| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The ongoing failure of imagination |
| 2006-10-11 |
| Prior to 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely, but inconceivable. Psychologically, Americans imagined that they lived in a security bubble. Terrorist attacks, including those on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, occurred elsewhere. These beliefs were reinforced by the conventional wisdom among terrorism experts, who argued that terrorists sought not mass casualties but rather mass sympathy through limited attacks that called attention to their cause. As we approach the fifth year without a second successful terrorist attack upon U.S. soil, a chorus of skeptics now suggests that 9/11 was a 100-year flood. They conveniently forget the deadly explosions in Bali, Madrid, London, and Mumbai, and dismiss scores of attacks planned against the United States and others that have been disrupted. [1] The idea that terrorists are currently preparing even more deadly assaults seems as far-fetched to them as the possibility of terrorists crashing passenger jets into the World Trade Center did before that fateful Tuesday morning. As one attempts to assess where we now stand, and what the risks are, the major conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission deserves repetition: The principal failure to act to prevent the September 11 attack was a "failure of imagination." [2] A similar failure of imagination leads many today to discount the risk of a nuclear 9/11. Rest at link |
| Posted by:eltoroverde |
| #3 If we could limit the deaths to leftists, about a half million would be sufficient. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-11 12:01 |
| #2 "The failure here is the failure to enforce our will. The questions is: How many of us will have to die before we correct that failure and locate the spine to take the actions necessary to clarify that issue for the world?" My best guess: about 5 million. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-10-11 09:10 |
| #1 In 2003, Tehran offered to negotiate with the United States over Iran's nuclear program and even halt its support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Utter baloney. Tehran never intended to 'negotiate' and all its 'offers' were designed to buy time for its nuclear bomb program. Having called for war against Iraq on false premises, the Bush administration has paradoxically increased the WMD threat. Ah, just a wee bit of an agenda here. The United States cannot undertake or sustain the war on nuclear terrorism alone. Nor can the necessary actions simply be commanded, compelled, or coerced. Instead, they require deep and steady international cooperation rooted in the recognition that nations share an overriding common threat and can only succeed with a common strategy. Agenda identified. No basis for this conclusion is offered. We had lots of "international cooperation" buzzing along when two towers collapsed in New York City one fine September day. The only people who care about our safety is us. And sometimes, I'm not sure about us. Conclusion: (1) Stop making nukes. This is a non-starter. If we don't have nukes, our enemies will. This line of thinking is right up there with removing guns from law-abiding citizens because 'guns are dangerous'. Nukes aren't dangerous. People are dangerous. Conclusion: (2) International cooperation is the only way to ensure nukes are controlled. Yeah, like that worked so well during the 90's (and the 80's and the 70's and the...you get the drift...-ed). Here are two facts the author seems to ignore, although he claims it is possible for individuals to build a working nuke: (1) Only states have the money, organization and time to make nuclear weapons. (2) Individuals with knowledge and education are required to build a bomb. There is only one way to even marginally insure our safety. When any country says they now have a nuclear bomb, make that an act of war. Kill them. If they make us SUPSECT they're working toward a nuclear bomb, kill them. If they intimate they are trying to BUY or SELL a nuclear bomb, kill them. The United States should make it very clear that anything that looks like, smells like or quacks like a nuclear bomb will be considered a nuclear bomb. Leaving consequences unspoken and unnamed gives us the situation we have today. Consequences must be clear and immediate. Oderent dum metuant. The failure here is the failure to enforce our will. The questions is: How many of us will have to die before we correct that failure and locate the spine to take the actions necessary to clarify that issue for the world? |
| Posted by: Quana 2006-10-11 09:05 |