25 August 2006
Waylaid in Washington
I have only twice felt this way before: once after the Californian earthquake in 1989 and the other in 1998 when I just avoided taking the Swissair flight from New York to Geneva that ended up crashing into the sea. It’s a feeling of loss of basic security; that normal things – like the ground staying still – can no longer be taken for granted, and that the status quo has in some way been fundamentally disrupted. Like Yogi Berra once said, I would really like the status quo to remain just the way it is.
This time, it’s the announcement that terrorists have been arrested in London.
It doesn’t help that the second I turn the television on in my hotel in Washington, after getting off the BA flight from London, coincides with the very moment CNN announces that the terrorists were targeting British Airways flights from London to Washington; nor that one of my fellow passengers looked like Osama bin Laden complete with beard and carefully studied relaxed look. My left brain was thinking “he’s got a bomb!” while my right was lecturing me on racism and arguing that he was probably just a journalist, political lobbyist, or perhaps even a Cisco salesman.
But after the spell of disaster-itis fades, the whole incident looks over-blown. The group of terrorists who have been arrested were apparently planning to blow up a series of planes using explosives disguised as household items such as toothpaste. The predictable reaction has been to ban everything as a carry-on, other than passport, wallet and ticket. Colleague James, who is in New York, decides to head back to London. With the current carry-on restrictions he cannot take his laptop, or even a book. He complains about being stuck in a departure lounge for 3 hours with only his passport to read. It’s not encouraging.
There’s lots of debate on American television, including a rather earnest man with the title “Security Expert” saying that the recent easing of carry-on restrictions had created a security hole. It turns out that he is referring to knives, where pre-9/11 it was possible to take almost any knife on board. The 9/11 attackers had Stanley knives (box cutters in American), that were used to slit the throats of passengers and crew. Afterwards, knives were banned to the point of even the table knife and fork on board being made of plastic. The easing that the Expert was referring to was the recent decision to allow nail trimmers (without nail files), which have no blade to speak off, and open by no more than 2mm. I can’t imagine how that could possibly cause a security threat, other than perhaps to threaten the Captain with a manicure.
I wonder whether I can get out of Washington; perhaps it would be better to go on to California rather than back home to France? My instinct is to go on, away from the chaos of Heathrow, but eventually I decide to head back, and check in for the next available flight for London. Transiting in Heathrow, the book I have bought airside in Washington is removed as a “security risk”. Like the nail clippers, perhaps I could bash the Captain over the head with a John Grisham paperback. Even if the airlines disallowed all luggage, made us wear Orange jumpsuits, handcuffed us to the seats, life would not only not be completely safe (anyone fancy swallowing a condom of Semtex?), it would definitely be miserable.
On board, there is a great article from the Daily Telegraph (which is not usually my favourite paper): “Over-reacting to terrorism is no way to defeat it”. It argues for a measured and proportionate response to a small group of poorly equipped fanatics. It reminds me of the book “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, where an immense war machine is sent to battle another world, only to be eaten by a small dog, because they got the scale wrong.
A colleague of mine used to describe bad crisis management as “Left side of ship”. To restore balance, too much is done that then causes a worse imbalance. It’s not hard to see the over-reaction created by this incident is a “Left side of ship”. The inconsistency of the security measures is staggering: you can take flammable Duty Free spirits on board, with matches, but no water; carry-on bags are banned, checked-in bags are only hand searched in the US (whereas in other countries they are just X-rayed) while freight is not checked at all. Knives are banned, but a broken glass or bottle is not. The airports have tight security, while train stations and the Channel Tunnel barely any or none. I could go on.
Politically, it’s a disaster too. Scenes in London of screaming sirens, roped-off areas, interminable queues and swarms of policeman are beamed around the world. They provide valuable PR to the terrorists, presenting Britain as a fractured society, with all or most of the suspects being British nationals. It is bound to make travellers jumpy, and copy-cat terrorists to plan with increased vigour. The terrorists may not have killed anyone this time, but they have had a resounding success.
