A smarter approach, which keeps the threat in perspective, is needed.

NOT all ways of dying rate equally in the public mind. More than 1500 Australians died last year in road accidents, many of them preventable. Had terrorists killed the same number, we would have found that unbearable. Even a failed bombing attempt on a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day has instantly triggered tighter security. Because the Nigerian suspect trained with al-Qaeda forces in Yemen, attention has turned to its role as a terrorist refuge. The danger for nations that are terrorist targets is that they repeat the mistakes of the "war on terror" on a new front.

This is not to say that security against terrorism is not vital; it is alarming that, as US President Barack Obama said this week, a man flagged as a threat could board a US-bound plane because intelligence and security agencies "failed to connect the dots". The man's links to Yemen have forced the Obama Administration to suspend the repatriation of Yemeni nationals from Guantanamo Bay. Seven had been repatriated and another 40 of the remaining 91 Yemeni detainees had been cleared for release.

US officials said yesterday as many as one in five former detainees was suspected or confirmed to have engaged in terrorist activity after release. The figure was unsubstantiated, but some former detainees do pose a threat. Even so, Mr Obama again vowed to close Guantanamo prison, "which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda", and that observation is valid. It applies to people embittered by detention and to a bigger group whose hostility to the West tips over into terrorist activity.

The security challenge is that such people are not tied to certain countries or nationalities; terrorism is global. Mass suspicion is not an efficient aid to detecting terrorists. Many terrorists have come from "friendly" countries, including British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, the London July 7 bombers, Japan's Aum sect, which made 17 attacks with biological or chemical weapons, and home-grown Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the second-worst act of terrorism in the US. To quote the US National Counterterrorism Centre annual report, "terrorism is a tactic used on many fronts by diverse perpetrators in different circumstances and with different aims". Constant vigilance is required on all fronts.

What is not needed is an extension of the military "war on terror" into Yemen, which would only drive many of its rival clan members into al-Qaeda's arms. The Obama Administration is unlikely, however, to rush into a repeat of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Once US forces go to the front line, the dimensions of conflict can widen unpredictably. The Afghan war has spilt over into Pakistan, with alarming consequences. What the US and UK are now doing in Yemen, bolstering resources for intelligence and counter-terrorism policing, is more appropriate to this kind of struggle. Terrorists operate as small groups or networks, not armies. Arguably, terrorists have achieved their goal of weakening the US, which portrayed its opponent as more deadly than justified by its actual capacity to kill and took on the financially crippling burden of sending the military to war.

While Australia answered its ally's call in Afghanistan and Iraq, Canberra had a different, more effective response after 88 Australians were killed in the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002. The approach was primarily civil, not military. Close co-operation with Australia's large Islamic neighbour, Indonesia, has achieved effective intelligence sharing and policing, and provided insights into regional threats. The killers of Australians have been brought to justice without military action, which would have alienated ordinary Indonesians and galvanised extremist sympathisers. "There has been no reinvigoration of co-ordinated support from Australia for Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) — or any other extremist group in South-East Asia," states ASIO's annual report.

Australia also took a more measured approach to airport security, resisting pressure to rush in intrusive measures such as body scanning, and recently lifted bans on knitting needles, nail clippers and other fearsome objects that distracted from checks for serious security threats. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, governments felt bound to make a public show of security, which included elaborate screening of travellers. Since then, Australia's lower-key focus on civil law enforcement has kept this nation secure from regional terrorist threats, without unnecessarily inspiring enmity or incurring the costs of military aggression. Other nations might learn from that.