The decade is ending in much the same way that it began, dominated by the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. In the fight against this menace, the most important weapon in any country's armoury is its intelligence system; and given the security measures that individual air passengers are required to endure, such as intrusive searches, body scanning and the advance provision of personal data, the public is entitled to expect this apparatus to function effectively. There is little point in imposing draconian travel restrictions on millions of people who are not terrorists if an individual who has already come to the notice of the authorities is allowed to board a plane carrying explosives.
It is, then, understandable that Barack Obama should denounce what he called a "systemic failure" in American intelligence for failing to intercept the Detroit plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Of course, it is often easy in hindsight to point to "intelligence failures" when what seems obvious now did not seem quite so obvious then. On this occasion, American agencies had specific intelligence that a Nigerian who had been trained in Yemen was plotting an attack. On its own, that would not have been sufficient to identify Abdulmutallab. But it has also been disclosed that the would-be bomber's father had alerted the CIA to the radicalisation of his son, who had gone to Yemen. President Obama is right to ask how and why so many pieces of the jigsaw failed to produce a picture of the threat posed by Abdulmutallab before he boarded his transatlantic flight on Christmas Day with the intention of killing hundreds of people.
Part of the reason is that intelligence was not shared among the American agencies. Huge sums have been poured into intelligence both in America and in this country to plug the holes that existed before September 11; and while determined terrorists who have never come to anyone's notice may get through, the least we can expect is that intelligence agencies work together in countering this danger. This should not detract from the successes of the security services, especially in Britain, in thwarting many deadly plots. Intelligence is not an exact science; nor is it like the TV series, Spooks, with conspiracies foiled by a handful of officers in the space of an hour. However, if mistakes are made then the security agencies cannot be immune from criticism and nor would they wish to be. We rely heavily upon their skills and dedication for our safety.
Their job, certainly in this country, is not made any simpler by the ease with which those preaching hatred of the West have been allowed to operate. Yet again we have learnt that a terrorist had connections to a British university. Abdulmutallab is a former president of the Islamic Society at University College, London, and is the fourth person to hold such a post at one of the capital's academic institutions to be charged with a terrorist offence in the past three years. While freedom of thought is important in universities, this is not extended to other extremist organisations in the way it is to Islamist groups. The dissemination of jihadist propaganda in our academic institutions has been known about for many years and has been allowed to continue for far too long.
In addition, serious consideration must now be given by the Government to focusing more on the people most likely to cause us harm. Blanket checks on everyone simply do not work and merely produce large databases of people who pose no threat at all. The targeted profiling of particular ethnic and religious groups is controversial, but may be necessary – provided it is backed by good intelligence. If we continue to fail to get a grip on these problems in our own country, then other governments whose citizens are placed in jeopardy by our inaction, notably the US, will likely do it for us by imposing severe visa restrictions on travellers from Britain.