BK posts a critique of a security analysis of the DNC convention in Boston. It points out some basic flaws in the evolving design of security. However, al Qaeda (and that is the group we are concerned about) plans their operations in a meticulous way. Operations in hostile environments currently take years to evolve. They are also aimed at targets with well known patterns of security (if any).
The fluxing pattern of security (however poor) of the convention makes it difficult to plan against. If the attack does happen, look for the indirect attack, the "black swan." Also, the output of the conventions is media coverage. An attack that dominates the media during the convention is as valuable as one directly on the convention (and could probably be done with much higher probability of success if aimed at an alternative target with known security). Finally, the fact that an extremely expensive security effort has shut down a major American city for a week, is a result al Qaeda would consider a victory. [John Robb's Weblog]
I don't think this "security," which actually seems more like a low-level terrorist attack on the unforunate "host" city, is directed at terrorist groups primarily. It's more directed at discouraging the peasantry from peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. The same thing happened with LA the last time around, although the spread-out nature of the city meant that the jackboots concentrated on the downtown area.
A terrorist attack is extremely unlikely. Far more likely (in fact, approaching certainty) is that there will be a series of "terrorist warnings" issued by the Feds to draw media coverage away from the convention of a rival faction of the Boot On Your Neck Party.
11:56:10 PM 
|
|
