Sullivan approvingly quotes a correspondent:
A reader asks a very interesting question about the undie-bomber - why did he get back into his seat to detonate a bomb that had a ramshackle detonator and where he could be overcome by fellow travelers? Read the whole email:I keep hearing this even described as a failed terrorist attack on an airplane. But was it really? I keep hearing about how the system failed, but did it really? Think about it. First, what is the major goal of terrorism? It is not to bring down airplanes. It is not to destroy the West. It is, pure and simple, to create terror in people. Why? Because when people are afraid they overreact. And this includes most of us, yourself included.
If either of them had been paying attention, they would have noted that he had specifically requested and been seated in an overwing window seat - over the fuel tanks and the most important structural part of the plane.If the intent of al Qaeda in this latest instance was to bring down an airplane, then it failed. But if its intent was to create fear and overreaction, then it succeeded Personally, I think it was the latter. It is quite possible (in fact I think probable) that the people who planned this event, and used the young man from Nigeria as a tool, were aware that due to security measures in place, there was no way they could actually get a bomb through that would actually work. The detonation equipment needed would have been detected. The same applies, by the way, to the shoe bomber.
Again, think about it. If you wanted to blow up a plane, would you attempt it from your seat, where somebody could quite possibly stop you? No, you would go to the washroom where you could set off the bomb without disruption.
It's not clear that he had enough explosive to breach either, even if it had successfully detonated. But he was clearly sitting in the best place if his intention was to blow the plane up or crash it.
If he'd blown himself up in the bathroom? Ask the passengers on Aloha flight 243 in 1988...you can because they all survived.
Sullivan and his commentator are lining up with many others in the liberal commentariat to note that "terrorism really isn't that big a deal." That's a disastrous premise electorally, and it's deeply wrong. I've written about that in the past and will try and do so again soon.
-
Sullivan hasn't had any credibility to woosh away in some time, although his growing paranoia and penchant for tin foil remains as entertaining as ever.
Regardless, the premise makes no sense on its face. If AQ just wanted to scare people... well according to this logic its done the opposite and given us instead a sense of security.
Occams razor suggests we continue to be blessed with inept enemies. Small wonder the modernity hating zealots busy burning down schools and killing scholars can't build a working bomb any American 7th grader worth his salt could put together off plans on the internet.
On the other hand, sooner or later they are going to dig up some operatives to replace the ruthlessly efficient 911 crew.
I guess Andrew missed the press conference. As of 5:00 PM EST, it was no longer cool to pretend that the attempted bombing was no big deal.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the "journalists".
Henry the VI, Part 2
The real problem for Sullivan and his ilk is that he's faced with a dilemma because he knows his ideology won't support actions that would be effective against this threat. So he must either re-assess because of his ideology's failure in the real world, or pretend there's no threat. It's clear which way he has chosen.
Sullivan has an ideology?