It has been five quick years since September 11, 2001. Everywhere lately, the magazines, television news programs, among friends, the headlines ask whether we are safer since then and whether we have done anything right as a country. It is a valid question, to be sure, but one I think has a very easy answer.
We are absolutely safer today than we were five years ago. Despite misgivings over the machinations and apparatus that have been designed and implemented in the wake of 9/11, our borders are safer (though clearly much work needs to be done); our citizenry is more aware (though hopefully not skittish and trigger-happy) of the world and the differences between the terrorist organizations and those they harm; our airports and planes are more secure than ever (though at tremendous cost of money and time); and most importantly our government is more calibrated to meet the threat ahead of us.
The border issue is paramount, and though work has been done piecemeal over the last five years, a substantial overhaul of border security is sorely needed. Obviously such huge, responsible legislation cannot be written overnight. But the Congress needed to work on this yesterday, instead of telling us to wait until tomorrow. Separate from the proposed guest worker programs and the like in the Senate plan, the security of our borders needs to be addressed immediately. I haven't read the House bill that passed, the one that dealt solely with border security, but I agree that that should be the first step of many, rather than an omnibus bill that addresses multiple issues. It is pathetic that election-year politics and the Congressional schedule preclude any significant action on passing such important legislation this year. We deserve better than that.
It was a border agent that began the dragnet in 1999 that botched the plan to blow up many landmarks and bridges on the eve of the new millenium. This is a crucial front in the war on terror, too, and there's one on either end of our nation. I'm not suggesting we close the borders, or establish a police state only for those non-Americans entering this great nation, but we need to be certain that people coming into the U.S. do not pose a threat to it. This is accomplished by the sharing of information. We need to make sure that the border agents are eminently capable men and women and we need to make sure they have access to the most updated terrorist watch lists, with aliases, and other information that will allow them to better patrol those portals.
I fully understand that the other implication of tighter border security would have multiple other implications. Many Mexicans and other people enter our country and work illegally, though are still a part of America through their purchasing of food, services, etc. These men and women do many jobs Americans have grown to look down upon, and do so for the chance of a better life. This is a story as old as our nation, and it is not one that should be scorned. However, any guest-worker program or other immigration plan needs to be complemented by an intense renaissance of the U.S.-Mexican relationship. The President needs to mount a full-scale effort to work closely and fortuitously with President-elect Calderon. I believe we already do work together and on many issues, but this is clearly below the fold. A refocus in the spotlight would go a long way to accomplishing many things that would make the illegal immigration problem in this country less of a problem and more like it traditionally has been in America. Calderon has said his main focus upon taking office will be a US immigration and border security offensive. I'm not sure his positions on everything, but I see this as a great opportunity for our two nations. Mexico has a long way to go to make itself a greater country for its own people, but much headway has been made. Giuliani consulted in Mexico City after he left office to reduce that city's unbelieve crime rate. More work like that would go a long way in the relationship between the US and Mexico.
The American people seem to be more interested in learning about the world than our previous reputation. I glean this from a few things. The increase in and success of political or high-minded television shows and movies (West Wing; Sleeper Cell; 24; Syriana; Fahrenheit 9/11; etc.) shows that there is a growing audience for thought-provoking entertainment. The success of the 9/11 report surprised some in the publishing industry. News channels are consistently drawing large audiences. The only opposite trend I can think of is subscription drops in newspapers. Radio was dying already, so that trend really doesn't apply. But by and large, I believe that the increase in the availability of information, coupled with the birth and explosion of blogs and pajama-clad journalists, points to a populace with the interest in learning more about our world. Which cannot be a bad thing.
The flip-side of that, though, is a hypersensitivity to "suspicious activity." Of course it is advantageous for people to be aware of their surroundings in public places and major cities, but it is not unrealistic to think some people go overboard. It appeals to their American id in the same way being able to perform a "citizen's arrest" does, but this should not replace sound judgment of what is happening in our free and open society. We should be aware, but not skittish.
