| Is the US homeland really secure or are we fooling ourselves?
It has been almost three and a half years since the attacks on the World Trade Center, and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Since that time we created a Department of Homeland Security, fought two wars almost half-way around the world, reshaped our intelligence services and spent countless hours monitoring and watching videos captured off the Internet from terrorist groups. But the question remains are we more secure? Though we hear about intercepting messages and interrupting threats that were about to take place, we have hunted and detained a number of ‘persons of interest’ and interrogated many associated with groups likely to perform attacks. The question remains, are we doing what needs to be done to be more secure and safer in our everyday life? I can’t see us being more secure until we complete a serious reevaluation of how much security means and more importantly how much we are willing to pay. The cost is not restricted to financial terms, though these numbers could be staggering, but in changing our values and what makes us the entity we expect to be. Safety is defined by Merriam Webster as “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss, free from harm or risk : secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss”; while secure is defined as “freedom from danger: freedom from fear or anxiety: measures taken to guard against espionage or sabotage, crime, attack, or escape : an organization or department whose task is security”. Historically kings and other regents had secured themselves by fortifying exterior walls to their domain. Some added moats etc. to keep out invaders. The Chinese took this concept to the next level by building a fortification around their entire perimeter. When put in financial terms the cost of defense seems to have been a minor consideration to ensure protection from outside threats, at times all out invasion. I ask, though, were they really safer? Did not invention, ingenuity and daring prove these defenses ineffective? Security must not be a reactive process, it requires an ongoing effort to outsmart, undermine and outmaneuver a potential attacker. The mere addition of an alarm system to your home, car or other property does not prevent an intrusion, it simply informs you a breech has occurred. This will set some scripted action to take place, calling for assistance, having assistance arrive in a timely fashion and continue with a secondary script of arrest, prosecution and possible confinement. In the 1970’s there was a rash of airline hijacking. Some relatively innocent (if one can use this term for a violent act) as someone acting alone wanted attention and a free flight somewhere. Others such as the Arab extremist hijacking were more political and therefore more violent and destructive. What was done to alleviate this threat? Cockpits on airlines were reinforced, airline crews trained in handling would be attackers and armed air marshals added to flights. More care is taken to examine baggage and ask questions such as “Has any one unknown to you given you anything? Did you pack your own bags?” etc. The expectation is that a real bomber would admit to this or say “Yes I received this bomb from a possible terrorist”. I’ll wager that if this type of response would be given at a ticket counter or baggage check no one would know what to do. Hijackings were not eliminated but drastically reduced. However on 9/11 much harm was centered on inexpensive box cutters. Our defense of the homeland during and post the cold war was to prepare for an attack from outside our borders. This translated to monitoring of fleets, flights, missiles of “known and expected enemies” on both coasts and over the arctic and the Gulf of Mexico. Our defense considered longer lead times - even the fastest missile would take a few minutes to reach some target, and could be monitored along the way. This paradigm was shattered on 9/11 when airplanes were hijacked and used as missiles taking off close to their targets. Our whole defense mechanism was unprepared for this type of attack. Our command infrastructure did not anticipate and had little knowledge of how to disarm such an attack. Reaction; precaution; preparedness; prevention The expectation was to PREVENT the individual boarding the plane in the first place. As an aside, is there a “no sail” list of people who cannot board cruise ships? How about a “no ride” list for AMTRAK? Is this a credible idea for prevention? Of course now we get into reaction and precaution definitions since we now perform more intense searches of individuals fitting an evil-doer profile (more on profiles later). So an elderly person who may have had a metal plate medically inserted to repair bone damage is pulled over for additional screening but others who fit the category of suspects are allowed to pass to prevent ‘legal issues’. We spend hours searching bags and confiscating manicure kits while the cargo and baggage areas have a less rigorous examination. Remember please that shoes were not a potential threat until the ‘shoe bomber’ was discovered in flight. No air marshal with a firearm will prevent a shoe bomber or similar individual bent on suicide from completing their task. If someone boards an aircraft intent upon suicide, would a demand of ‘stop or I’ll shoot’ really be a deterrent? We basically do little to ‘prevent’ a potential terrorist from gaining access to an air craft. At best we may detain someone for a short period of time while we check lists compiled by translating a foreign name into English. Is it Osama Bin Laden, Usama Bin Laden… you get the idea. Friends or enemies Some suggestions First and foremost, we need to define and implement some formal National Identity Card. This should be based on a new schema not the overused, overrated and non secure Social Security number, or even worse Drivers License. The card should contain sufficient information to clearly identify an individual. It should be updated on a regular basis, and internally secure so that it cannot be transferred, copied or altered by other than authorized personnel with effective authority. Any and all emergency and first responders as well as hospitals should be able to readily access the information on the card. These cards should be as secure as possible, we are after all discussing our collective safety here, not a piece of plastic that can be mass produced by a teenager in the family garage, or that can be easily transferable between individuals. As some credit cards are now equipped with embedded chips, this technology should be used in the most efficient manner to gain and store details on an individual, perhaps even DNA images and GPS (Global Positioning Signals) or the very least traceable transmitters a la Lo-Jack. Yes I am prepared for the argument that this would limit the civil rights of individuals. Believe me this is against my strong beliefs in individual liberties. This is again the cost factor I alluded to earlier. We need to profile certain individuals and groups. Until we can be sure that religious and ‘social’ leaders will not use their position for political issues we must watch them Preaching revolution is akin to yelling FIRE in a movie theatre, Some of these organizations have been given extreme latitude of operation simply because of who bankrolls their organization. Demagoguery can kill. Far from the financial cost is the cost to our civil liberties and some of the freedoms we are used to and hold so sacred. Quite simply some civil liberties will need to take