"We don't hear about the successes"

[Darth Wong]

I often hear this "we don't hear about the successes" line about various terrorist attacks which have been thwarted by Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, or simply the overwhelming aura of George W. Bush's indomitable Christian righteousness.

So how do we know that these successes are real? Wouldn't you think that if they foiled a plot and arrested suspects, they might say something about it? Or are they arresting and trying people in secret? Or are they not arresting anybody, hence casting the widespread claims of numerous secret successes into doubt?

[kojikun]

I think it's all bs, until they start showing some goods. Like, you know.. a news report about a terrorist bombing thats evaded, maybe?

[Howedar]

By nature some of the attacks that were foiled would not be known to anyone but the intended attackers. However, one would think that at least some of the foiled attacks would be discovered and announced.

As I recall, there was an incident on the US-Canada boarder in Washington around Dec. 1999 that could be considered a foiled attack. My memory is a bit hazy on that one, though.

[Sea Skimmer]

Any attacks that have been foiled, where probably foiled at such an early stage of planning that we'd never know. It's not much of a victory, but beating terrorism campaigns is like that, unless the enemy is only a single group launching one attack at a time in which case things are much easier. Against a large organization you're fighting a war of attrition, complicating how they plan makes launching attacks harder. That does lead to fewer attacks, even though you still won't be stopping those they do launch. But that's what a war of attrition looks like, long drawn out fighting lacking in notable victories. But then one day it all stops... or not if neither side is ever fully committed.

[18-Till-I-Die]

There's an old joke about a guy who claims this rock he found can keep tigers away, so when asked how, he responds "Well, there are no tigers around here, so it must be on full blast".

It seems to fit this situation.

[Col. Crackpot]

There's an old joke about a guy who claims this rock he found can keep tigers away, so when asked how, he responds "Well, there are no tigers around here, so it must be on full blast".

It seems to fit this situation.

thats a piss poor analogy. The sad fact is that we really don't know when the victories are won and attacks are thwarted.,, with a few exceptions. Remember the Buffalo 6? The failed attempt to cross the US/Canadian border on new years eve 1999? How many more were stopped early with arrests? we can't say.

[The Kernel]

thats a piss poor analogy. The sad fact is that we really don't know when the victories are won and attacks are thwarted.,, with a few exceptions. Remember the Buffalo 6? The failed attempt to cross the US/Canadian border on new years eve 1999? How many more were stopped early with arrests? we can't say.

By that same token we don't know if there are any substantial thwartings at all, so why should we assume that there are?

[Joe]

To be entirely honest I don't think I can recall anyone applying that phrase to homeland security of the Patriot Act. I've only heard it applied to agencies like the NSA and CIA, where 95 percent of what they actually do is never made public.

[RedImperator]

I have heard it applied to Homeland Security occasionally, but it's reserved more for the FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, local cops, etc. The unforutnate fact is, as Sea Skimmer said, that most of your successes in a campaign like this will come from disrupting plans so early in the process we don't even know about it--how many would-be successful plots were locked up in the brains of guys whose corpses are rotting in collapsed caves in Afghanistan, for example? Big spectactular successes like the Buffalo 6 or thwarting the Milennium plot are rare. Big spectactular failures are rare too, but the nature of this war is that we can succede 99 our of 100 times and all anyone will remember is the 1 time we lost.

I don't think the "magic tiger repelling rock" analogy is valid, by the way, and I think the reason should be obvious. A rock cannot repel a tiger, and so it's obvious to anyone with any grasp of logic that whatever reason there aren't any tigers around, it isn't because of the rock. However, good intelligence gathering, freezing terrorist bank accounts, better security, killing or arresting terrorists overseas or while they're laying low in the United States, etc. all CAN logically thwart terrorism, and if there isn't an attack while those things are happening, you can conclude that it's at least POSSIBLE what you're doing is working. If you can prove there's something else happening that's causing the lull--the so-called flypaper effect in Iraq, for example, then you could claim that the "unseen successes" are all bullshit, but otherwise I don't think you can dismiss them out of hand.

