Who Benefits From Terror Alerts?
A pilot has several options when faced with an approaching storm. Allowing the passengers to vote on how best to avoid it is not one of them. This not only doesn’t solve the problem, it also might cause an outbreak of panic. Passengers should do their homework to determine which airline is best for them. But once they’re on the airplane, the people in whom the passengers have placed their trust are accountable. It’s much the same when opposing terrorist threats.
Along with possible terrorist attacks come questions. First, are the warnings realistic? Possibly. Especially when they’re so generalized as they are now. Cassandra is always right. Terrorist attacks can never be dismissed out of hand, whether it’s an election year or not.
Next question. Who benefits from the warnings? Certainly those who disseminate them. Nobody can later claim they weren’t warned. So a warning gives them cover. Besides, in an atmosphere of fear, repressive actions are easier to force through than usual. Laws that were enacted to combat the RAF terrorists active from 1970 through 1998 are still in force today. Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble used the occasion of the world soccer championships in an attempt to resurrect his desire to use the German army in domestic situations. He will try to do so again. Anyone care to bet?
Further. Who doesn’t benefit from the warnings? The people. At least not as long as they’re never given any options for action other than to freeze like a rabbit confronted by a rattlesnake.
None of this is to suggest that those responsible should do nothing. On the contrary, there’s plenty that could be done, and all without much drama. Shortcuts for civil defense organizations could be reinstated and made retroactive, for example, and chaos in jurisdictions and within the guidelines could be clarified and removed. But such things don’t lend themselves readily to political rhetoric.
Last question. How seriously do those in charge take their own warnings? Since the end of the Cold War, there’s not a single area-wide warning siren network left in existence in Germany.
Along with possible terrorist attacks come questions. First, are the warnings realistic? Possibly. Especially when they’re so generalized as they are now. Cassandra is always right. Terrorist attacks can never be dismissed out of hand, whether it’s an election year or not.
Next question. Who benefits from the warnings? Certainly those who disseminate them. Nobody can later claim they weren’t warned. So a warning gives them cover. Besides, in an atmosphere of fear, repressive actions are easier to force through than usual. Laws that were enacted to combat the RAF terrorists active from 1970 through 1998 are still in force today. Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble used the occasion of the world soccer championships in an attempt to resurrect his desire to use the German army in domestic situations. He will try to do so again. Anyone care to bet?
Further. Who doesn’t benefit from the warnings? The people. At least not as long as they’re never given any options for action other than to freeze like a rabbit confronted by a rattlesnake.
None of this is to suggest that those responsible should do nothing. On the contrary, there’s plenty that could be done, and all without much drama. Shortcuts for civil defense organizations could be reinstated and made retroactive, for example, and chaos in jurisdictions and within the guidelines could be clarified and removed. But such things don’t lend themselves readily to political rhetoric.
Last question. How seriously do those in charge take their own warnings? Since the end of the Cold War, there’s not a single area-wide warning siren network left in existence in Germany.
Previous article![]( "The Republican Force of Michael Steele")
Next article![]( "Steinmeier Meets Hillary Clinton")
