Are we safer from another 9/11 attack on U.S. soil?

I was disappointed by Barack Obama’s response last evening but felt he answered the only way he could.  He indicated we were safer (but not by how much) and then went on to point out that we still have real vulnerabilities in cargo through ports, airlines, etc., because of inadequate screening.  In Barack’s defense, to have answered otherwise would play into the Republican fear, uncertainty, doubt game that they execute so well.

I would have preferred that Barack say, “No, we’re really not safer and the threat of another terror attack on U.S. soil remains largely unchanged.”  Why?  That’s the truth.  But, after spending billions and billions on this, would the American people stomach the truth?

The Bush Administration created the hugely inefficient Department of Homeland Security which is such a behemoth that it can barely get out of its own way to support hurricane relief. We are only a bit safer as we’ve really only done cosmetic changes.  For example, if you think the TSA is going to make you safer flying, look at the media reports of all the tests successfully putting weapons through airport passenger security check points.  The U.S. provides the illusion of security, not security.

El Al Airlines–the Israeli airline–provides true security.  But, it is a level of security that American travelers would never tolerate.  With El Al, you show up for a flight 4-5 hours before a flight and go through multiple screenings including interviews.  Their planes are not parked at the gate at the airport; they park them out on the tarmac away from the terminal where armed people both on the plane and on the ground secure the planes when they aren’t in use.

We should not conclude that we are safer simply because we’ve not had an attack on U.S. soil like the 9/11 attack.  Those who seek to undermine the U.S. are patient and know that we continue to be complacent about security.  Think of it like computer virus software which needs to be updated daily.  There are constant, new threats to the safety and security of your computer.  Someone is always trying to exploit a new weakness that they’ve uncovered.  Homeland security is no different and much more challenging. 

Has the U.S. demonstrated a level of commitment to potential terror threats?  Or, have we created the illusion that we’re safer?  We have a long journey ahead of us that will require substantial funding and persistence. 

What do you think?  Democrat Dave


3 Responses to Are we safer from another 9/11 attack on U.S. soil?

  1. Kurt says:

    That’s an interesting take on his answer. I started to cringe a little at his answer, wondering how it would play with 50+ white middle-America. When he brushed the nukes subject, I knew in my heart that he was right, but I was afraid he’d come across as too alarmist.
    So, I guess if you look at both of our responses, Barack answered it perfectly!


  2. Sherry says:

    yep, exactly my take. I thought he dare not say the truth, we are no safer at best, at worst, less so. Bush’s policies certainly have engendered more hatred for the US than before for sure.


  3. Joe Alioto says:

    ‘Homeland Security’ Requires Thwarting Terrorism. Innovative Technology is Needed.

    While millions of products and billions of dollars enter our country each day, the security of the entire U.S. population is at stake. At our ports, no measure of human activity can contain the potential for transporting nuclear material or delivering a nuclear attack. The need for a cost effective, efficient solution to this vexing problem is not only necessary it is vital. This is why we need port-based technologies that scan our shipping containers with accuracy and efficiency.

    To achieve this we need a technology that is based on several key elements. Throughput and resiliency are critically important to container shipping, especially in the case of thwarting nuclear smuggling. Nevertheless, in order to be effective in nuclear materials detection we need solutions and resources that screen each of the well over 10,000,000 containers coming in the US annually. Therefore, we logically turn to technology to allow us to manage this problem by exception rather than rule. Simultaneously, we need to implement solutions that will allow us to recover and reboot from a successful nuclear incident.

    Joe Alioto


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: