Unbiased Look at the War on Terror

This is the first in what I hope will be regular looks at the ongoing war on terror. In these weekly postings, I plan to examine: pertinent news reports about terrorist threats from mainstream and alternative sources; items of interest concerning national security and the various constitutional problems presented; advancements in science and technology as they pertain to counterterrorism; and periodic analysis of the most currently active and dangerous terrorist organizations operating within our borders.

My intention is that coverage and discussion of these topics will be informative, interesting and objective, although inevitably there will be instances where I express my opinion in the interests of covering the subject. As those who have read Patriot's Blood can attest (http://www.richardholcroft.com), my protagonist doesn't hesitate to criticize government agencies where criticism is due, nor will I. The threat to our safety and way of life is entirely too serious for mealy-mouthed discourse or "politically correctness."

Of particular interest to me this week is the apparent lack of concern Americans currently have toward potential attacks. A Gallup poll conducted late last year––roughly a month prior to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11––showed that only 38 percent of Americans believe terrorist acts are very or somewhat likely to occur in the coming weeks, down from 62 percent conducted earlier that year after Osama Bin Laden was killed. Women, adults 35 and older, and Republicans were more likely to believe an attack could happen, than were men, young adults and Democrats. Women 50 and older were the most concerned; men age 18 to 49 the least.

Even more worrisome is the lack of attention––or at least public recognition–– of the terrorist problem by our president and current administration. Two months ago, in his speech to the UN General Assembly, the president never once used the word "terrorism." Nor did the White House want to admit the murder of our ambassador in Libya was a terrorist attack, until the facts became known (which occurred in very short order). In other cases of this type, involving attacks on American property and citizens, intel is often mixed, contradictory and unintelligible, and it takes a while for intelligence agencies to sort it all out before action can be taken. That clearly wasn't the situation here. 

"The problem with using the word 'terrorist' is that it creates tension," Mary Kate Cary suggests, writing in U.S. News and World Report. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/10/11/barack-obama-tiptoes-around-the-threat-of-terrorism_print.html ) "Not only does it acknowledge that there are extremist elements in the Arab world, but it reminds everyone that the United States is vulnerable to attack. The White House doesn't like either of those."

Given the proximity to the election and the closeness of the race, I'll leave it to the voters to decide for themselves who is the best candidate. It also goes without saying, domestic terrorism can be as big a threat as al Qaeda and other radical Muslim groups. But it is imperative we heed the general threat of terror in our country. We've made mistakes before after we'd received ample warnings (e.g., the two World Trade Center attacks, Oklahoma City in 1995; Fort Hood in 2009, to name just a few). We sure as hell don't want to make them again.


http://www.richardholcroft.com