The only problem with our smug reassurance that we have corrected the
"security" problem is that terrorists are very flexible. They aways
seem to attack in just the one area not thought about. You can reduce
the risk, but not the possibility.

Terrorists don't attack in order to reduce the size of the US navy. They
do it in with the intention of spreading out/wasting/diverting US
human and material resources and for the publicity. So, now, we expend
a lot more resources protecting ships worldwide when all the terrorists
have done is attack one US ship in a motorboat.

Yes our ships are protected, but in the long run, the attack on the Cole
was a terrorist victory on several fronts.

Of course one little victory doesn't win the war and it may actually
show how limited the terrorist resources are in which they have hundreds
of thousands of targets worldwide but can only successfully engage once
in a while. Maybe the world should not be in a such a panic all the
time, expending a lot of worry when the enemy is going to attack only
sporadically at a time and place of his choosing.

However, think of how little resources the terrorists have spent to
cause worldwide concern and how much we have spent to obtain an uneasy
"security".

I really hope that there is a secret war against terrorism going on, one
that we are winning that we don't know about.

The WTC fell, but the sky didn't...although sometimes I think everyone
thinks so.

Pechs1 wrote:

BC writes- The Lincoln looks like a setting duck over there, other than radar
and the
Cans what do they have going for them to prevent another USS Cole? Or is
that all they need? BRBR

I say-I'd be willing to bet the CO of any USN ship would rather stand before
the long green table for killing a few sightseers by mistake than have the USS
Cole happen to their ship.

If I saw a USN ship in ANY port in the world, I would not get into a boat to
'get a closer look'.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer