The Next Attack
Much of the speculation on September 12, 2001 and in the days and weeks that followed concerned when and where we would be hit next. What would the targets be? How would they hit them? How do we prepare?
Within weeks, disaster preparedness kits started appearing in stores only to fly off the shelves as Americans did what they could to prepare for the next attack which everyone seemed convinced was imminent.
To this day, thankfully, we have prevented the next mass casualty terror attack. I use the word "prevented" on purpose, as opposed to "avoided." We have prevented the sequel to 9/11 thus far despite the best efforts of al Queda and its imitators. America's law enforcement, military and intelligence communities deserve credit for thwarting such plans, including former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, and their teams.
While the military response to 9/11 was directed primarily at Afghanistan, the President and his team correctly understood that the terrorist threat was not specific to that country, but instead was and remains global. The terrorist threat to America is not primarily rooted in the sponsorship of one state, but rather flows from organizations that transcend national boundaries in their staging, operations and financing.
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama argued that Iraq was a diversion from the global war on terror, and that Afghanistan should be the real focus where terrorism is concerned. This represents a worldview, or at least a political view, that Iraq was the politically incorrect war, while Afghanistan is acceptable because the country served as the staging ground for 9/11.
The real strategic issue is that terrorist groups and their imitators and allies don't owe allegiance to any particular country, making a nation-specific focus on our part besides the point. The real issue concerns where terrorist groups may find allies, and destroying such opportunities for basing, staging and financing.
The terrorists' orientation goes beyond national boundaries, and our focus must do the same if we are to protect our country, its citizens, and our allies.
Within weeks, disaster preparedness kits started appearing in stores only to fly off the shelves as Americans did what they could to prepare for the next attack which everyone seemed convinced was imminent.
To this day, thankfully, we have prevented the next mass casualty terror attack. I use the word "prevented" on purpose, as opposed to "avoided." We have prevented the sequel to 9/11 thus far despite the best efforts of al Queda and its imitators. America's law enforcement, military and intelligence communities deserve credit for thwarting such plans, including former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, and their teams.
While the military response to 9/11 was directed primarily at Afghanistan, the President and his team correctly understood that the terrorist threat was not specific to that country, but instead was and remains global. The terrorist threat to America is not primarily rooted in the sponsorship of one state, but rather flows from organizations that transcend national boundaries in their staging, operations and financing.
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama argued that Iraq was a diversion from the global war on terror, and that Afghanistan should be the real focus where terrorism is concerned. This represents a worldview, or at least a political view, that Iraq was the politically incorrect war, while Afghanistan is acceptable because the country served as the staging ground for 9/11.
The real strategic issue is that terrorist groups and their imitators and allies don't owe allegiance to any particular country, making a nation-specific focus on our part besides the point. The real issue concerns where terrorist groups may find allies, and destroying such opportunities for basing, staging and financing.
The terrorists' orientation goes beyond national boundaries, and our focus must do the same if we are to protect our country, its citizens, and our allies.
<< Home