In a queue in London, I start talking to a man about his view on the situation, the possible attack and his feeling towards the terrorists. “Fuck 'em” is his reaction; “I’m not going to let them change the way I run my life”.
What a shame the politicians and the authorities did not react with the same old-fashioned British phlegm.
This time, it’s the announcement that terrorists have been arrested in London.
It doesn’t help that the second I turn the television on in my hotel in Washington, after getting off the BA flight from London, coincides with the very moment CNN announces that the terrorists were targeting British Airways flights from London to Washington; nor that one of my fellow passengers looked like Osama bin Laden complete with beard and carefully studied relaxed look. My left brain was thinking “he’s got a bomb!” while my right was lecturing me on racism and arguing that he was probably just a journalist, political lobbyist, or perhaps even a Cisco salesman.
But after the spell of disaster-itis fades, the whole incident looks over-blown. The group of terrorists who have been arrested were apparently planning to blow up a series of planes using explosives disguised as household items such as toothpaste. The predictable reaction has been to ban everything as a carry-on, other than passport, wallet and ticket. Colleague James, who is in New York, decides to head back to London. With the current carry-on restrictions he cannot take his laptop, or even a book. He complains about being stuck in a departure lounge for 3 hours with only his passport to read. It’s not encouraging.
There’s lots of debate on American television, including a rather earnest man with the title “Security Expert” saying that the recent easing of carry-on restrictions had created a security hole. It turns out that he is referring to knives, where pre-9/11 it was possible to take almost any knife on board. The 9/11 attackers had Stanley knives (box cutters in American), that were used to slit the throats of passengers and crew. Afterwards, knives were banned to the point of even the table knife and fork on board being made of plastic. The easing that the Expert was referring to was the recent decision to allow nail trimmers (without nail files), which have no blade to speak off, and open by no more than 2mm. I can’t imagine how that could possibly cause a security threat, other than perhaps to threaten the Captain with a manicure.
I wonder whether I can get out of Washington; perhaps it would be better to go on to California rather than back home to France? My instinct is to go on, away from the chaos of Heathrow, but eventually I decide to head back, and check in for the next available flight for London. Transiting in Heathrow, the book I have bought airside in Washington is removed as a “security risk”. Like the nail clippers, perhaps I could bash the Captain over the head with a John Grisham paperback. Even if the airlines disallowed all luggage, made us wear Orange jumpsuits, handcuffed us to the seats, life would not only not be completely safe (anyone fancy swallowing a condom of Semtex?), it would definitely be miserable.
On board, there is a great article from the Daily Telegraph (which is not usually my favourite paper): “Over-reacting to terrorism is no way to defeat it”. It argues for a measured and proportionate response to a small group of poorly equipped fanatics. It reminds me of the book “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, where an immense war machine is sent to battle another world, only to be eaten by a small dog, because they got the scale wrong.
A colleague of mine used to describe bad crisis management as “Left side of ship”. To restore balance, too much is done that then causes a worse imbalance. It’s not hard to see the over-reaction created by this incident is a “Left side of ship”. The inconsistency of the security measures is staggering: you can take flammable Duty Free spirits on board, with matches, but no water; carry-on bags are banned, checked-in bags are only hand searched in the US (whereas in other countries they are just X-rayed) while freight is not checked at all. Knives are banned, but a broken glass or bottle is not. The airports have tight security, while train stations and the Channel Tunnel barely any or none. I could go on.
Politically, it’s a disaster too. Scenes in London of screaming sirens, roped-off areas, interminable queues and swarms of policeman are beamed around the world. They provide valuable PR to the terrorists, presenting Britain as a fractured society, with all or most of the suspects being British nationals. It is bound to make travellers jumpy, and copy-cat terrorists to plan with increased vigour. The terrorists may not have killed anyone this time, but they have had a resounding success.
In a queue in London, I start talking to a man about his view on the situation, the possible attack and his feeling towards the terrorists. “Fuck 'em” is his reaction; “I’m not going to let them change the way I run my life”.
What a shame the politicians and the authorities did not react with the same old-fashioned British phlegm.
# posted by DavidF @ 12:14 
