|
What Price Security? We are entrapped in a conundrum wrapped in orange
paper and bound up in plastique. I carefully looked up both the strange
words in that sentence, conundrum and plastique, and found as I suspected
that the usage of conundrum was apt as in the second meaning of the
word, "a thing of a perplexing nature". Plastique proved
to be more apt than I had remembered as I intended only the first
meaning, which means "a plastic bomb". The second meaning
was even more accurate as it describes the art of moving in very slow
motion. That is an art form much emulated in Washington today when
it comes to enabling any type of security except the kind that endangers
our civil liberties. Congress has passed and the President has signed
into law a number of "security acts and programs and we have
reorganized the bureaucracy around an "Office Of Homeland Security".
There is a "lot of sound and fury constituting nothing"
in that process including some parts of the infamous "Patriot
One Act" which has many unconstitutional clauses. The powers
of the state over its citizens have been magnified magnificently but
the practice of managing security has no funding.
There are enough reasons to wonder at the rapidity with which our elected officials can move when they are protecting us citizens against ourselves. It is clear enough to me that none of the 9/11 terrorists were citizens, nor are any of the other terrorists we are seeking around the world. Since that is true why do we need all of the new police powers related to our citizens? They aren't making me, or my wife or any of our friends sleep better at night. On the other hand the reality of the situation is serious enough for me to want the government to make our nuclear plants and our chemical plants and our refineries and our ports more secure. We have already made our airports so secure that I am going to great lengths to avoid air travel, I can drive most places I want to go anyway. Today the annoyance and the discomfort of flying added to its increased expense makes it undesirable. It is definite that security at our vulnerable facilities is an issue but how should it be addressed, and who should pay for it remain unanswered questions in spite of their importance. The easy promises of 9/12, 2001 and days beyond are being honored in the breach. The Administration has police powers greater than at any other time in our history but it has no funding for the real work of security, which defends the most dangerous points of vulnerability. That should be the first effort in any risk management scenario that makes sense. Instead we are funding the improvement of security at our vulnerable ports of entry so slowly that even the current program will take until 2009 to fully implement! In addition we are working at a glacial pace addressing the vulnerability of our nuclear facilities, our chemical plants and our other vulnerable industrial sites. Funding for none of the above is adequate and much of it is being piled on the owners of the plants, which means enhanced security is unlikely to happen at all. This is being done in an environment where tax cuts are mounting above two trillion dollars since this administration has taken office. The total estimated cost of this upgrade in security is around one hundred billion dollars. Not much when the cost of a successful attack is factored in. Unfortunately the massive debt that we are piling up due to the deficits those tax breaks have caused is making everyone in Washington queasy about spending money. If we can't have the tax cuts and heightened security at vulnerable points in our infrastructure, then I for one would like to see the tax cuts revoked. In addition to this problem we are following a process of attack as a means of defense. Afghanistan made some kind of sense as Osama was obviously backed by the Taliban Government. Iraq is a place where our need for someone to beat up on overcame our historic sensible dislike for wars that lack a good exit strategy. So we have destroyed a tyranny and now we are struggling with the process of creating a Democracy where none has ever flourished. The war is over but we are still losing personnel at close to the same pace as we did during the war. It also appears that we are clamping down hard on the civilian population of Iraq. How long will it be before we are seen as the real problem by the people of Iraq, regardless of the lack of truth in that allegation? Nothing about the weakness in our nation's internal
security is going to be replaced by any number of foreign wars. None
of the civil liberties given up by our citizens are likely to deter
Al Queda operatives from attacking us in our nation with its porous
borders. I have no real objection against war elsewhere if I think
it really enhances our security. Unfortunately the real effect of
the war in Iraq on our security will remain a mystery until it is
really over rather than merely being declared over by our side. A
single supporter of Osama or Saddam with an aerosol spray bottle could
demolish the health of our nation if it contained smallpox virus.
We are engaged in a type of war not seen in the last century and our
military is helpless regardless of all its power in that type of battle.
We need to enhance our internal security and our response to threats
at home. These threats will not come from our citizens, they will
come from someone who will cheer when millions of us die. When a simple aerosol bottle like the one I use to train our kittens to stay off the furniture could spread death throughout a populous modern nation WMD are not possible to eliminate. We are playing at war so far but our world will not become a better place unless we sacrifice a little money for our internal security. I would far rather give up any amount of tax cuts than one more of our civil rights. Our nation has always been defined by every individual's level of personal freedom. We can be far more secure and not give that up but our leaders will have to make some harder choices than they have been willing to make thus far in this process. In the end our leaders must recognize the purpose for enhanced prevention using guards and cameras to prevent our vulnerable sites from being used against us. They must eschew the simple police-state mentality that afflicts our current Attorney General. They must denounce such assaults on our liberty as the "Patriot Acts" for what they are, fearful responses without the substance needed to enhance our nation's security. It is not the bosom of the statue of justice that needs cover but our nations vulnerable industrial sites. It is not the minds and souls of our citizens that pose a threat to our nation but terrorists who will stop at nothing to wound us more deeply. It is not the taxes of our citizens that need to be returned to them but their rights and dignity and courage. Until our leaders do a better job than they have at those tasks they will remain part of the problem and not a part of any real solution to the issue of our security. God bless and keep you, our troops, our protestors and our leaders safe in these insecure times. |
© 2003 Golden Brush Interactive, All Rights Reserved
Site Coments: webmaster@reynardfox.com