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.
