I have been, at times, quite scathing of the Department of Homeland Security, and the various measures which have been taken to secure the US. The funny thing is, however, that if the US's security measures were really that weak, why hasn't there been another attack? Or failing that, why hasn't there been a lot more evidence of preparation and activity?
One explanation is that DHS is so bad, what activity there is hasn't been found, but that strikes me as unlikely - as ineffective and haphazard as so much of their activities seem to be, they aren't THAT bad. But the alternative explanation is that no such activity is taking place, which seemed equally unlikely - why wouldn't people who so loudly declare their enmity to the US an everything it stands for at least try something?
The obvious answer is because there simply isn't that much terrorist activity at the moment. The problem with this answer, of course, is that it doesn't seem to be true. Certainly the families of the victims of the attacks on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, and the rest would disagree! But consider also this:
Terror cells regroup - and now their target is Europe
That's an extensive roundup, published in the Guardian, of terror activity all over Europe - and there's a LOT of it. Certainly you can assume that the police will be mistaken about much of it - but consider also that they will be missing much as well. If the article is to believed, Europe is teeming with terror cells, and it's only by good fortune that Europe (outside of Turkey) has avoided any attacks so far. Example:
Al-Qaida terror plot foiled, say French police
The French authorities seem quite convinced that they only just managed to prevent attacks on Paris using chemical weapons.
Let's have a pause to think about that. Terrorists, using chemical weapon, attacking the capital of a first world nation. Welcome to the 21st century ladies and gentleman, be prepared for a bumpy ride. :-/
So, if terrorism is rife in Europe (which it apparently is), and if terrorism is rife in the Islamic world (which it obviously is), why is it not rife in the US? Could the Department of Bureaucratic Job Security actually be having some effect? It seems implausible, but if not them, what? The only other conclusion which presents itself is that the US's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had an intimidating effect, and as intended, made the US safer - although this too seems unlikely. I never bought the critics argument that it would actually significantly increase the risk of an attack, yet at the same time, I didn't see how it would decrease it either, and I argued at the time that it was by far the weakest of all the arguments for war.
But if it isn't because of US actions abroad, and if it isn't because of US actions domestically, then whose actions is it caused by? I try and avoid making the mistake of assuming that the US is the only "actor" on the world stage, and everyone else must simply react. As hard as it may be to imagine, sometimes things happen for reasons completely unrelated to the US. But again, I have to wonder - if not us, then who?
Posted by cody at January 12, 2004 04:48 PM | TrackBack