As with many news events, the London bombings got me to thinking about some personal experiences and how I could use them to make sense out of all of it.
The first thing that came to my mind is what my son said to me last week, after returning from the Live 8 concert in Philadelphia. He said "anyone could have walked into the crowd, at least in the back, with a cooler chest containing a bomb." According to him, there were few police in sight and no security checks. I'm not blaming the Philly police; that's clearly a job too big for them alone. Wouldn't public safety at such an extraordinary event would come under the purview of our vaunted Department of Homeland Security?
I was also reminded of a few weeks ago when I was on a tour of the port in Newark, NJ. I believe this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, storage ground for containers off of cargo ships on the east coast. Duly impressed by a skyline created by stacks of containers, a tour guide was asked about any precautious being taken, post-911, for checking the containers for anything terrorists might try to get into the country. He said containers were sometimes spot checked, but specific containers were inspected only if drugs were suspected.
Reflecting, it seems to me surprising there are not in fact more terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad. I can't comment on "homeland security" in the UK, but there are identifiable gaps here that could be closed if political judgment and competence was there. Whatever the budget for Homeland Security is it seems it is being grossly misspent and misdirected--though airports seem very effective these days at collecting pocketknives.
My overall reaction to the London attacks was a sense of disgust not only at the act itself but the response here. Suddenly, transit systems are on "orange alert" and taking all sorts of precautions, after the fact. I've traveled Amtrak frequently and was only asked for a driver's license. Was the threat Thursday afternoon any greater than it was before the bombs went off in London? Also, I'm nauseated by listening to platitudes about "defeating the terrorists" and "they won't end our way of life" (whatever that means) coming from Bush, Blair, et al.
My point is, simply put, that the state of our homeland security is totally reactive but needs to be proactive.
I would like to think (as Tom Friedman says over and over) that if there were decent governments in the Middle East terrorism would essentially end. But let's face it, that's pie in the sky thinking and not going to happen for many years, no matter who is president, though we could hopefully move in that direction post-Bush. More importantly, I'm not convinced that anyone has a clear idea of how to respond to terrorism in all its forms in the long-term. It is one of those complicated problems that Bush, Inc. doesn't do well other than to reduce it to "good versus evil." So what to do immediately?
Instead of the "fighting the terrorists over there" rationale, which seems to be the rationale for Iraq de jour, a realistic national policy would accept that terrorists will try to strike anywhere and everywhere for the foreseeable future, and we must assume they will not follow any particular timeline or pattern. After all, terrorist attacks can and have been prevented. I understand during the Clinton presidency a plan to hijack 12 planes attack originating from the Asia was thwarted. Like the famous quote from Potter Stewart about defining pornography (But I know it when I see it) that looks like defeating terrorism to me. Invading Iraq does not. Destroying all terrorists is obviously an impossible goal. It seems to me the most responsible and sensible thing our government(s) can do is to make it as hard as possible for terrorists to be terrorists. And we should be very, very thankful that no one brought a bomb near one of the Live 8 concerts.
This is the first time I have taken up the effort and energy to write up a diary. I know there are other diaries on London, but hopefully this adds to the mix.