Current music:

Band of Horses - Our Swords

Intelligence and the Art of Restraint
Congratulations to India on reaching the point in the aftermath of their terrible national tragedy at which they start blaming their own government:

Indian intelligence agencies are leaking information that they gave about half a dozen warnings to the government in Maharashtra state - of which Mumbai is the capital.

While a unique situation in its own right, it brings to mind the accusations of foreknowledge of 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor. Governments are often faced with making decisions on what to act on and what not to act on and they always risk upsetting citizens no matter what decision they make. I would make the case that it is better to err on the side of freedom. Some may say that this is a horrible thing to say in the wake of what has been called the most organized terrorist attack since September 11th but in no way do I mean to say that the people in Mumbai or New York or Pearl Harbor should have lost their lives due to inaction. Other people might say that freedom and security are not ideas opposed to one another. I disagree. I think most people's concept of security is diametrically opposed to freedom.

The consequences of September 11th on U.S. policy are seen in the news everyday. War, the PATRIOT Act, secret prisons, prison abuse, unwarranted wiretapping... The truth is that what is happening in America today is so minute compared to the oppression in so many countries around the world. Yet look at the kerfuffle that something like the PATRIOT Act has caused among Americans. This is a direct result of 9/11, though, and the desire to up the ante in U.S. security. People were afraid and upset with the failures in our government that might have allowed such an attack to slip through the cracks. Those who consider 9/11 a failure of the Bush administration are among those responsible for the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War.

I'm not saying that government shouldn't work to improve intelligence or security. Given the nature of my job, I understand the importance of intelligence and as of late I have come to more understand its limitations and the necessity to improve it. Regardless, with any important piece of intel any government must arrive at the crossroads where a decision must be made; a decision that is bound to affect the public in some way whether they know it or not. To completely protect the public from every threat would require a crackdown that would not be accepted in any democracy. A democratic government that is supposed to be protecting the freedom of its people cannot jump the gun on threats that are vague and may not even seem plausible or possible.

This whole thing has made me think about what kind of actions we can now expect from the Indian government. Consider the fact that attacks on this scale always embarrass the government it happened under. Whether it was their fault or not, it looks bad. Now that the public and press are playing the blame game and pointing fingers, I figure an embarrassed government is more likely to go to greater lengths to "secure" their country. It sounds nice but think about what that really means. It means people will have to give up a some freedom in return for some security. If you think this has worked out well so far in the U.S. then fret not. If you think the restrictions of freedom on what is really a comparatively small number of people in this country has been a failed experiment, perhaps it's time to start scrutinizing. And please don't kid yourself about a better way of increasing security while maintaining the same level of freedom. History is not on your side.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

</soapbox>