The perception of government and security

A major headline today helped illustrate the fascinating double standards that citizens have regarding their government and aspects of national security. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported that "Police 'foil' major terrorist attack", after the news that 17 men had been arrested with ties to a chemical-based bomb scheme within Australia's borders.

What got me thinking here (but not unique to this story) is the use of the single quotes around the word 'foil'. This means it must be taken from a quote, as in "Australian Police 'Foiled a Major Terrorist Attack'", or it's suggestive of a double entendre, as in "Americans Skeptical of Bush's 'Leadership' Skills". Either way, it implies that perhaps the Aussie police may not have actually foiled anything, because simply using the word "foil" without any quotes would be stating that this did, in fact, undoubtedly occur.

Journalism requires, by nature, a certain level of skepticism, especially when fact-checking and citing sources as credible. But what kind of coverage does the Aussie police merit if they truly have thwarted a possibly violent and deadly attack? Something possibly greater than 'foil'?

The concept of a potential terrorist attack creates a unique position for a government. If an attack is carried out successfully, the government will inevitably be found responsible for certain ineptitudes, and will largely lose national confidence in its ability to keep the country secure. However, if the government claims to 'foil' an attack, more often than not they will be labeled as doomsayers and charged with inciting the public to an unnecessary rationale - with the expectation of fear and calamity - which in turn helps keep the government firmly seated. Either way, it would appear that the government is held at fault for something. It seems few are able to clearly understand the challenges governments face in combating terrorism at its extremes: the uncertainty, the far-flung ideologies, the seemingly effortless communication across thousands of miles, the appeal of the martyr, and so on.

In this time of real terrorism and its subsequent threats to nations worldwide, do we need to celebrate each time a government is able to 'foil' a terrorist plot? Perhaps not. Should we give credit where it is deservedly due? Perhaps so.

Either way, maybe it's best if we lose the need to finger blame immediately, and work on mending the bonds that hold a government to its citizens and give them the implicit need and responsibility to protect. In doing so, national security will evolve out of a mutual respect and understanding, rather than a disintegrating marriage which neither party wishes to maintain.