Angry in the Great White North

The post 9/11 reality saw a focus on the physical security of the transportation system, with special emphasis on air travel, to deny terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists bent on attacking civilians, the opportunity to use the transportation system to aid in their arracks.

Are we going to see a similar shift in the post 7/7 reality? I think we will, but the opportunity denied the terrorists will be political, not physical.

The attacks on London seemed to pale in comparison to 9/11. The damage was severe, of course, but the means and scale suggest that security protocols to prevent the horrendous damage of 9/11 are working, denying the terrorists the use of aircraft as weapons, forcing them to use bombs no larger than can be carried on a city street without arousing suspicion.

The opportunity afforded the terrorists was not the use of aircraft as weapons, but the use of a political event as cover; in this case, the large scale violent political protests against the G8 summit.

In hindsight, it is no surprise that the attacks occurred in London, and not Gleneagles or Paris or Washington. Gleneagles, the site of the summit, was guarded by a massive security operation. Normal security was in force in capitals like Washington and Paris. But security in London, as well as the rest of the UK, was spread thinly, and distracted, as Britain was hosting the G8 in Scotland.

Of course, hosting the G8 would entail a shift of national security forces to the site of the summit, but the shift was greater than would be needed under normal circumstances because of the promised presence of anarchist forces, with their vow to to cause trouble above and beyond merely demonstrating. For months, they vowed to disrupt and attack the summit. Previous international summits of this kind have seen legitimate political rallies turn into running battles with security forces because of the actions of radical anarchists and their manipulation of the crowds.

Furthermore, in the face of the public announcements by anarchists of forthcoming violence, security officials in the UK have been forced to publicly announce details of the massive security operation well ahead of the conference, in the hope of detering at least some of the anarchists, and to assure the media that the summit would be well defended.

The problem is that Al Qaeda terrorists read the paper and watch TV. If a terrorist was trying to pick a date for an operation, why not 7/7? The world media is focused on the UK. Large numbers of foreigners, especially thousands of protesters, converging on Britain provides an opportunity to slip in operatives, if needed. Planned violent protests are guaranteed to happen within the UK but well away from London, and security officials have already announced that thousands of troops will be shifted to deal with those protests.

As a terrorist looking for every way to maximize the chances of success, an attack using the anti-globalization rioters as cover makes perfect sense. It exploits a weakness to maximum advantage. If I had a choice of attacking on a day when security in London was on normal footing, or on a day when it was weakened, however marginally, I would certainly choose the latter.

Look for that weakness to be addressed in the weeks and months to come. Just as after 9/11, security officials worked to ensure that terror could not ride in on aircraft, after 7/7, officials will look to see how terror can be denied a ride in on pre-planned violent political rallies.

Future summits might be hosted in more remote locales, or even on aircraft carriers at sea, thus relieving civilian security forces from having to protect a nation from both anarchists and Al Qaeda at the same time.

Look also for authorities to start cracking down on the anarchist movement. Until now, promises of violent protests on web sites have been tolerated. The arrival of anarchists to summit locations have been permitted, and their rallies and marches allowed. Only when the vandalism starts or police lines are attacked, often drawing in otherwise non-violent protesters, have the security forces responded.

That strategy is very expensive in manpower, which might have provided Al Qaeda with the opportunity it was looking for.

The cheaper approach will be to preempt the gatherings of anarchists and violent anti-capitalist radicals at every step. Stiffer sentences for movement leaders, laws to make the prosecution of promoting "direct action" easier, tougher travel restrictions for suspected anarchists, strict enforcement of limitations on rally sizes, and more immediate action against rallies at the first hint of trouble -- all these and more might become the norm, as locked cockpit doors are today.

Some will argue that some civil liberties will be lost here, handing over a victory to the terrorists. The response, of course, is that vandalizing property, rioting, and issuing death threats are not civil liberties. The best way to ensure that those liberties are preserved will be for citizens, that is non-violent protesters, to work with authorities to purge their ranks of the anarchists and violent radicals.

Despite the horrors we've seen in London, I don't see these people aiding police in any way, so the authorities will be forced to go it alone.

[Mudville Gazette looks at how demoralized the protesters are now. Feeling a bit used, perhaps?]