The terror attacks on New York and the
Pentagon have been likened to Pearl Harbor. The question was soon asked,
as it was after Pearl Harbor: Why weren't we warned?
The fact is, we were warned. Two years ago, for example, a Presidential
commission led by former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren Rudman predicted
a terrorist attack on the United States and warned that "Americans
will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."
Not all of the commission's fears were realized on Sept. 11. Hart-Rudman
said the attack might involve nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
In July 1999, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen warned that we had "not
a moment to lose" in preparing for a terrorist attack on the US
homeland.
In testimony to Congress last March, the Defense Intelligence Agency
forecast a major terrorist attack, either in the United States or abroad,
over the next 12 to 24 months "with a weapon designed to produce
mass casualties."
We had further warning from the car bomb attempt on the World Trade
Center in 1993, as well as from the attacks on the Air Force's Khobar
Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, on US embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, and on USS Cole in Yemen last year. These atrocities
generated no more than temporary outrage and perfunctory responses.
The warnings were there. We just didn't pay attention because we perceived
no threat to our security. Then the terror attacks reordered our national
priorities overnight. We have begun to take national security as a serious
matter, but it is not clear whether the full import has sunk in yet.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, reaction focused on the vulnerability
of airlines and airports. But airline security is only part of the terrorist
threat, and terrorism is only part of the national security problem.
Defeating terrorism, as vital as that is, is not our only requirement.
Prior to the attacks, we were deeply involved in a national defense
review, aimed at correcting problems of the armed forces, accumulated
over the past decade, and transforming them to meet the needs of a new
century.
The war on terror pushed those issues out of sight and made them seem
long ago and far away. In reality, they are still there, and we cannot
delay dealing with them much longer. In some ways, resolving them will
be more difficult than before.
Until a month ago, the prevailing presumption was that we were in an
interlude of "strategic pause." The nation perceived itself
as between wars, and between significant threats.
Therefore, an assumption of the fundamental defense review, ongoing
since February, was that we would be able to accept more risk in the
short term and divert efforts and resources to the needs of the future.
It is now clear that we have serious, compelling national security requirements
that are here and now. There is little margin for playing off the needs
of today against the needs of tomorrow. We must attend to them both.
Likewise, our counterterror requirements are in addition to, not instead
of, other military requirements.
The emergency appropriation approved by Congress will bring much-needed
improvements in counterterror capability. Some such improvements, especially
in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, will have broader
applicability, but most national defense shortcomings are still where
we left them six weeks ago.
The nation feels little urgency about stabilizing the slide of the armed
forces, replenishing their stores of spare parts and munitions, or replacing
their aging and worn out equipment. The newly awakened sense of national
security does not go that far.
The Pentagon has declared homeland defense to be its paramount mission.
It could hardly do otherwise. The United States is under attack.
However, defensive measures at home will not win the war on terror.
It is not physically possible to defend everything all of the time.
The first time, it was a fuel-laden aircraft. Next time it may be a
subway, a shopping mall, a football stadium, or the water supply.
As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, terrorists "don't
live in Antarctica. They work, they train, and they plan in countries" from
which they receive support. Defeating the terror networks means taking
the fight to them. We must "drain the swamp they live in," Rumsfeld
said.
In Operation Enduring Freedom, the armed forces began carrying the war
to states that sponsor and export terror.
In the months ahead, the nation faces a test of will. With the rubble
of the twin towers still smouldering--and before the first blow had been
struck against the terrorists--the pacifists were in the streets, calling
for gentle measures and American restraint. Three blocks from the White
House, anti-war protesters burned a US flag.
It remains to be seen whether we will sustain the commitment to wipe
out terror. Beyond that, there are additional threats to our national
security. At the moment, they might seem distant, even far-fetched.
We should remember that the threat from terrorism seemed distant, too,
right up to 8:45 a.m. on Sept. 11, when American Airlines Flight 11 struck
the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved.
|
