|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: www.ThePopcornFactory.com Fun Gifts For Every Occasion! July 25, 2004 What is the Deal with Safety? By Jan A. Larson One of the big questions being asked in the media following the release of the 9/11 report is, "Are we safer?" The President insists that Americans are safer today. Not everyone agrees. The question as to whether America is, in fact, safer is a matter of perspective, and to some extent, a matter of opinion. When al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, it was the result of years of preparation. Operatives had to gain entry into the country, learn how to fly jets, study airline flight operations, determine how to defeat airport screening procedures, etc., etc. in order to carry out their dastardly plan. Those terrorists had several advantages, not the least of which was the element of surprise. Today, there can be little question that we are safer from similar attacks utilizing commercial aircraft. Does that mean absolutely safe? No. The possibility always exists that an al Qaeda terrorist may one day occupy the pilot's seat on a commercial airliner - while wearing a uniform and an ID badge with his own name. Are we safer from other kinds of attacks? It is difficult to stop an anthrax attack. All one would need to do in order to wreak havoc would be to obtain an amount of anthrax that could fit into a mayonnaise jar. No matter the security that might be in place at our borders and airports, stopping a biological or chemical attack on that relatively small scale is virtually impossible. We have not had a suicide bomber attack (yet) in the United States. They are, of course, common in Israel and other parts of the Middle East. Stopping a determined suicide attacker is again, virtually impossible. There are many ways that terrorists could attack the United States. Attacks on the water supply, electrical systems, nuclear facilities, stadiums, malls, transportation systems, communications systems etc. are all possible. Obviously it is not possible to guarantee 100% safety of all of these systems 100% of the time. The advantage that terrorists have is that they only have to succeed once, while security systems and people have to succeed 100% of the time. If we consider the damage caused by the terrorists on September 11, it pales in comparison to what might have happened had there been, for example, an attack utilizing intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons. Let us consider what might have happened if September 11 had not occurred. Al Qaeda would likely still have training camps in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban. The connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, as described in the 9/11 report, might have very well been strengthened. Maybe Saddam Hussein would be financing al Qaeda or other terrorist groups with oil money. Maybe he would have reconstituted his nuclear programs while Americans went about their day-to-day business, fat, dumb and happy. Many have been critical of the administration for not doing enough to stop the attacks of September 11, but many of those same complainers also criticize the war in Iraq. We cannot know what types of attacks might have eventually been spawned out of the regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Given the devastation of September 11, the potential for attacks on a much larger scale with even greater devastation would likely have grown with each passing year. Few people take steps to protect themselves from anything that they have not experienced in some fashion. Similarly with our government and national security organizations before September 11. At some point, we were going to get hit. In hindsight, we may one day come to consider ourselves fortunate that despite the horrific events of September 11, it wasn't as bad as it might have been had an attack with greater scope and impact occurred years later resulting even greater devastation and loss of life. The United States has not had an attack on our shores since September 11, but while that alone does mean we are safer in an absolute sense, it does mean that we are more aware of what can happen. That awareness along with the tangible steps being taken with respect to homeland security suggests that we are safer in the long term. Al Qaeda has been disrupted, the Taliban removed and Saddam Hussein is out of power. Much of the "engine" of terrorism has been depleted, but that doesn't mean it is gone. Will we be attacked again? Probably. Will we be better prepared than on September 11? Certainly, but that may not be enough to stop it. In the sense that we expect to be attacked and we are aware of many of the ways that an attack may be carried out, we are safer today. We weren't safe on September 10, 2001 - we just thought we were. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?"column will appear from time to time on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
