2 thoughts on “Different Views of Maritime Terrorism Security Threat”

1. The reason we have concluded that there is a low risk of terrorism against North American shipping and ports, and along shared waterways, is because that is what the measured weight of the available intelligence indicates it to be.

   I doubt the Canadians have a special treasure trove of information that we aren’t privy to. What it does sound like to me is that this particular group is beating the threat drums in order to scare up budget money for the maritime security mission.

   Reply ↓

2. Agreed. In addition (and this is under the handicap of reading an article about 2 reports which I haven’t read), this article seems to be understating the differing perspectives of the two reports and over-stating the contrast between the reports.

   The US report is analyzing the threat to the US, which IS low, both because of the vast improvements in maritime domain awareness, and the overall improvement in the USCG’s capability as a homeland protector. Combine that with having terrorists on the run worldwide and the intelligence information, and it is an accurate statement of the US’ risk.

   The Canadian report is written by Canada and about Canada. Again having not read the original source, I’m betting that report reflects a much lower sense of urgency having gone into play by Canada after 9-11, and why shouldn’t it be lower? After all, they weren’t the target of the attack; the “evil” US was. Now sharing a border with the US increases their risk of having terrorists present, but it’s more likely Canada would be a transfer point to get into US, not a target itself. Still, I’m sure Canada wants to be a good neighbor (and not look bad for not catching onto any terrorists in their midst), but that’s a far different sense of urgency.

   Overall, the article looks to me to be an obvious attempt to increase site traffic over a contrast that’s not really there…

   Reply ↓