Covering our bases

"Terrorism worldwide. . . has plummeted since the end of the Cold War and in the United States, it is virtually nonexistent. U.S. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials have yet to document a single serious threat to the United States involving terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. And many arms control officials and scientists say the chances of such an attack are close to zero."\nThis comes from a year-old issue of the liberal magazine, Mother Jones. The article by Robert Dreyfus, titled "The Phantom Menace," goes on to say that "like the farcical fallout-shelter drills that marked the height of Cold War hysteria in the 1950s, the anti-terrorism mobilization may have more to do with fueling fears than safeguarding citizens. The effort is wasting enormous sums of federal dollars without any serious evidence that such programs are actually needed." \nThe magazine, with an unfortunate cover depicting a man in what looks like traditional Islamic head garb, dropped into my lap last night, thanks to one of my roommates. Suddenly, I was engrossed in Dreyfus' angry diatribe against a Defense Department so hungry for resources that it was willing to take advantage of a trumped up terrorist threat. He calls the terrorist threat "made to order" for a "national security establishment, adrift with few enemies since the end of the Cold War." \nDreyfus estimates that between 1996 and 2000, counter-terrorism spending amounted to $38.5 billion, and would include another $11 billion in the year 2001. Much of which, he argues, was a waste. \nThe worst part was that staggering figure: $38.5 billion. It suggests that the effort to make the United States terrorist-proof has been under way for quite some time. Even the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, despite its perpetration by U.S. citizens, spurred Congress to pass legislation intended to squelch foreign terrorism. \nThere's nothing new about trying to prevent terrorism on American soil; the government's been at it for at least the last six years, and $40 billion didn't do anything to prevent September's attack. \nOf course, a great deal of the effort and resources went toward stopping hi-tech terrorism. Indeed, that's the focus of the article: the threat of biological nasties like anthrax, and nuclear nasties like black-market Soviet plutonium. \nNo mention of commercial aircraft. \nWhile the article may now seem dreadfully short-sighted, it raises at least one prescient point: how do we plan for terrorism? I'm afraid we still haven't answered that question. \nIt's been an odd war, what with the president holding high-profile media events to announce the freezing of terrorist assets and other steps experts aren't sure will accomplish very much. And yet, the most stunning event took place Thursday, when President George W. Bush spoke at O'Hare International Airport, lauding the new safety measures in effect and encouraging Americans to "Get on Board!" \nUnderstandably, it's the president's job to help revive the struggling air-travel industry, but insuring airline safety now is like getting ready for winter in Minnesota: a given. The real question is what we're doing to prepare for the kind of terrorism that strikes in shopping malls, on buses and at sports events (to mention only a few places targeted in England, Israel and other hot-beds of terrorist violence). \nThe greatest misconception about this war we are fighting is that our enemies are cowering in Afghanistan. Everything we're learning about the 19 men who carried out the events of September 11th points to the fallacy of that belief. The enemies are spread across the globe, some of them living in the United States, and in this war they will certainly attempt to bring the battlefield to our streets, cities, and neighborhoods.\nAnd as Dreyfus accidentally reveals, we haven't yet figured out how to plan our defense.