We have the tendency to fight the last war. After 9/11 we understandably and rightly improved air safety, in our airports and on planes themselves. But the next attack is unlikely to be like the last one. That being said, it was a good thing to make cockpit doors more secure, and to limit carry-on baggage and curbside check-in, etc. I do believe, however, that we need to employ some kind of "profiling." I know that sounds terrible, and I don't exactly mean what it implies, but it is preposterous to perform random security searches when that includes little old ladies and people highly unlikely to be hatching a terrorist scheme. We should leave the majority of searches to better metal-detectors and gel and liquid chemical machines that need to be purchased and installed. But I don't think it is inappropriate to pull aside and more thoroughly search people who fit the profile of those that perform terrorist acts in the world. This does not mean we should pull aside every Arab or Muslim or darker-skinned traveller. But more efficient searches and better judgment would improve the ability of screeners to secure the skies. I was in Tokyo when the authorities busted up the most recent plane plot in London, and when I went to fly home I expected significant restrictions on what I could bring onboard, and of course long waits at the airport to actually board the plane. Maybe it was like this everywhere, but at Narita, security was a breeze. Not because it was lax, but because they were thorough and efficient. We could bring onboard one carryon bag but no liquids or gels. At the gate, they called up one boarding section at a time and had workers go through every aspect of our carry-on bags. I had a large, full backpack and it was pawed through by a kindly Japanese man. Everything was removed and looked at, but the whole thing took less than a couple minutes. The woman next to me had a small tube of mascara and another tube of lip gloss in a very full purse. The agent checking her spent roughly a minute longer than on me, but found the "contraband" quickly and disposed of it. It was not a dramatic process. I had no problem with this, and frankly, would be alright if this happened every time I boarded a plane, as long as it was as painless.
Part of the solution, at least in Chicago, might be the establishment of the Peotone airport. Already O'Hare and Midway have some of the worst delays in the country, and it can be hellish and unpredictable to leave Chicago through either. I don't think increasing the volume of flights at O'Hare is a sound solution. In Japan, Narita handles international flights while Haneda deals with domestic ones. Narita airport was the best I've seen anywhere. Very easy, safe, and quick but thorough. Perhaps making O'Hare the international airport only and Midway and Peotone domestic only would be a good solution. Regardless of whether that is done, taking some of the heavy traffic away from O'Hare and into the Peotone airport would ease the problems at the former. Who needs the title of "World's Busiest Airport" or other such superlatives, when it only creates dozens of hassles and problems.
Lastly, I am proud that the Patriot Act has done so much to transform our government into a better-oiled bureaucracy. Despite the obvious controversies over library records and other, more serious, complaints over the clauses contained in the legislation, much good came out of the Act. It knocked down the wall between the FBI and CIA, which mostly is a great thing. There still need to be safeguards that the CIA isn't spying on Americans, against its statute -- please refrain from commenting on the NSA phonecall program, as that's a whole book-length blog post at least -- and vice versa. But I haven't heard of any problems with the increase in communication between these two organizations. Against the president's initial disinclination to approve the DHS or the 9/11 Commission, both were created and both have lumbered towards some great accomplishments. However, as with any new giant undertaking, there were many problems with both. As time has gone on, though, I believe problems are being corrected, and we are better for it. As a conservative, I am largely against bigger government, but I am pro-DHS. I think of it more as a reorganization than an added, superfluous layer of government.
We have come a long way in these last five years, but much more work is to be done in the Global War on Terror. It will not end when this president leaves office, or when the next does, either. I am not sure exactly what will mean a victory in such a war, but I am confident that whatever challenges are presented to our nation, we will evolve and meet each one head-on. I hope I am not alone in these thoughts, though I very well may be. I do not support every action taken since 9/11/2001, but I do think most were necessary in their original, or modified, form. I hope that in the second five years, we will have done much more in the effort to eliminate the threat against us and to foment the building blocks of a better world.
