Hillary Can’t Wait for the Next Attack!
Thu January 30th, 2003 10:24 MSTAs William Quick points out, Hillary is attacking Bush for not doing enough to protect America. This is a continuation of the democratic tactics first pointed out by this blog just after the election. The New York Post has also picked up on this theme.
A couple of important points need to be made in this regard:
First, the Bush administration has actually done a lot to improve our security. Have they done enough? Perhaps not. But those who believe we are no more safe have not looked at things from the point of view of the terrorists.
The terrorists have lost their operational bases. Many are dead or in custody being interrogated and revealing their secrets. The US is re on alert. We have a massive anti-bioterrorism effort cranking up. Americans will no longer let terrorists hijack their aircraft - we learn fast! Our critical facilities are being guarded more closely. Our skies have many more armed fighters available for interdiction, and we do not hesitate to use them. Our allies (even the squishy ones like the French) are arresting terrorists that they previously ignored. Governments which previously supported the terrorists with impunity are gone (Taliban), scared to death or actively cooperating with us.
Second, there is no way to stop terrorists completely. There will be more terrorist attacks in the US. Hillary and others are amoral opportunists who seek political advantage from this. One wonders if, in her tiny little black heart, Hillary is anxiously awaiting the next attack.
1. 9/11 wasn’t masterminded from Afghanistan. Those who did train in the Afghan camps still have the skills they learned there.
2. The “massive bioterrorism effort” so far consists of some orders for smallpox vaccine, and an effort to vaccinate a tiny portion of the populace, some of whom are refusing to be vaccinated. Years down the road, we may also see “sensors” that only work outdoors, not inside. I’m sure they’ll be a big help in alerting folks to problems, as VX cuts down the guy standing next to you.
3. Perhaps “guarded more closely,” but with minor thought and preparation I could imagine dozens, hundreds, even thousands of targets that aren’t being guarded at all.
4. You’re right. A free nation can’t stop terrorist attacks, (hell, even a tyranny like the Nazis couldn’t) so claiming that these few efforts to close already gaping barn doors buttress the proposition that the US is now safer than it was is just wrong.
The key is to recognize that preparedness against terrorism is a continuum, not an absolute process. Thus the efforts so far undertaken have made it harder for terrorists and safer for us. In no way do I claim that we have made it safe!
The massive bioterrorism effort consists of far more than smallpox vaccine. There has been a lot of work on bioterrorism sensors (including the in-process deployment of sensors at environmental monitoring sites around the country). Huge amounts of money are now going into vaccine, anti-viral and other research against bioterror agents. Public health surveillance systems are being put in place (this is sadly lacking now except in New York City). So I disagree… there is a lot being done. OTOH this doesn’t mean that any big solutions are at hand.
As far as guarded more closely, I am referring to airports, nuclear plants, ports, POL depots, water supplies and a number of other targets. The fact that there are lots of targets left doesn’t mean that we haven’t degraded terrorist capability by protecting those sites which could cause the most damage.
The destruction of the Taliban and the increased difficulties terrorists have operating in host countries have again reduced the threat. By depriving them of organizational and training centers, we have made it harder for them to operate. By killing a bunch of the more experienced terrorists, we have reduced their probability of success. By forcing them to spend more time and resources on dodging capture reduces the time and resources they have available to attack. In other words, we have degraded their abilities - not destroyed them - but reduced them.
As far as now being safer than 9-11. Yes, we are safer. We have made it harder for terrorists. Does it make us safe? No. Does it mean we can sit back and do nothing? No. In fact, we are still in mortal danger. But to assert that we are no safer is to ignore the significant improvements that have been made and to view the issue in absolutist terms.
I doubt if we’re going to be able to cross the gulf of simply repeating our respective positions, so I’ll just boil it down: If there are ten thousand opportunities to commit terrorism, and we plug two of them, I don’t regard us as being “safer” in any meaningful way. Your mileage may vary, and obviously, it does.
Well, I guess we agree to disagree. Perhaps it is in our different interpretation of the term “safer.”
In any case, we agree about so many other things that it is pointless to quibble on this one.
caio
John