The economy is dire and Obama needs to throw bizillions in stimulus at it and look at any and all other fixes to address it. But, what would really be making me nervous if I were him is the prospect of a domestic terror attack.
Its not an issue Obama should be talking about. Publicly it should be the economy, economy, economy. But, behind close doors, I would be bringing my security team around the table every morning and making it clear that priority one, two and three is doing everything possible to ensure that the American homeland is not attacked. Now of course you could argue that is most fundamentally the President’s first job. But, Obama will be pulled in many directions, as will his top aides. In the security sphere, our major involvement in Iraq, improving the situation in Afghanistan, chilling tensions in South Asia and finding a way forward in the Middle East will all vie for prescious presidential time. And passing an ambitious domestic agenda in Congress will also require presidential devotion. In such an environment therefore, it is easy to see how threats to the homeland could fall under the President’s radar screen, unless clear and imminent, and flagged by his aides.
Obama therefore will have to be proactive in making sure that doesn’t happen. If I were him I would want to see a quick and comprehensive review conducted of America’s homeland defenses reporting back before the inauguration. I would demand that a scorecard be drawn up that assesses readiness across the piece – from border security, to aviation, to ports, etc… Where readiness is deemed low, I would demand a plan to improve it, costed and timed and ensure that relevant Admin officials were held accountable for delivering the improvements. I would demand that this report be continuously updated weekly and that it be on my desk for discussion every Monday until every major area had a big green check mark next to it.
Why this is such a big deal in my mind is that nothing worse could tank Obama’s ambitions than a domestic terror attack. The American people wouldn’t tolerate it. 9/11 was hard to blame on anyone. Another attack could be pinned on Obama, who many Americans never thought was the best candidate on the issue. And given the parlous state of the economy, any domestic terror attack could push us into a serious and lasting downturn/depression. It would make it harder for Obama to pursue his soft power ideas globally and who knows what the geopolitical consequences of it, and its economic impacts, could be. So, Obama has to make sure his administration is doing everything in its power to stop it. Behind closed doors he will need to make sure it remains top of the agenda even if out of the headlines. That is where the issue must stay.
I gotta think Obama knows this and his team are savvy professionals who I trust will make progress in ticking the security checklist. Its grim and politically unrewarding work – not exactly why you run for office. But that is what would be keeping me up at night if I were in the White House if only because a domestic terror attack would undermine efforts to achieve the things we elected Obama to do.
The key, in my view, are the ports. The vast majority of containers coming in go unchecked, which is scary. I’m not sure what feasible procedures can be implemented, but something better than the lax security we have now would be a step forward.
<
p>Otherwise, all of this just demonstrates how challenging the situation is now for Obama. There are many massive things that will demand his attention over the next few years (like global economic meltdown), and inevitably things will come up that make it more difficult. Not an enviable job.
Obama is able to say he kept the US safe for that period and for that I would give him full credit and uber thanks. But will the GW haters who scoffed at the fact that GW kept us safe after 9/11 suddenly give credit to Obama for doing the same? Am I looking for consistency again…
Survey says: no.
Let’s all hope for the same (or more) luck.
isn’t prepared. It is stupid. Stoo-pid. Our present security policy is stupid. We haven’t been attacked again out of pure, dumb luck, because our military resources that could respond and prevent are otherwise occupied increasing the number of terrorists, our intelligence response has been decimated, and our attempts at security have focused resources on silliness such as shoe inspections and toothpaste.
<
p>We have been lucky that several big plots have been foiled by the Brits, who have not attempted to respond to the threat of terror with panic masquerading as toughness.
<
p>Our nation has been dramatically weakened since 9/12/2001. It is a shame that the dumbass who perpretrated that weakening gets to pretend otherwise.
then now is our chance to fix things. I would hope that shortly after taking office and cabinet members are approved, we will hear about a new comprehensive Homeland Security policy which will address all these issues such as our ports, beefing up intelligence. Although I would say even with improvements in all areas both mentioned and unmentioned, we will still need luck, both dumb and otherwise on our side.
One also expects the Torture a Gay Terrorist for Jesus Party to attempt to make an issue of the reduction of fake security.
I would say we could stay preoccupied with our torture (while we cheer on Rick Warren at the inauguration) so that reducing fake security will be a simple threat “… if you reduce the fake security and something happens, the blood is your hands… so what you gotta ask yourself is are you feeling lucky, well do ya punk?”
<
p>The GOP (or TGTJP) will hopefully question every single move or lack of move the administration makes or the majority controlled House and Senate make. The good moves should be supported and the bad moves should be rejected. We can take a page out of the Democratic minority Congress’s playbook from the last 8 years which I’m sure this site supported (maybe even you).
An excellent illustration of why the Republican party requires further humiliation, as anyone who thinks that torture is a good policy to increase security barely qualifies as American, and should not be in charge of anything from the volunteer neighborhood watch on up.
I would say we could stay preoccupied with our torture (while we cheer on Rick Warren at the inauguration) so that reducing fake security will be a simple threat “… if you reduce the fake security and something happens, the blood is your hands… so what you gotta ask yourself is are you feeling lucky, well do ya punk?”
<
p>The GOP (or TGTJP) will hopefully question every single move or lack of move the administration makes or the majority controlled House and Senate make. The good moves should be supported and the bad moves should be rejected. We can take a page out of the Democratic minority Congress’s playbook from the last 8 years which I’m sure this site supported (maybe even you).
I say the competent intelligence/counter-terrorism community.
<
p>Those guys are the ones who “keep us safe”, not Bush or Obama. They also get little credit when things go right and plenty of the blame when it doesn’t.
…if we get through Obama’s term without an attack we will be able to disprove the GOP implication that a Democrat can’t/won’t protect us. How much direct credit is due the President depends on several factors, luck probably being one of them.
Really?
<
p>’Cause by my count, almost 5,000 soldiers have died in Iraq–more than died on 9/11, with thousands and thousands more wounded.
<
p>Not to mention the dead Iraqis and Afghans, in which case Bush has caused 30-100 9/11s, depending on which casualty counts you believe.