December 31, 2009
Exclusive: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Meets Inspector Jacques Clouseau
Robert Weissberg
Much has been written about the failed attempt of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up Northwest flight 253 on Christmas day. Unfortunately, just as we now must remove our shoes at airport screening thanks to Richard Reid’s botched attempt to light one of his shoes, new security measures have a decidedly rearview mirror quality, e.g., passengers are to remain seated during the last hour prior to landing since Mr. Abdulmutallab stood up to ignite his underwear. One can only suspect that if Abdulmutallab had worn a baseball cap and sang Dixie, these, too, would now be banned.
Let’s be pessimistically blunt: it is impossible to anticipate every possible terrorist response to each new security measure. Technology may be wonderful for detecting miniscule amounts of today’s available explosives, but who can predict next year’s formula, and upgrading the equipment while deploying thousands of freshly-trained bomb-sniffing dogs requires years. And even these responses depend on a nimble, quick-thinking Transportation Security Administration and all the other Washington bureaucracies. What we get instead are symbolic gestures that will only annoy innocent travelers.
The one analysis that nailed this problem was offered in the December 29, 2009 Los Angeles Times. It is worth quoting at length:
This sorry sequence of events recalls nothing so much as the failure of intelligence officials to correlate available data about the plotters of the 9/11 attacks. In both cases the problem wasn't a lack of information but an inability to sift through copious data (italics added). What is required, at every stage of the process, is alertness to particularly suggestive details -- and, lest abuses occur, periodic reevaluation of names added in the past….Some experts suggest that this incident demonstrates the need for vastly expanded use of high-technology screening devices. Before Congress accepts that counsel, however, it needs to focus on something that seemingly eluded officials in this case: the human factor (italics added).
In other words, better intelligence is necessary and this does not mean yet more funding of the CIA, NSA, FBI and the like. As President Obama himself later proclaimed, “"Bits of information available within the intelligence community ... could have and should have been pieced together." Intelligence here means smarter people and this is an uphill battle in today’s politically correct world that so prizes diversity while insisting that nobody is any smarter than anybody else. I’ll spare the polite euphemisms: smart people, as measured by IQ, are far more likely to catch would-be terrorists than average Joes and Janes who have spent six weeks laboring to “master” a 300 page “How to Catch Terrorists” manual.
And now for the really dreary news: the US government has waged a systematic war on intellectual talent under the guise of diversity. This began in the late 1960s when tests producing the “wrong” demographic results had to be re-designed to eliminate “barriers” to historically under-represented groups. The old Foreign Service exam favored Ivy Leaguers with its stress on language and culture were repeatedly refurbished, some might say “dumbed down” to expand the job pool. Jimmy Carter killed the civil service SCORE exam that identified the very top suitable for policy-making (it was “unfair”). Rep. Charles Rangel has recently instigated a program permitting blacks to serve in the Foreign Service for five years without having to take the exam. I once personally asked the second highest CIA official about recruiting brains and he frankly admitted that his goal was a CIA resembling America, an achievable goal since the talented were everywhere. Given a choice of hiring the smartest of the smart to protect America versus avoiding alleged discrimination litigation, government is inclined toward the latter though public officials will always insist that every hire is “highly qualified.”
Begin by first considering “intelligence” as it is measured by standard IQ tests and, to a lesser extent, tests like the SAT verbal test. While reputable psychologists quibble over details, the gist of the term refers to an individual’s capacity to discern and organize information so as to draw correct inferences about what is perceived—in a phrase, brain power akin to computer processing power. Intelligence is particularly useful in unstructured situations—making sense out of millions of separate, seemingly unrelated facts. It is not specific knowledge though smart people usually know lots of facts. Nor is intelligence a synonym for common sense or to be confused with talents such as piano playing or painting. Moreover, information processing capacity is a general ability—regardless of the situation, a baseball game or the opera, intelligent people perceive more, connect the dots faster and draw better, more plentiful inferences from what is observed. Finally, save in extreme situations involving early sensory deprivation or physical damage, intelligence cannot be taught.
These put-the-pieces-together abilities are familiar to anyone admiring brainy detectives (e.g., Sherlock Holmes, Lt. Columbo). They correctly interpreted minor details, noticed incongruous innocuous behavior, heard a dog that did not bark, put two and two together where others saw nothing. Brains, not brawn or the police manuals, solved puzzling crimes. Hercule Poirot once observed that a hotel guest claiming to be English was lying since he registered with the American abbreviated dating system (m/d/yr) instead of the European d/m/y. To speculate a bit, a smart consulate official might have noticed that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a little vague about his Detroit lodgings, could not supply its address or failed to pack warm clothing necessary to survive Michigan winters. And why was he visiting Detroit? That he only had a backpack and paid $2800 in cash made no sense given his affluence (he surely must have had a credit card). A Hercule Poirot on Flight 253 might also have noticed excessive nervousness, frequent touching of his crotch (just like international passengers compulsively check their passports) and other give-away details.
When you combine dim-witted obliviousness to the usual PC inhibitions—a black male from an impoverished nation—it is no wonder that he slipped through. Conceivably, those manning the checkpoints were terrified of the most heinous modern crime—using stereotypes—and thus were happy to overlook the obvious incongruity of his luggage and vague travel aims. Think of this way—for eons humans have honed their suspicious nature to stay alive; PC teaches us to ignore this hard-earned learning and is thus anti-evolutionary, a recipe for death.
