'If I were a terrorist, I would . . .'
Our fears about what they might do could give the authorities ideas that could help defend us.

8.19.07

By Michael Smerconish

"If I were a terrorist, you know what I'd do? "

I've thought about it. Not with an evil design, but in reaction to a vulnerable point that I as a layperson have seen in an everyday setting. As in, "We're vulnerable here, so if I were a terrorist, I'd . . . " Of course, I have kept such thoughts to myself.

Steven Levitt has had similar thoughts, and now he's in hot water for sharing them.

Levitt is a brilliant economist based at the University of Chicago. He is now world-famous as the coauthor, with Stephen Dubner, of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. The book sold more than three million copies and has remained on the New York Times Best-Seller Lists for 105 weeks.

Not only is he a fixture on the Times list, but he is also a Times blogger, where, on Aug. 8, he posted a commentary titled "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack? "

There, he briefly outlined what his own hypothetical objectives would be were he planning a terrorist attack. And he related "the best" terrorist plan he had heard - one his father envisioned. It had to do with simultaneously arming multiple terrorists with rifles and cars and spreading them around the country. I thought it was both ingenious and terrifying. At the end of the post, he solicited similar contributions from readers, calling it a "form of public service" that would give "terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur. "

Six hundred comments later, some aren't taking kindly to Levitt's attempt at a public-service announcement. Typical of his critics is a contributor under the name of Vinnie, who posted: "You are a traitor and should be prosecuted for treason. "

On Aug. 9 came a New York Post editorial: "How droll - though we suspect Levitt wouldn't be laughing if '20 terrorists with rifles and cars' took up his idea and Dear Old Dad wound up with a bullet between his eyes. "

Many, however, did exactly what Levitt requested: They came forth with their specific fears about terror vulnerabilities. Many are ingenious, lots are diabolical. On balance, I think the value of airing these ideations outweighs the risks that it becomes an al-Qaeda Things to Do list. Levitt wanted to harness the eyes of millions of Americans who are out there seeing things and getting ideas about what terrorists might do. I think that makes sense. And these postings would seem far less threatening as an inspiration than say, a mass-marketed novel or motion picture in the vein of Live Free or Die Hard or The Bourne Ultimatum.

Levitt wants the American people engaged in the mental fight against al-Qaeda. Me, I want Levitt applying his mental acumen to the war on terror. And I know he is.

I once hosted him in Philadelphia for my book club. I found him not only highly intelligent, but also a patriotic and decent guy. I was not surprised when he told me that many businesses routinely pay him to sit in a room so they can pick his brain. But I was elated to learn that among those who have solicited his advice are those charged with responsibility for protecting us against terrorism.

He told me a funny story about how he found himself at the CIA, and while he was waiting for a ride to the airport, his arriving cab was suddenly surrounded by police cars. Officers quickly grabbed the taxi driver and put him in handcuffs. As Levitt tells the story, a CIA officer walked up to his party and told them, "As far as you're concerned, this never happened. "

This week, I asked Levitt whether he was surprised by the reaction to his blog.

"There are two kinds of terrorist attacks: low-grade ones like IEDs, snipers, etc., and spectacular ones like 9/11," he said. "There is no easy way to fight the low-grade ones. The fact that they aren't occurring now either means the terrorists aren't interested in doing them, or the terrorists are essentially nonexistent. We can prepare for the spectacular ones, but only if we are one step ahead of the terrorists in guessing what they will try. That is where getting blog readers thinking about these issues can help. "

I think he's right. We need more, not less, discourse on the subject of our vulnerability. It seems logical to solicit such input to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

In fact, I think we should take his thinking a step further. The federal government should create a mechanism under the Department of Homeland Security through which citizens could report their concerns about possible, hypothetical terrorist targets or plots based on things they have seen.

Think about it: We can engage close to 300 million strong in counterterrorism, surveying the country for possible attack points or even behavior that might suggest imminent attack. Let's give law-abiding citizens a vehicle for reporting their concerns, free of worry that, for making a report, they themselves will be subject to investigation.

I've even got a name for this program. We can call it Terrornomics.

Michael Smerconish's column appears on Thursdays in The Daily News and on Sundays in Currents. Michael can be heard from 5:30 to 9 a.m. weekdays on "The Big Talker," WPHT-AM (1210). Contact him via the Web at http://www.mastalk.com.