Commentary
In the aftermath of a violent attack, there are inevitably a number of things that happen. First and foremost, we collectively struggle to understand what exactly has happened, who was behind it, and what it means. Then we seek to assign immediate blame to those who failed to prevent it from taking place (this is usually directed at law enforcement or security intelligence services). Finally, there is the more useful “lessons learned” attitude and a sincere effort to put in place best practices and measures to avoid similar events in the future. Some will proffer “foolproof” solutions to this end.
When the jihadi drove a truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans just after midnight on New Year’s Eve, we soon saw several accusations that officials had not implemented
effective counter-terrorism barriers (concrete bollards, increased law enforcement presence, etc.) and had been warned about these kinds of attacks before. There was similar finger-pointing after the car-ramming attack at a
Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, in December. China, too, has faced a wave of what is being called
“revenge-on-society” acts.
Even Canada’s own Globe and Mail came out with
an editorial in which it stated that “Political leaders have a responsibility to reduce the chances of such a tragedy.” It called for “real security, not security theatre.”
Are there any easy ways to ensure that we do not see more and more of these violent attacks? In a word, no.
What all the experts seem to ignore is that the decision to drive a vehicle into a crowd, or lash out with a knife or axe at a busy intersection, is all but impossible to stop without previous knowledge or intelligence.
Secondly, while it is true that large events such as a Taylor Swift concert or the Super Bowl can be better secured, terrorists can just as easily choose a much lower profile gathering or venue that cannot be locked down. The series of simultaneous attacks on the
Bataclan Theatre and surrounding area in Paris in November 2015 is a good example of a high-casualty act that was all but unpreventable.
What do “experts” suggest we do: put bollards everywhere? Would that have stopped
Alek Minassian from driving his car down Yonge Street in April 2018? How long is Yonge Street (often described as Canada’s longest thoroughfare)? How many bollards would you need? At what cost? And then what if a future extremist drives down Spadina Avenue instead? Do we put bollards up there too?
And what about knife attacks? Do we put restrictions on who can purchase a cutting tool? What of all the knives in people’s kitchen drawers? Do we confiscate all of them to prevent the merest possibility of an attack?
The bottom line is this: The state and its agencies will never be in a position to rule out a successful violent/terrorist attack. Thankfully, these are still few and far between and Canadians don’t have to worry about being stabbed in a Canadian Tire most days. Furthermore, most planned attacks are thwarted thanks to the RCMP and CSIS.
There are always takeaways from successful killings, and our protectors can always get better, but foolproof security is a chimera.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
