We all know that September 11 changed the way we fly and the way we travel, but how has it changed the way we assess risk. Christopher Falkenberg, former Special Agent of the United States Secret Service and the founder and president of Insite Security, joins Peter in a debate about how we can be better and safer travelers.

Peter Greenberg: What are the threats that are still out there? I’m not just asking about air travel, but hotel, port, bus and train security. What’s working? What isn’t working? Ten years after 9/11 what’s really been effective and what needs to be done? Looking at the over incidents over the last 10 years, you would have to say we’re safer, yes?

Christopher Falkenberg: I don’t know if we’re safer as far as intent, but I think we’re safer by result because the government and private sector have made attacking U.S. interests or Western interests much more difficult. It’s a much more hostile environment for terrorists to affect something of significance like a September 11 or July 7 in London.

PG: I’m going to say something a bit politically incorrect, but I’d love to get your thought on this. Al Qaeda is either 30,000 determined terrorists who have nothing to lose or they’re three guys in a garage in Brooklyn.

I say that is because you would think that in the last 10 years they would have launched another major attack.

CF: I think both may be right. It may be true that there are 30,000 people who are just itching to be responsible for a big terrorist attack in the U.S. Those 30,000 people are probably in Afghanistan and Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. I think when it gets right down to it, it ends up being three crazy guys in a garage. Look at the May, 2010 bombing attempt in Times Square. Those guys can’t do a lot these days because we have launched significant efforts that make the methodology of terrorists exponentially more difficult.

PG: So we’re dealing with a lot of freelancers and individual isolated attempts, but if one of those attempts works….

CF: Look at the Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood Shooting. One man with a handgun was able to kill more than 10 U.S servicemen. I don’t know if we’ll ever get to a point where we’re not subjected to that lone wolf attack, but that’s something society is getting used to. When we talk about September 11 and the almost 3,000 people who died versus smaller incidents, you have to realize that we will always be subject to crazy people who can get hold of firearms.

PG: It all comes back to the word terrorist and the definition of terrorism. I would have hoped that the Bush administration would have embraced a more realistic definition of the word terrorism. I see terrorism not as an ideology, but as a methodology. And as long as we understand that terrorism is a methodology and not an ideology, we should be able to take a few more steps towards understanding how to stop it. Do you disagree with that?

CF: Traditionally the distinction between terrorism and regular acts of war is that people in traditional wars are in uniform––they’re recognizable. The definition of terrorism has many formulations, but generally it’s an undefined war without a party with whom one can negotiate a peace. There’s no way in which the U.S. or the Western world can approach al Qaeda, or the Taliban, and try to negotiate. That’s never going to happen. There will always be people who are dissatisfied with their lot in life or what they perceive to be their injustices and will blame the United States for that problem and will seek to target us. And we’re a very big target.

PG: Sure, but the numbers alone would indicate that we are safer now when we fly than we were ten years ago. What about hotels, especially American or Western branded hotels overseas, they remain likely targets? Whether its Jakarta, or Islamabad, a Western branded hotel has been an easy targets.

CF: Western hotel chain security abroad is an enormous problem, as we saw in Morocco with the café bombing where Americans were killed. These standard, easily identifiable targets are not going to go away.

Hopefully we can get to a point where there isn’t that risk, but one would have to be silly or willfully blind to say it’s fine to walk around Sharm el-sheikk with a big American Flag pin on your lapel and not think that you’re putting yourself in increased danger.

Americans can travel everywhere safely, I believe, if they take appropriate precautions. There will always be some unsafe components with traveling abroad. When planning personal travel, one needs to factor in ways to reduce your exposure to the types of environments which are attractive to terrorists. And those are environments where there isn’t a lot of security or that are symbolic locations (i.e. there will be some commercial or political reverberation from the attack) or with a high potential yield (meaning that one bomb or shooting attack can injure or kill a lot of people). Keeping those factors in mind when choosing where to stay on a trip to Turkey or a trip to Jordan results in a much safer trip.

PG: There are also specific things you can do when it comes to staying in hotels. Avoid lobbies where there are unattended bags and where vehicles have easy access without a good security perimeter. Don’t choose a room that faces the street, instead stay in a room that faces into a courtyard. And follow the old fire-fighter’s adage and stay in a room on a low floor.

By Peter Greenberg for Peter Greenberg Worldwide Radio

Related links:

• Analyzing Post 9/11 Travel Safety and Security:Airports, Trains, International Hotels and Beyond
• Col. Jack Jacobs Analyzing Post-9/11 Transportation Security
• Protecting Yourself From Terrorism Threats When Traveling
• Full Show––September 10, 2011––Fire Island, New York