a back seat until we can prevent terrorist acts. I present the argument that though this will limit some of our liberties it will improve our overall safety and give us better day to day lives. To all those nay sayers I quite simply ask that they take up the more difficult challenge and work with this concept to make it successful, rather than simply provide negative arguments. Though we are not in the habit of trying to copy other countries, identity cards are the norm in many countries. I have seen how some communities handle Homeland Security and we are in deep trouble. From the special Hercules anti-terror teams in NYC to the local police forces or local sheriffs in smaller communities, I am concerned they may not know how to prevent an actual terrorist act. I am aware that mayors and Police Commissioners of many locations will disagree with the previous statement so let me elaborate. In NYC the Hercules team is composed of well trained professionals, no questions there. BUT since they are Americans and New Yorkers they are a more trusting sort. When the time comes and a member of a security force spots someone, they confront a terrorist, suicide bomber, will they shoot first or start interrogating immediately. My sense is that they will say the equivalent of ‘Stop. Police. Stop or I’ll shoot’ much like the ticket counter interrogation . In that short period of time the dastardly and deadly deed may take place. Now this is an example of an elite squad, what about the substantially less equipped and less trained folks. Much has been said about our ports and container traffic, as well as our air cargo. Not to mention the less than stellar security of our railroads. Let me respond to the argument that there are just too many containers to check. Let’s take a realistic walk through of a container for a moment. It is loaded on board at some location which may be unknown to the recipient. There is also no secure way to inspect the container at this point by the recipient or for that matter by any government official of the recipient country either. It is set in transit by either air or sea. There is little inspection en route, and the container’s ‘safety’ is guaranteed by some party. It then arrives at a dock or airport facility where it may be inspected but to be fair not always. Now it needs to get to its almost final destination via trucks (or via rail as an interim transit point) traveling on the highway system more than likely arriving at some densely populated area. Even if the cargo was not meant to cause harm at the receiving point it is still on the open roads which most often run through some dense population points. Some nasty things could occur almost anywhere. Negating the terror threat for a moment there are chemical spills almost regularly on our highways, and lately some bad chemical incidents as well. Now complicate the fact that the containers may meet with some undesirable (at least to us) characters along the way who may or may not tamper with the containers and, voila, there is a threat potential in the making. Monitoring is more of an issue that preventive steps but still I present the obvious danger. Mass transit is efficient for moving an exceptionally large quantity of people but a security nightmare. In NYC as in Boston and Washington (other locations as well I am sure) cameras are used to observe streets and sidewalks. What is the lead time for a suspect to be identified on the surveillance system, and authorities dispatched? I can tell you that it is delay again can have disastrous results. Can we possible station security people at every station? Is it at all feasible to stop and search each person and bag? Aside from the enormous cost and “rights” issues it would be a logistic nightmare. But still the basic question remains how much are we willing to compromise for “real” safety. We need to work with other countries to identify and capture known entities regardless of their blood relation or religious and political leanings. Now let’s look at normal everyday traffic issues. I will spare you’re the exact number but let’s agree that ‘rush hour’ is a particular point in the day when traffic is at its heaviest level. In some cities the roads are so crowded at these times that a ‘fender-bender’ will cause massive delays. Now try to stop and inspect every vehicle on the road. Does this seem feasible? Again, not complicating the issue with individual rights and freedoms, how safe are we really? Cargo and freight The US and most of the west, I admit, have short memories and forgive easily. After World War II, the Korean conflict and even Viet Nam we have learned to trade with those who were our former enemies. There are current tensions with China over our intellectual property rights and manufacturing/licensing or products and product development and copyrights. Even Libya which under Khadafi was involved in many anti US events, including supporting terror, is now our friend. Just to add to the alarm, we import a vast amount of oil in tankers from places like Saudi Arabia. Though the Saudi Royal family for the most part is included in our friendly list, there are a substantial and growing number of trouble makers within their borders. Need I remind you of the nationalities of 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept, 11? What if one of these ‘insurgents’ manages to get onboard one of the supertankers? Would it be too far fetched to think that they may be able to smuggle some explosives onboard? Setting aside the political aspect for a moment, imagine the environmental impact an oil spill in the Gulf of Hormuz would have? This would effectively shut the largest portal of oil? Are we prepared to prevent this from occurring? Outside Recruitment NBC Potential What to do? We must change the way we approach this terrorist threat. We can no longer look at it as a purely defensive action we must start to think like the terrorists. By that I mean really look to possible targets; metropolitan areas, infrastructure like bridges, tunnels, water supply, reservoirs, tourist attractions. Then we need to prioritize the threats and address the possibility of if not eliminating the threat, at least making it more difficult to penetrate. We also must be much more forceful in interrupting the communication of possible terrorist organizations thinly veiled as religious institutions. These people fight dirty - we need to as well. Secondly we must use profiling. If a certain segment of the population is more likely to perform a terrorist act, it is incumbent upon us to intercede. Thirdly we must change the way we punish prisoners and treat terrorists. There must be some deterrent to their cause and behavior. So the question is do we limit some of our liberties for the better good? Do we compromise our safety for our liberties? We need to seriously look at these questions and determine what we can give up. Finally, we need to understand that the suicide bombers are a very real threat. As the Israeli’s have found out, suicide bombers are out to inflict as much damage and carnage as possible, mainly to human life. America is not immune from such an attack. Harvey Betan is a business continuity planning consultant in NYC. He has spent a number of years as an IT manager and occupied an office at 2 World Trade Center. He can be reached at Harvey@cyber_soft.com NOTE: This article contains the personal views of Harvey Betan. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Continuity Central or its editor David Honour.
•Date: 18th March 2005 •Region: N.America •Type:
Article •Topic: Terrorism |