On the other hand, the analogy WOULD be accurate if people were claiming things which realistically would have no effect on terrorism were the cause of the lull--the more odious provisions of the PATRIOT act come to mind, or the colored alert scheme which has been rendered meaningless by the fact it's never been below yellow.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I often hear this "we don't hear about the successes" line about various terrorist attacks which have been thwarted by Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, or simply the overwhelming aura of George W. Bush's indomitable Christian righteousness.

So how do we know that these successes are real? Wouldn't you think that if they foiled a plot and arrested suspects, they might say something about it? Or are they arresting and trying people in secret? Or are they not arresting anybody, hence casting the widespread claims of numerous secret successes into doubt?

What i don't get is kinda simplistic. Why make an act that allows for secret arrests? Can't they just do it in secret without it? If no one knows either way, for what do they want to make it legal? I wouldn't know, as a citizien, if someone were arrested and detained by the government. If they can keep the specific families quiet in such case, I really don't see the point to such a provision. Can't they keep the families quiet anyway?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

This is very much like the gun controle arguement, RE defencive use VS criminal use.

You almost never hear, by definition, crimes that are detered by the brandishing of a firearm. (How do you report a non event? Claiming you pulled out a piece, and made the bad guy wet himself and run away opens YOU up for prosecution in many cases, because you have just confessed to breaking the law to save a life and or property theft.)
Yet Crimes involving guns are front page material. (If it bleeds, it leads.)
Also, there is press bias, (guns having ANY legitamate use is anathma to many lefties and libs) and discouragement by law enforcement. (Most police departments just don't WANT more guns on the street, even ones in the hands of law abiding citizens.) Most police departments have a policy in place, (Often violated in a nudge nudge wink wink way by average policemen) of actively discouraging citizens from defending themselves.


How does this relate to Spooks, spies, terrorists and whatnot? (NO, this isn't a blatant threadjack!)

Simple. The actual numbers about crimes foiled, and terrorist plots foiled are both sets of data are completely unknowns to the general public.

One isn't even being collected, one isn't being told because it is classified.
One is not collected for political reasons, one isn't being made public for security reasons.

To me, the scariest part, is we HAVE to trust those in charge, (:? Because only they TRULY know how successful they are) and there are many that believe that there is NO danger.
Both are extremes, but one will lead to a police state, one disaster.

[tharkûn]

Take a look at Israel, how many news stories are there about thwarted suicide bombers? Despite the fact that the frequency of such bombings has plummeted from earlier levels it doesn't make press.

How do we know that the US has any real successes? We don't. Just as we didn't know of any CIA successes to thwart Soviet acquisition of advanced technology nor did anyone outside of the highest levels of government know how Enigma was broken. There is a simple reason for this, whatever the public knows, the enemy knows as well.

This is important because such information can allow the enemy to know how he was foiled. If, for instance, an informant tips off the authorities and a cell is aprehended, then you desperately don't want that arrest to go public. If there are only ten people in the organization who knew of that cell, it makes it that much easier to start tracing leaks ... which causes em to dry right up. Likewise in the '90s the US caught some AQ by tapping into Osama's Satellite phone, since AQ figured out that such phones were vunerable, it no longer uses them. Classification on the side of caution is definately the way to go here (particularly with the way Washington is leaking like a seive these days).

As previously noted, most of the foiled "plots" are going to come too early into the process to be noteworthy, any that are noteworthy are likely to involve assets that you desperately don't want compromised. Aside from political points what exactly do you gain by ever coming forward?

[Darth Wong]

Some valid reasons have been brought up for the lack of reporting, but they do not resolve the question of why we're supposed to believe that there have been a large number of foiled terrorist plots. Lines like "how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed" are still fairly analogous to the magic tiger-repelling rock. Even before any of these government changes in the US, Al-Quaeda only launched major attacks once every few years, and generally not at the same targets as the previous ones or even in the same country.

[Stark]

Aww, everyone stopped saying 'thwarting'. I am sad.

