What Obama must learn from the bomb plot

From my new column for the Financial Times:

[I]t would be political suicide for Mr Obama to seem as calm about the risks and costs of terrorism as his civil libertarian critics tend to be. Doing nothing was not an option. Nonetheless, if he had responded more promptly (and if Ms Napolitano had not said what she did) he might have been under less pressure to look tough. He might not have found it necessary to pile on so many pointless security enhancements, or to offer as much phoney reassurance. The delay and apparent vacillation forced him to double down.

The Republican charge that Mr Obama is soft on terror, on the other hand, is just absurd. Consider the escalation in Afghanistan; the programme of drone strikes in the border areas with Pakistan; the delay in plans to close Guantánamo (which predates the Christmas day plot); affirmation of the power to hold terror suspects indefinitely without charge; and more. In all these ways, he is continuing the course set by George W. Bush. He would doubtless prefer not to, but he has found his choices to be narrower than he believed during the campaign: again, the gap between words and deeds.

In one aspect of security policy, though, Mr Obama badly needs to innovate. It is scarcely believable that eight years after 9/11, the US still lacks an anti-terror law which allows suspects to be detained for extended questioning before being charged. As things stand, officials had to choose between sending Mr Abdulmutallab to military detention as an alleged enemy combatant, or charging him as an ordinary criminal.

Mr Obama must demand of Congress a law that provides a middle way. The war against al-Qaeda, as Mr Obama called it, is no ordinary war - especially when waged against US citizens, as it may yet have to be. But al-Qaeda is not an ordinary criminal enterprise either. Without further delay, the law should be changed to reflect that fact.

Check out David Bromley's illustration...