In the chronology leading up to the hijackings and terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I don't think the date of August 31 has any significance.
By this time seven years ago, all the hijackers had purchased their airplane tickets.
It is my understanding that the hijackers sent back unused funds to al-Qaeda paymasters shortly before the date of the attacks.
At this point in 2001, some of the hijackers may have started moving into position, even though the hijackings were still nearly two weeks away.
So what is there to be said today as we approach the seventh anniversary of the hijackings of the airplanes that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center, penetrated the Pentagon and disintegrated in a field in Pennsylvania?
Those hijackings put the United States on the path it has followed ever since — a path of war (one was necessary, one was needless). The sand of the Middle East has been turned into quicksand that has greedily gobbled up American lives and treasure.
It is clear, I think, that Osama bin Laden won’t remain in the shadows. And the United States has mostly left him alone for the last seven years while it’s been busy settling old scores with a weakened Saddam Hussein — like the old general who insists on fighting the new war by focusing on correcting the mistakes and tactical errors from the last war.
(Which reminds me of a wonderful Dana Carvey ”Saturday Night Live” skit in which he portrayed President George H.W. Bush speaking about the Persian Gulf War from the Oval Office. ”This is not Vietnam,” Bush/Carvey says solemnly. ”For we have learned the lesson of Vietnam. And that lesson is — ‘Stay out of Vietnam!’”)
Saddam’s dead now, and the United States occupies Iraq, but we’re still having to spend billions of dollars to fight the insurgents.
If the terrorists were to pull off another attack on American soil today, frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me — although I suspect it would surprise a lot of people.
What would surprise me would be the form of the attack — because I have almost no idea what it will be.
The only idea I have on the subject is that it won’t involve hijacking airplanes.
That’s something the terrorists have already done.
And, because it is something they’ve already done, airline security has been under pretty intense public scrutiny for the last seven years.
Some screeners at airports have taken their lumps, at times, for permitting contraband to be carried on board by passengers who turned out to be investigators or reporters.
But the industry has made efforts to improve cockpit security as well as passenger security. It isn't perfect — it remains a work in progress — but it's better than it was.
So, while I have no doubt that the terrorists have not abandoned their plans to attack the United States, I don’t think airlines will be used as the weapons next time.
The next attack will exploit a different weakness.
When I was fresh out of college, I worked for a year and a half as a police reporter. And, as the police told me then (and I’m sure they would tell you today — since the fundamentals of criminal activity do not seem to change), a criminal needs to believe that a target isn’t being watched.
Criminals like to break into a car that’s parked in a dark corner of a parking lot or parking garage.
They prefer to pick a safe in a shadowy business office.
They want to climb in through a window of a home in which no lights are shining.
In the last seven years, the spotlight on air travel has been far too bright.
So, if you want to identify probable targets, look for something with little or no security — and the potential to undermine the U.S. economy.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the economy suffered for months before starting to turn around — but the recovery period was relatively short because the economy had been in pretty good shape prior to the attacks.
Given the state of the economy of 2008, a well-chosen target in another terrorist attack could cripple the economy for who knows how long.
I also believe the next ”teams” of terrorists — if the next plot involves teams — will not look like Arabs, the way the hijackers of 9/11 did.
The new generation of terrorist ”teams” will have a more Western look. They may be white or black — or Hispanic or Asian. I believe they will be chosen because they blend in.
For that reason, they might be Hispanic if the attack originates in a state that has a high percentage of Hispanic residents — like California or Texas. They might be black if the attack originates in the Deep South — someplace like Atlanta, perhaps — or a Northern city that drew large numbers of black migrants from the South — like Chicago or Detroit.
If there are multiple, simultaneous attacks, like there were in 2001, I believe the team members will have characteristics that won't raise any eyebrows in their locations.
They may be given clothing that will help them blend in. If the attack originates near a military installation, they may be given military uniforms. If it originates near a college campus, they may be given attire that is typical of today's college students.
They might even be women.
We’ve already seen cases of pregnant women serving as suicide bombers in the Middle East. It is indeed ironic that the desire to destroy others can be made to overrule the innate instinct in these young women to protect their children.
The point of how frustrating it can be to prevent that kind of enemy from attacking was driven home by the character of Admiral Fitzwallace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the ”West Wing” TV series:
”The laws of nature don't even apply here,” he complained bitterly near the end of the third season.
And how does one prepare for an attack when it is unknown (a) what form the attack will take, (b) where the attack will take place, (c) who the target(s) and attacker(s) will be, and (d) when the attack will commence?
As Joe Pesci's character said in the movie "JFK" ...
"It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma."
No comments:
Post a Comment