"air security lies in deterrence"

I agree with you.

While the article cited above make does some sense, it still misses the major issues....

No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still cause damage. No matter how many countries
we invade and pave over, we won't be able to stop those that hate us from doing us harm (in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

The "generals" are just re-fighting the last war again. Say whatever else you will about al Qaeda, they're not
stupid. They found a weakness and exploited it. But that trick only works once, and I seriously doubt that
aircraft will be used in the next attacks. It's going to be something else entirely, since almost all of our focus
is on things that fly. Duh.

Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and though that has gone into the "war agaist
terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?

John wrote:

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

January 7, 2004

Business World
Air Security Lies
In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

snips

But the lack of
attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
long.

I agree that the essay is a bit more sensible than the majority of the
administration's reactions to America being a victim of terrorism, and
it is good to see the WSJ perhaps moderating its usual position, but
the Mr. Jenkin's comments in the above paragaph lead me to judge it
not totally sensible when standing alone.

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11. What a joke. Look at the millions of
man-hours of energy; billions of dollars expended and wasted; millions
of significant distruptions of people's lives; countless compromises
of freedom and personal liberty; thousands of U.S. military
casualties; tens of thousands of dead, maimed and crippled foreign
nationals (Afghan and Iraqi, mostly); and a massively increasing
budget deficit that will probably effect our children for decades.
Oh, but it seems those things don't count as long as our country's
brave and heroic political leadership can prevent any direct
casualties on American soil and, by the way, get re-elected.

Many of those around the world who hold the U.S. in disdain are
probably laughing their heads off at the way a "rag-tag" (well, who
knows if they are really 'rag-tag' but we get that impression from the
spin-meisters) group of religous fanatics can cause such endless
disrupton for the world's most super-power by just making threats.
They don't need suicide bombers. Perhaps they are getting huge bang
for their bucks by just whispering rumors on cell phones, posting
cryptic internet mnessages, and floating bogus plan documents. What
has happened to our courage as a country? If we were really
courageous we would have long ago proclaimed that we were not going to
let our lives be disrupted out of fear, while at the same time we
would silently seek out the culprits with fierce determination. We
have a courageous military, but we are seemingly not a courageous
population. Let us reflect a little on what courage really is. To me
it is not proof of courage to proclaim, "Security at any price." Some
famous politician once expressed his leadership by entreating that,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was quite correct
in that.

In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
"remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?

Okay all of you testosterone enraged war-hawks, let me have it now for
daring to speak out against a good ol' popular war in which we
definitely have God on our side.

Sorry that this is so off the topic of piloting, but I didn't start
the thread.

John Pierce