Present Security Takes Priority

by Robert J. Romano

March 28th, 2004

What is more important: what could've been done to have prevented any single act of terrorism in history, or what should we be doing now to preempt, prevent, deter, and eliminate terrorist threats? Depending on whom one asks, you might receive different answers.  It should be clear that based on the need to prevent further attacks in the post-9/11 world, that a forward-looking strategy is needed for the present.  Our present actions to eliminate terrorism in general, and state-sponsored terrorism in particular, may be viewed in the context of pre-9/11 actions, and perhaps would accurately determine that since 9/11, America's posture against terrorism has become more offensive than in the past.  Our past actions, prior to 9/11, are also informative to determine what went wrong internally in America's security, and hopefully will produce solid recommendations that will further strengthen America's security.  To answer the original question, what we do today to prevent terrorism will always be the pressing concern, and whatever information we can gather that will make that task ever more practical, should be provided to the government.  Improving our general capabilities in information-gathering and intelligence, to give our people the tools that they require, in essence, modernizing our security structure for the 21st century will be an ongoing task.  

        The pressing need for improved security demonstrates its priority.  Defending the lives of the American people is therefore the the single-most important task that the federal government takes upon itself, both from internal and external threats.  The most accurate information on potential threats is necessary, and the tools that will ensure the maximum amount of security threats to be detected before they become imminent is also necessary.  We should not be surprised if many of the recommendations that are forthcoming have to do with allocating several new resources to our present security structure.  In addition to an internal organization of security for the homeland, the need to take external actions should not be neglected.  Preempting the terrorist threat overseas not only will defend our homeland, but it will defend other homelands as well.  America is obviously not alone in this general war on terrorism, and each state throughout the world must take the actions deemed necessary to protect themselves.  

         We should not harbor any illusions that 100% of attacks may be prevented.  Even with a forward strategy, and development of new capabilities, both for use internally and externally, and law enforcement efforts, military actions, intelligence actions, etc. we still have no assurance that all attacks may be prevented.  Nor should we expect there to be such assurance.   It is not appropriate to make promises one cannot keep, and I believe that while we may take all actions deemed necessary and proper towards enhancing our security, that all known contingencies will be addressed, and that all known terrorists will be hunted, there still is no certainty that we have thought of all the actions that need to be taken, what the unknown contingencies are, and just how many terrorists are actively working to kill innocents.  Even if we do everything we know we're supposed to do, we still don't know everything we're supposed to do.  In fighting and waging the war, we will, as time moves forward, learn new ideas and methods that will achieve our goals.  The process is not, nor will it ever be, perfect.  It is unrealistic to expect 100% security against all dangers, known and unknown, for how does one defend against unknown dangers? The only way that could conceivably be accomplished was if 100% of all dangers were known.  

        In addition to identifying threats, with limited resources, which types of threats take priority over other types? Today, a dangerous combination is when state sponsors of terrorism pursue technologies capable of developing weapons of mass destruction.  The need for states in general who have sponsored terrorism to change their behavior is absolutely necessary, and that need becomes even more urgent when those same states pursue nuclear, chemical, and biological technologies.  It is not safe to assume that state sponsors of terrorism will not develop the weapons, and eventually hand off such weapons.  Preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is absolutely necessary.  This means that since states are needed to develop such weapons, that states which sponsor terrorists and pursue those technologies ought to be stopped.   In addition, generally taking steps to halt weapons of mass destruction proliferation throughout the world is absolutely necessary.  Preparing for the worst-case scenarios that can be contemplated will provide us with challenges this century, and it is not safe to assume that an effective campaign for five years will assure safety for the next thirty.  Efforts must consistently and constantly be made in this area.  Decisions we make now must be followed up over the next generation, and as responsibility for security changes hands over the years, America's consensus towards preempting threats must not waver.  Ultimately, we have to work to deter and prevent future attacks against this generation of terrorists, and yes, the next generation of terrorists.

        Throughout this year, we will collectively face decisions based on several recommendations, and these will come from different sources.  We will face at least two different prescriptions from candidates for the presidency.  Seeing through the overall campaign against terrorism is absolutely necessary, and regardless of who the President is, the war on terror must continue.  What remains to be seen is whether or not there is any compelling reason to change horses midstream.  In addition, the debate we should be having will result in decisions being made.  Information we receive, and the recommendations that are made from the many commissions which will be had to look at the issue of preventing attacks, will prove useful if the measures proposed will be the most effective.  It is essential that we seriously consider what may be done to prevent future attacks.  A strategy, in my opinion, which targets the terrorists and removes sponsorship, cuts off funding, holds sponsors to account, prevents proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and secures the homeland is absolutely necessary.  Securing our borders, ports, and airports is as important to the overall security structure as are the military actions, as are the law enforcements efforts, intelligence efforts, diplomatic efforts, and the list goes on.  Like all nations, America must take all actions it deems are necessary to destroy and eliminate terrorism.  Every nation has the right to self-defense, and terrorism is one threat that effects all nations.  Terrorism is a transnational danger.

        Commissions which investigate what could have been done to prevent attacks which already have taken place can and should be useful towards putting in place new procedures which are superior to past policies.  However, what should be done to defend against future attacks is the larger question, and it is to our elected officials that we must look to for leadership.  The debate centers on this larger question, and the choice we will make in our election this year will include competing visions for America's security.  We do know that the present administration will not rule out the use of preemptive force against threats.  No one can doubt  that the path we are on is strong, and that the leadership being provided at the highest level is essential to the actions we have already taken to eliminate terrorism.  The war on terrorism will take many forms, and it will include many battles.  It will not be fought solely on the battlefield, and it will be long.  What is clear is that is that we must confront the danger, before attacks take place, and long before those attacks become imminent.  In the post-9/11 world, America's posture towards threats in general has and should have changed, and our forward strategy for eliminating terrorism, breaking up weapons proliferation networks, removing state sponsorship of terrorism and other safe havens through diplomatic, military, legal, and other avenues have all taken place as a direct result of the attacks which took place.  We should not be surprised that our strategy today is vastly different from the one which was pursued before the attacks of that particular day took place.  The difference between what we could have done to prevent attacks which already have taken place is, and what we should be doing overall to eliminate terrorism are distinctions that we should all make.  We deserve a debate about the latter as we consider the former.