Dec 22nd, 2003, 04:36 PM
Stuff
Business first:
My Lee Ermy picture is gay. I look like a moron. And I don't have a scanner. I think someone else in my office has a group photo in which I look less homo-like so I'll try to get my hands on that one.
As for Homeland Defense, granted it's a mess, I think in theory it was the right thing. Or at least some version of it. Having worked in and around govt. agencies for almost a decade now (Fuck I'm getting old) I can tell you that incompetence and inefficiency are par for the course. Again, it is my belief that what many times gets labled "conspiracy" is actually more a result of mismanagement and incompetency. Regardless, I don't think anyone doubts that there was a serious communication problem between the varioius federal enforcement and intelligence agencies. Homeland Defense is not the end all, but it's a start.
Again I think while the terror alerts can be useful to the agencies, the problem was it was touted to the public in an attempt to "show allt he great things we're doing to make you safe". Instead it's just created confusion. I agree with Max that one way or another, eventually it will become irrelevant to the public.
I also don't like the idea of telling people to go about their business. I think we should say what we mean. Perhaps it will scare folks a little, but who gives a fuck? I say if you think we're going to die, than Tom should say "Listen, things aren't looking good and we're getting indications that some shit is going to go down. We can't promise you where or when, but we'll do our best. In the meantime, stay the fuck away from big gatherings, government facilities, etc, unless you absolutely have to." When a hurricane is on it's way, we don't say "We're pretty sure it's going to hit, but just go one about your normal business and hope it doesn't affect you".
As for timing, as mentioned in the previous post, I think the holidays are ideal times. Having been around anti-terrorism and force protection for a while now, I'd say it happens a lot more often than you hear about. Terrorists are big on symbolism. Anniversaries, holidays, etc are all prime times. Add to that the large gatherings that typically occur during the holidays (celebrations, sporting events, etc) and you have a prime time to make a statement.
You also have to consider the fact that each new terrorist attack raises the bar. Khobar Towers was sort of the litmus test for Al Queda. They targeted a facility in a country close to their base of operations where they had freedom of movement. The embassy bombings in Africa raised the stakes by demonstrating their global capacity and ability to operate outside the region. 9/11 was sort of the coup de tat. Large scale operation, global planning, maximum emotional effect. The next target will likely be more dramatic than the last. After 9/11, resorting to truck bombs and suicide bombers becomes ineffective and you lose the shock value of the terror you're inflicting. As far as the "worse than 9/11" predection, I think that's a fair assertion on Ridge's part.
Anyway, with regards to the original question I posed, I didn't ask to provoke an argument. It's out of genuine curiosity. Again as I see it, while the administrations housekeeping response to 9/11 has not been ideal, I'm personally unable to fathom any response that would have been considered acceptable. In my opinion, its a long term problem that will require a long term solution.
|