There is a lot to be desired when it comes to our government general reactions to new threat models or to implementing new procedures in reaction to an event (remove shoes, no liquids on flights). When I served as a federal agent two decades ago, we were taught to think on our own, to come up with solutions to problems without having a series of nonproductive meetings and to "anticipate the movements of others". This anticipation of actions of others was a mantra of the Secret Service. We had posters illustrating the importance of this concept.
I can speak from personal experience, albeit in general terms, that we did prevent potential attacks against the president and others under our statutory authority to afford protection from harm. Most agents did so because of their superior training and ability to spot a potential disaster before it manifested itself.
A routine call into a field office about someone "talking nonsense about the president" usually turned out to be nothing of a security threat. But each of those routine calls are investigated because you never know when the threat may be real. I was directly involved in two such "routine" calls that turned out the be serious, actionable threats against the life of the president which were successfully, and quietly, resolved.
The Secret Service has a knack for doing the right thing when it comes to keeping safe those under its protective wing. It is called training, training and more training.
But today I am truly concerned that the independent thinkers and innovative investigators in other agencies may not be up to the task of thinking outside the box when it comes to keeping the public safe because of the bureaucratic controls, red tape and PC minded supervisors.
I am an outsider now and only know what I read (although I am careful to vet the sources I do follow to utilize multiple independent sources). In piecing together what I can glean about our overall tactical and strategic planning to keep Americans and the home land safe, I do not see a cogent, strong and effective series of plans in place.
Too much of our response is reactionary and in the form of crisis management. There are so many areas of our security where common sense seems to be lacking and ineffectual political appointees are calling the shots instead of seasoned, mature, knowledgeable and dedicated security professionals.
One seems to wonder if the bureaucratic appointees truly understand this country is under constant danger of attack both internally and externally. Please don't confuse my criticism with the good intelligence work being done by the FBI and dozens of other intelligence and enforcement agencies. My biggest criticism in that arena is if the political power brokers know how to effectively use the information gathered.
A good start to correcting these inefficiencies would be to let the public know, without the use of political correctness, that our government actually understands how dangerous and committed the enemies are. "Overseas contingency operation" and "man-made disaster" are terms that insult the average American's intelligence and send a message of weakness to our enemies.
Currently our government is more interested in prosecuting CIA and military operatives and giving Constitutional Rights to foreign combatants. These decisions are either (1) a reflection of misguided, albeit well intentioned, standards for us to follow as a nation or (2) they are intentional roadblocks to our eventual success in defeating terrorists based on a proposition that America is bad and needs to be brought down to size.
If dedicated, serious and well trained security professionals are not placed in senior decision making positions to combat terrorism, then I fear the current course of bringing America down may begin from the rot on the political inside.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment