If, as a target government, you over-react on every opportunity possible, and continue over-reacting to specific tactics well after any individual style of threat has lost any real effectiveness (because you now know about it) you're acting as a force multiplier for the enemy. Our governments respond to every new tactic by creating new highly specific laws, and institutionalizing ineffective but highly visible security measures. Instead of defusing the tactics by reassuring the public, they potentiate the tactics by introducing as many continual reminders of the threat as possible.
That said, security theatre
is reassuring to many.
Somebody being seen to do
something makes you feel safe - even if it is a bit illusionary (please note this is not decrying the other agencies who actually
do stop terrorists on a fairly regular basis).
In some ways it ties back to the media portrayal of counterterrorism: "airport grinds to halt while security double check everything in case of suspected terrorist attack" sounds impressive, it sounds like we're in control - it's good - it's reassuring, and most of all, it's very visible to any observer it...
Now compare that to... "Investigators spend 18 months following paper trails, cooperating with international agencies, conducting espionage, intercepting communication, and navigating political minefields before signing off on the paperwork to authorise the raid on some suspected terrorists".
Much less impressive. It was a lot of
work just understanding it all - and the timescale makes us look bad. Most of it happened quietly and invisibly behind closed doors. The number of agencies involved makes us look weak. It makes us look like we aren't really in control...
And even worse, it makes a pretty poor headline...