't . . I'm not too sure, based upon what limited information has actually been released, that an explosion was actually intended . . they got almost as much "Terror' from the idea that it might . . .
A lot cheaper, and with much of the same result, and it cost this country and New York State far more than it cost the planners or instigators . .
As for "one never knows" when a real incident might happen, true, but until one happens, I think that those people are terrorizing this country on the cheap . .
Kinda like the joke bout the golf game and the "Gotcha!" . . Y'never know when the next "Gotcha!" is going to come . . .
We have been spared from more attacks because of the "Make no small plans" mindset of the old OBL cadre. Grand plans were the only ones acceptable after the success of 911. Grand plans have been hard to implement due to the increased vigilance and cooperation of intelligence services worldwide. Our military has done a superb job of keeping the terrorists off balance.
Our frenzied 24 hour news coverage of everything will make the "small plan' just as effective for propaganda purposes. No one was killed in New York, but the media acted as though we had surrendered the East Coast and the rest of America should take to the hills. We will have to learn to live with this constant threat. A little like living in tornado alley.
The most rational and calm media dialogue I recall was in the hours and days after 9/11, Was that the result of an early offline gov't and media executive dialogue, or the insight of mature media executives and reporters? Whatever, we can handle it if we use that experience as a model.
The only to prevent all attacks is if US were to give up all its privacy.
What you gain in security you loose in privacy.
And we are faced with the probability that most times someone
wants to attack the US they will use al Qaeda or the Taliban as
cover, nutz tend to look for allies, justification.
And the Terrorist welcome the nutz, as they fit their objectives.
And the Terrorist are ideal for false flag ops, as they will
lie about associations and support to further their terrorism
agenda.
So the nut cases will try and blend in with the Terrorists,
US needs to be able to separate them out and achieve
an accurate understanding of the real threat, Taliban Global
reach or Nutz adoptions. The difference is a significant element
in USA safety and planning. Statistical analysis may generate
some good guide lines. And provide more reliable, accurate paradigm
for proportional responses.
G
Anthropologist
Getting the populace to shift into suspicious mode in America is VERY difficult. As a whole they (general population)....
-Watch way too many crime shows. Much unreality.
-Have insane expectations from Police and first responders due to crime shows.
-24 hour news cycle and overblown coverage (as mentioned by Ted...seconded motion carries).
-Think the "CIA" is some form of magic talisman against attack.
-Don't understand Miranda, rules of evidence, large bits of the Constitution, etc.
-Terror is a tactic. Shoot, bomb or kidnap. That is what they do...scale is relevant but it really is that simple. Gotta educate the masses on that. We are still stuck on proper call in of potentiality DUI drivers. This educational process will take a good bit of time.
Response to his type of attack will (I hope) be about as routine as cleaning up a fatal multi car crash or a homicide. Time consuming and fiddly, but once you know how, pretty straight forward. It sucks if you were involved and sometimes people die but society still moves on.