I think it's true that busting up a cell of terrorists, or disrupting plans, and other methods of thwartation usually don't leave much basis for telling the public 'and they were going to attack all Wal-marts', wouldn't they say SOMETHING, to demonstrate that there's any activity at all? With the CIA et al they can't do this, since alot of what they do is illegal and based on secrecy, but with the Homeland security shindig shouldn't it all be above board?

[tharkûn]

I think it's true that busting up a cell of terrorists, or disrupting plans, and other methods of thwartation usually don't leave much basis for telling the public 'and they were going to attack all Wal-marts', wouldn't they say SOMETHING, to demonstrate that there's any activity at all? With the CIA et al they can't do this, since alot of what they do is illegal and based on secrecy, but with the Homeland security shindig shouldn't it all be above board?

Not really. Take homeland security, let suppose that miraculously, AQ tried to bring agents into the US but the passports are found to be fakes. If you catch the bastards you do NOT make that news public; if you can coerce them into doubling, it is best if AQ thinks they were never caught. Likewise if you catch a guy scoping out a chemicals plant in Texas you do not release the details of how or were you caught him - there is a small chance you can nab another guy at the same plant.

What in bloody hell do you actually gain by releasing any information at all? Political points? Results at the polls come november?

The odds that anything substantial will not also be too sensitive not to keep under wraps are damningly small, particularly when the frequency of major attacks is so low anyways.

[Darth Wong]

Not really. Take homeland security, let suppose that miraculously, AQ tried to bring agents into the US but the passports are found to be fakes. If you catch the bastards you do NOT make that news public; if you can coerce them into doubling, it is best if AQ thinks they were never caught.

Of course, because their sudden mysterious disappearance and complete lack of subsequent communications of any kind would never conceivably be interpreted by other members of their cell as bad news

Likewise if you catch a guy scoping out a chemicals plant in Texas you do not release the details of how or were you caught him - there is a small chance you can nab another guy at the same plant.

See above.

What in bloody hell do you actually gain by releasing any information at all? Political points? Results at the polls come november?

Irrelevant what anyone has to gain. The point is that there is no evidence of these brilliant moves, hence the widespread claim that there's boatloads of them are nothing more than an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

[Drooling Iguana]

There's an old joke about a guy who claims this rock he found can keep tigers away, so when asked how, he responds "Well, there are no tigers around here, so it must be on full blast".

It seems to fit this situation.

Eight years, two months, nineteen days old, to be exact. That's how long it's been since the episode of The Simpsons that that quote originally comes from aired.

[Gandalf]

There's an old joke about a guy who claims this rock he found can keep tigers away, so when asked how, he responds "Well, there are no tigers around here, so it must be on full blast".

It seems to fit this situation.

Eight years, two months, nineteen days old, to be exact. That's how long it's been since the episode of The Simpsons that that quote originally comes from aired.

I'm pretty sure that joke existed before that ep of the Simpsons aired.

[Drooling Iguana]

Blasphemy! The Simpsons are the Alpha and Omega. They were there before the beginning, and will continue long after everything we know is gone!

[tharkûn]

Of course, because their sudden mysterious disappearance and complete lack of subsequent communications of any kind would never conceivably be interpreted by other members of their cell as bad news

This is not all or nothing; the chance exists that they could effectively double. It may be high, it may be low. As long as it is non-zero you don't go to the press. It is quite conceivable that the other members might read bad news in the wind, however it is not certain.

See above.

Again not all or nothing. Likelihood is pretty damn low, but nonzero.

Irrelevant what anyone has to gain. The point is that there is no evidence of these brilliant moves, hence the widespread claim that there's boatloads of them are nothing more than an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

I've never heard the claim that there are boatloads of em from anyone but you. I've heard plenty of talk about killing craploads of terrorists, and a handful of thwarted plots (almost all in the earliest stages of planning).

Again anything significant is most likely sensitive enough to keep classified, anything not sensisitive is most likely too early in the planning to be noteworthy.

What stoods to be gained by releasing information IS relevant. One of the major pillars of intelligence is stopping the other guy from knowing what you know about them.