On the heels of the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush resolutely
stated that “America is at war, both at home and abroad, to
ensure the security of the American people.” Much has changed
since these words were first uttered over a year ago. The Taliban
is overthrown, al Qaeda is incapacitated, and Saddam Hussein is a
dead-man-walking.
But for all the success our government has had on the foreign
front, the domestic war against terror is being waged with little
of the same voracity and resolve. While the homeland is safer than
it was a year ago, it is still far from secure.
Top officials in the Bust administration still insist that
another attack is imminent. But despite the “near
certainty” of a strike, our government has been stymied by a
stunning lack of urgency. A number of Bush administration
proposals, including millions of dollars for law enforcement,
bio-terrorism defense, and emergency response, are still tied up in
Congress.
Even worse, the crux of Bush’s coordinated domestic
security plan, the proposed Department of Homeland Security, is
bogged down in the Senate because of a petty political dispute
between Democrats and Republicans. Some in the Senate have even
warned that if an agreement is not reached regarding worker rights
in the proposed agency, there”may not be a homeland security
bill. Is this any way to fight a war–with petty political
squabbles jeopardizing national security?
The same complacency has pervaded the government’s
handling of airport security””mdash;the front line in our domestic
war on terror. After the 9-11 attacks, all 429 of our
nation’s commercial airports were given millions of dollars
for the installation of new cargo-baggage screening equipment.
While Congress initially gave the airline industry a one-year
deadline, the FAA has recently suggested a 2004 deadline would be
more realistic. Representative John Mica, chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Aviation, stated “The baggage screening
deadline may not be met”¦and far worse, we are losing sight of
areas that could have potential risk.”
But the risk is not potential””mdash;it’s real. Just
recently, reporters for the New York Daily News were able to sneak
weapons, including the type used on 9-11, onto 14 flights at 11
different airports. Hardly the first evidence of airport security
incompetence, the Daily News’ report is just the latest in a
series of reports suggesting the need for expedient reform. But
despite the gaping hole in security, baggage screeners are being
federalized at a sluggish pace.
The government has been even slower to adopt an efficient method
of screening potential passengers. Under the current scheme, Ray
Charles and a Mohammad Atta look-alike have the same chance of
being stopped and searched for weapons. It is a system that wastes
time and energy, especially when the profile of our attackers is
abundantly clear. Unfortunately, the crippling effects of political
correctness have set in, as the Bush administration has declared
its opposition to profiling.
The fear of a racially tinged backlash has also resulted in a
wrecklessly soft border policy.
According to Senator Byron Dorgan, “The only thing keeping
the bad guys out of the United States in some areas…are orange
traffic cones.” With President Bush afraid to offend Vicente
Fox, and many Democrats afraid to offend their Hispanic
constituencies, the border remains a terrorist pipeline. Which begs
the question, how serious can we be about war when political
correctness trumps domestic security?
With the “near certainty” of another terrorist
attack on the horizon, the American people deserve a domestic war
on terror that is not crippled by partisan bickering, complacency,
or political correctness. September 11th was something of a
wake-up-call for our government. Unfortunately, it appears our
domestic policy-heads may have gone back to sleep.