Tuesday, January 05, 2010

The Department of Unsecurity

I am often asked, what will it take to wake people up when it comes to our national security? I am of the opinion it will take us having to remember a few more dates on the calendar that we don't right now. Much like September the eleventh used to be just another day to us.

I thought in the weeks following 9/11, we were as close as a represented republic would come to implementing serious, common sense security measures. We knew who are enemies were, and we knew what motivated them. We understood the next threat would most likely come from younger, radicalized Muslim men. However, as the weeks grew into months, with no successful attacks on our soil, large portions of our government began to change their focus. They turned away from public security, to security with an emphasis on public relations. Thus began our foray into unsecurity, as I call it.

Unsecurity happens when the people in charge of security are more concerned about "backlash" and not offending certain groups of people, rather than actually preventing the next terrorist attack. In this new politically correct world of unsecurity, we cannot even call things by their proper names.

Why is it when Muslim Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan goes on a murderous rampage at Fort Hood, the media does not call him a radical Islamic extremist, or an Islamic terrorist? He is just "troubled serviceman" or a generic "gunman." When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Muslim Jihadist from Nigeria, tries to blow a hole in the side of a passenger jet over Detroit, he is not called a terrorist, he's just a guy with bomb, "the failed plane bomber," and the act of terrorism is a "crisis."

The head of our unsecurity department, Janet Napolitano now uses the focus group tested "man made disasters," that sounds much better than terrorism, right? Oh, and by the way, they have scrapped the term "global war on terror," now they call it an "overseas contingency operation."

I have just one simple question to ask. Are we at war right now, and if so, with whom?

I was never been a big fan of the term global war on terror, I would prefer using the term war against radical Islam. That is in fact what it is, and who we are fighting, but overseas contingency operation, are you kidding? That sounds like a back-up data storage plan for a fortune 500 company.

Back to our new department of unsecurity. Are we paying extra attention to young men coming in from Muslim countries or carrying passports from Muslim countries? If there are rules that prohibit this, the rules should be changed, now. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a very accurate profile for terrorists. We know this profile through painful experience, and terrible loss. Look, unless we to strip everyone down and make them fly in hospital gowns, we need effective screening. We need an effective, common sense ways to look at a 150 people in line and figure out who needs a closer look.

Let's stop frisking grandma and 9 year old girls while we let the 25 year old from Nigeria, who bought his one-way ticket with cash, and had no luggage, stroll right past the screening area. I understand the benefit of random screening, if all the attention is paid to one particular profile, al-Qaeda could change its appearance and bypass scrutiny. However, when we ignore a proven profile, we are ignoring a proven threat, and it is going to get us killed.

How many dates on the calendar will become ingrained in our memories before we stop hiding behind political correctness and start protecting our citizens from those who wish to murder us?

1 comment:

Ericosborneo said...

Well said! Alas, common sense does not run the country right now.