Find The Boots

One thing I've learned over my career is that the management level above you always looks very simple and the people appear to be idiots, until you reach that level and you find out the constraints they were working with and the extra knowledge of the situations they had. You then realize that the job you've just gotten is a lot tougher than the one you had. It's amazing how having more of the details can change your perception of the situation.

I have no idea whether or not the ban on liquids for travel in the USA and UK is appropriate. From where I sit, it looks like the level above is just being foolish. But I suspect that the TSA and MI-5 have more knowledge about what was going on with the London plot than I do. Something really scared them, because they took drastic measures -- measures which are costing the airlines a lot of cash.

And the airlines are going along with it. I heard a rumor that a flight attendant told a passenger that made a comment about the "stupid water ban" that if he had seen the information that they've seen, he wouldn't think it was stupid.

I'm not an expert on liquid explosives. I don't even play one on TV. There was an article in the UK Register that claims that the plot wasn't feasible. This seems to be completely based upon a leak to the press (from unnamed sources) that the explosive the terrorists planned to use was TATP (triacetone triperoxide), a very difficult solution to create without burning yourself up.

Keep in mind this has as much credibility as the rumor about the flight attendant I reported above. The article claims that the bomb plot would not have worked, and many frequent flyers (especially over on FlyerTalk) have now become experts in liquid exposives and have declared the ban on liquids/gels as silly, totalitarian, and foolish. They refer to "Comrade Chertoff" and declare Bush to be an idiot for putting the ban in place. Many even claim that it was done for the elections in the fall for the US to whip up fear of terrorists. And that we should be willing to accept the risks when we fly.

Aside from the obvious that the Brits have banned liquids in carry-on and they don't have elections coming up, this all sounds like perhaps we don't have all the information. If you've ever been involved in a situation where the press is reporting a story about something you know the truth on, you'll agree that the only thing you can be sure of is that the press got something major wrong.

So I started doing some research on liquid explosives. And now I agree that mixing up a batch of TATP on an airplane would be pretty tough to do. Not that I'd want to be on the flight where some jihadist was trying to do it because the resulting fire in the lav would be a real inconvenience, especially about 3 hours out over the Atlantic.

But there are plenty of other substances which could be smuggled aboard in liquids or gels. I seem to recall reading that the current swab tests check for nitrite explosives, but very few bags get swabbed these days. A shampoo bottle full of Nitroglycerin would be dangerous to carry around, but I don't think the jihadists are that concerned about their personal safety. What if they managed to get something in the Astrolite family? There are commercial binary liquid explosives that would easily create a large enough explosion to cause a problem. That fact is that unless they can verify every liquid and gel coming onto an airplane, there's an hole in the security process that allows the bad guys to blow up planes. As Jayne said in Serenity, "I don't wanna explode!"

So here's what I think has happened. Perhaps the press got it wrong and it wasn't TATP the London bombers were planning on using. There's plenty of security reasons for the government not to broadcast what combination they might have used. Or maybe that group of jihadists were idiots, and their actions only illustrated a huge security hole. Bush and Blair probably asked the question of whether there are any other liquid explosives that could make it through the security screening process and the answer was yes. Since they can't screen for it, and they can't swab everything, the only prudent course was to ban all liquids and gels. I don't know, I don't have the information.

I agree that this was done for the fall elections, but not for the reasons the people opposed to the ban are convinced has happened. It's not that the government is just making a show to stir people up about terror. Face it, the flying public isn't that much of a voting block. There are plenty of ways the government could make a show to scare people about terrorism.

The reason is quite the opposite -- as Bush well knows, if there is a sucessful terrorist attack between now and November the Republicans are sunk. Whether or not the government is overreacting, the simple political reality is that if a bunch of airplanes blow up it will have an effect on the elections. I can guarantee that in that event the left winger complaining about the liquids ban wouldn't be telling us how we should be willing to accept a little risk. It would be "Bush knew about the threat and did nothing!"

I'm not someone that thinks flying should be risk free. Walking has risks, driving has risks, even staying on the couch has risks. But unless you think the entire terrorist threat has been made up, you've got to agree that leaving a giant security hole for the bad guys to use is just plain foolish. Why not just get rid of the security checkpoints entirely? Luckily, the adults are in charge and they're taking the only prudent course given what they've got to work with.

Which is why I suspect that the people so loudly calling the goverment idiots for the water ban are just like employees that think their bosses are idiots until they get promoted and find out things they didn't know.