BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
October 1, 2002
A Pre-War Checklist
A
BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
by Peter Nelson
In a September 27, 2002, editorial, "The Greater Nuclear Danger", the New York Times correctly noted that "While the Bush administration has been pushing hard for military action to neutralize Iraq before it gets nuclear weapons, Washington has been moving much more slowly to eliminate [an] even more troubling nuclear threat - the vast array of bomb-grade materials that lie poorly protected around the world, waiting for some terrorist and rogue state to buy or steal them." The editorial was prophetic for within days, smugglers in Turkey were arrested with what may have been a small amount of uranium in their possession. [Ed. note. It was learned today that the metal was not uranium.]
The editorial's theme -- that offense measures in our efforts to combat terrorism must be accompanied by defensive ones -- underscores an area of concern that has received little public attention, namely: since virtually every expert agrees that an attack on Iraq will result in an increase in the probability of an act of terrorism here at home, have we taken effective measures to meet this threat?
As a former USAF fighter pilot, I have a keen awareness that evil does exist in the world and that at times, it threatens our national interests and the stability of the world. Thus, I am not a pacifist. However based upon all available information, it is inarguable that:
1. Iraq is at least five years away from developing a nuclear weapon (unless it somehow obtains bomb grade nuclear fuel and to this point, the policy of containment appears to have been effective in precluding this from happening). However, even if Iraq had such a weapon, it does not have any type delivery system to use such a device to threaten the United States. The idea that a state such as Iraq could produce a "suitcase size" nuclear weapon that could be smuggled into the United States is laughable and the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.
2. Iraq may have a limited stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. While in popular parlance these have been lumped together with nuclear weapons under the catchall "Weapons of Mass Destruction" this is somewhat of a misnomer. As a battlefield weapon against a modern army, such weapons are both unreliable (being highly dependent on meteorological conditions) and largely ineffective. Such weapons have little or no effect on air operations and armored units; and, infantry units are equipped with countermeasures and travel in vehicles equipped with filtration systems. In fact, it would be far more accurate to include fuel-air bombs dropped from our B-52's -- that can instantly kill hundreds of massed troops -- as "weapons of mass destruction" than to lump chemical or biological agents into this category; and,
3. Iraq was not involved in the September 11th attack, nor has it threatened the United States.
Given the amount of disinformation that has been disseminated concerning Iraq's capabilities, intentions, and ties to terrorism, it is understandable that people of good faith may disagree over the question of whether we should invade Iraq either for purposes of "regime change" or to enforce UN resolutions. However, whatever position a person might take in this regard, the fact remains that Iraq is not an imminent threat, and thus we have time to insure that our homeland is relatively secure before embarking on any course of action that will put our citizens at greater risk. Thus, before even considering an attack on Iraq, Congress should address the following "checklist" of security issues, and make their full implementation a condition precedent for such an attack:
1. Have bomb detection devices to screen luggage been installed in every US airport? (No. Because of logistical problems, it may be a year or more before such rudimentary protections are in place).
2. Are airport security personnel currently able to ensure that a passenger cannot embark on an aircraft with a weapon? (No. While current procedures have resulted in substantial delays for passengers, screeners routinely fail to detect knives and even firearms.)
3. Have our pre 9-11 intelligence failures been fully investigated, identified and rectified? (No. The Bush Administration has been stonewalling Congress by refusing to provide them with all of the information needed for a full and impartial investigation. While the Joint Intelligence Committee has identified some of our intelligence failings, there is little to suggest that all of the problems identified have been solved.)
4. Has the FBI been provided with a new, fully operational computer system to enable its agents to effectively communicate with each other and search data banks? (No. While the FBI acknowledges that such a system is vital, it is not yet in place.)
5. Can the Boarder patrol certify that it would be difficult if not impossible for a terrorist to enter this country illegally? (No. Putting aside for a minute the fact that all of the September 11th terrorists were in this country legally, it is estimated that more than 500,000 aliens have illegally entered this country since September 11th. While most entered to the country for economic reasons, the fact remains that our borders are a sieve.)
6. Has a nationwide system been put in place that would make it difficult or impossible for a terrorist to obtain a valid driver's license? (No. In the absence of a national identity card, we largely rely on driver's licenses as proof of legal presence in this country. Each state has a different system for obtaining a license, and many have dismal security safeguards.)
7. Has the Immigration and Naturalization Service identified all illegal aliens in this country and either investigated them and provided them with documentation, or detained them pending deportation proceedings? (No. There are currently millions of illegal aliens in this country. Some believe that such persons should be granted amnesty and legal status, while others believe they should be expelled. However one might feel concerning this issue, the fact remains that our failure to address this issue is an abominable hole in our national security.)
8. Are all container ships entering this country subject to effective examinations for biological/chemical weapons and bomb making materials? (No. Due to a lack of manpower, only a fraction of all cargo entering this country is subject to inspection.)
9. Are all tractor trailer trucks entering this country subject to effective examinations for weapons of mass destruction and bomb making materials? (No, for the same reason cited above.)
10. Is there a "Department of Homeland Security" that is up, running, and effectively coordinating the actions of all Federal agencies? (No. President Bush resisted the idea of such a department for nine months. When he shifted his position in response to political pressure, White House staff members working in secret created a "Larry Light bulb" plan that sought to rearrange the Federal government while doing nothing to integrate the functions of various intelligence agencies. He now threatens to veto the Senate's plan unless he is allowed to strip civil service workers of their contractual rights.)
Until such common sense defense measures are in place -- and absent evidence that Iraq is about to attack us -- we are woefully unprepared to even consider engaging in offensive operations.
Peter
Nelson
Myrtle Beach, SC
* * *