I first appreciated the value of cognitive ability to combat terrorism when I flew on El Al to Israel. El Al hires smart kids to screen passengers, not dutiful workers who learned their trade from Stopping Terrorists for Dummies manuals. They obsess over “little” tell-tale things. I was asked “Are you Jewish,” and when I said, “yes,” the security agent immediately shot back, “where were you Bar Mitzvahed?” My reaction was instant: Temple Emmanuel in Paterson, NJ. Since no Jewish boy ever, ever forgets this fact, my reflexive answer sufficed. I can only imagine if I had said, “In the Middle West,” a geographic term that no American would ever use, and security would have taken me away. (Compare this unexpected question to the predicable one about packing one’s own bags.)
This episode stands in sharp contrast to when my son, then about thirteen, once tried to board a US Airways flight in St. Louis. He was carrying his pill container, a hallowed out .50 caliber machine gun screw top “bullet” with a key chain. He of course opened it up for inspection and it was clearly hollow. Nevertheless, the security agent announced that since it was a “bullet” (albeit with keychain shrapnel) it would have to be shipped separately. Were we going to threaten the Captain with this pill container? My feeble efforts to point out the obvious, let alone the absence of the necessary .50 caliber machine gun to launch the pill container, fell on deaf ears.
America faces a serious dilemma. It is imperative to get as many smart people into the security apparatus and the smarter the better, but this will surely bring a preponderance of white males since they (and Asians) get the best scores on IQ-related tests. Unfortunately, this outcome is unacceptable in today’s political climate. Just imagine Senator Barbara Boxer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, et al, watching this transformation. They will immediately insist that we need diverse airport screeners to detect bomb-laden Saudis or Somalis. More likely, to escape this dilemma the government will hire yet more intellectual mediocre security personnel and spend billions more on high-tech. Perhaps the only thing saving America, at least so far, is that the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabs of the world often meet their match in that great French detective, Inspector Jacques Clouseau (of Pink Panther fame) and his trusty band of multi-cultural, wonderfully diverse Keystone Cops.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Robert Weissberg is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has written many books, the most recent include The Limits of Civic Activism, Pernicious Tolerance: How teaching to "accept differences" undermines civil society and the forthcoming, Bad Students, Not Bad Schools: How both the Right and the Left have American education wrong (early 2010). Besides writing for professional journals, he has also written for magazines like the Weekly Standard and currently contributes to various blogs.
Great article and Mr. Weissberg is exactly right.
Sadly, this will not happen unless we lose a few cities.
The public square has not been honest about race since the radical left hijacked the Civil Rights movement from the Evangelical Christians in the early 1960's.
posted by: Philip
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 02:24 PM
I agree with Prof. Weissberg that the dumbing down of all aspects of our society, in the name of diversity, has caused immeasurable damage. How, though, does he propose to hire the best and the brightest for a profession which pays so little? There is a far more cost effective solution to our problem.
Muslims come here to rule, not to assimilate. A small minority of Muslims are committed terrorists but the majority would prefer to live under Sharia than under our Constitution. This majority of "moderates" are enablers for the terrorists and there is no reason why we should want to submit to their will.
We, as a nation, have the right to decide who should be allowed entry. If we ever become wise enough to severely restrict Muslim immigration, these problems will be more easily avoided.
posted by: Mike Berman
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 02:35 PM
Prof, when all men and women of honour are coming up with serious solutions to these international problem, the best you can do is to write this cleverly racist article without scientific basis for claiming IQ diferential on the basis of race or tribe. You have some good points but please dont spoil it by letting your racism show.
posted by: Dimeji
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 03:16 PM
@ Dimeji:
If you lack the intellectual curiosity to read The Bell Curve, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Why Race Matters or A Question of Intelligence, at least read this: http://www.newsweek.com/id/108612. The truth is that differences in intelligence is a scientific fact. The new definition of a racist is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.
posted by: Mike Berman
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 06:38 PM
@ Dimeji.
How pathetic and infantile of you to toss out the "r" word after reading an erudite article. Do you realize how tiresome and discredited these phony claims are?
You want facts? In addition to the references cited by Mr. Berman above, how about the findings of Drs. James Watson and Francis Crick, the men credited with deciphering genetic DNA code?
To individuals who form their opions on empirical facts, being slandered as a "racist" by intellectual midgets is a badge of honor.
posted by: Philip
Friday, January 1, 2010 at 01:57 PM
Thanks for the references you gave me to read, but quoting profusely "birds of the same feather" is not the solution to arresting the problem of Terrorism. And putting "liberal" label on people is not the best way to win an argument. Afterall, 8 years of "W" has not solve the problem. You so-called conservative are used to playing blame game all the time. If is not Liberals today, then it must be blacks or hispanics tomorrow. No wonder Hitler was able to do what he did. He still has a lot of fans.
posted by: Dimeji
Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 08:27 AM
@ Dimeji
It is only so-called "Liberals" that consider Dubya to have been Conservative. He was a fiscal Socialist. The only things conservative about him were his stands on marriage, abortion and the Federal funding of embryonic stem-sell research.
You also need a history lesson. Hitler was a Leftist. He was a social Darwinist. The Nazi party were Socialists. It was "liberal" concepts such as "social justice" that enabled him to rise to power (the list includes Mussolini and Lenin as well).
When you grow up you might see which team you are really rooting for.
posted by: Philip
Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 08:43 PM
