The short answer to this question is yes and no. Yes, in the sense that terrorism was never a global phenomenon that could be defeated by a "war" as proposed by George W. Bush. No, in the sense that the United States will be attacked again someplace, sometime.
For those who say that the $40 to $50 billion we spend each year on homeland security has achieved its purpose, namely that we have not been attacked again, it is only necessary to remind ourselves that eight years passed between the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center and eight years have passed, today, since 9/11. So, for those of us who, like Richard Clarke, have always had "our hair on fire," another attack by some group, probably related in some way to al Qaeda, is to be expected.
On a scale of 1 to 10, we are not yet at 9, or probably even 7. The greatest danger in terms of potential damage to life and property is still the nuclear threat. But if, as I suspect, the most likely and easiest future attack involves biological agents, our borders are and will remain porous, defenses against viral agents borne by human "bombs" are and will remain inadequate, and post-attack response is insufficient. Response plans, involving quarantine, suppression, mass casualty victim treatment, and other measures can always use improvement.
And, though we happily haven't heard it lately, the false security brought on by the nonsensical maxim "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is exactly that: false.
By abandoning the "war on terrorism" paradigm, especially as an excuse to invade Iraq, President Obama has done our strategy a favor and has taken us a long way toward the understanding that acts of terrorism will continue in parts of the world, that we must continue to make such acts as difficult as possible here in the United States, that most attacks will still be against other countries, and that quick damage-limitation response at home will still be highly important.
As we remember those who died, unnecessarily, eight years ago, let us also continue to combine vigilance with realistic appreciation for the new age of the 21st century in which we live.
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
Quote: "Those operations went at least until September 2001, for those operations, they corroborated and worked with certain U.S. persons ... illegally obtaining and selling U.S. military and military technology and that includes weapons and nuclears, and even from foreign policy related secret or high -- top secret information, and not only for Turkey, but passing this information to what they refer to as highest bidders."
http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf
In short, the cold war continued against the countries in Central Asia and al-Qaeda was the proxy army of the West, up until 9/11... When Henry Kissinger said "the only thing more dangerous than being America's enemy is being America's friend" he wasn't kidding.
It's not hard to get rid of terrorism, without compromising freedoms. But apparently the current goal is to create mutant-terrorists, proxy-terrorists, managed terrorism if you will, it's like trying to create mutant-viruses which target certain political views only.
So, the age of terror is NOT over, we are in the age of managed terror. Yeah, also watch the movie "Brazil" (1985)
Videos, more info:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7387
In addition to war materiel, what promises were made about the future? That the U.S. would permit these "freedom fighters" to return to their countries of origin (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and overthrow our corrupt client state regimes there?
One can almost hear our over-zealous spooks: "We’re with you...once this is over and the Russians are gone, Americans will not care about the internal affairs in your countries, so long you keep selling us oil and support a negotiated solution in Palestine that equally respects and preserves the personal security of the Arab and Jewish residents there in a new bi-national state. ..." Etc. (Along those lines.)
Our alliance with the mujaheedeen was successful beyond Carter and Brezinski's wildest dreams. The Soviet Union disintegrated little more than a decade following their ill-fated military defense of the Afghan Communists' coup.
The 9/11 hijackings and preceding terrorist events appear to have been payback for our betrayal of the promises we made to the militant foreign legion elements who forced the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.
Having helped incite "Russia's Vietnam", we are now (yet again) in one of our own in Afghanistan, fighting on the wrong side of history against our (embittered) erstwhile allies of yesteryear. Why?
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
TV's -- got to many --- Homes -- we use to -- Guns -- yeah fear is selling a lot of them
Ammo for the guns --- expensive because it is being shipped overseas TO BOTH SIDES !
For what? Why, when 97% of our population never cross them, must our borders be so easily crossed? Why is it easier to cross our borders than it is to board a domestic flight? Why must our country be so accessible to the world? Why wouldn't our troops be on our own borders? Why do we allow millions of illegal aliens roaming freely among our population? These are not rhetorical questions and the answers are not abstract. But don't take my word for it, think for yourself.
For context, just try to imagine any other situation where it is easier to get into a place than it is to function once you are inside. With the exception of jail or prison, it's not very easy to think of one. And for what?
The clear answer is financial gain from human exploitation. Whether we are importing products manufactured under conditions that would be illegal in this country (26% of all shipping containers originate from China), issuing visas for workers that undercut our wages, or allowing businesses to freely employ illegal aliens, we are endangering our citizens for corporate profits.
And there are many flavors of danger. As we see more clearly every day, this unreasonable access to our country has cost us our industrial base and is destroying our character as a nation - taking down millions of American families in the process.
I submit that terrorism is not the biggest danger to our country. The biggest danger to our country is that it has become a consumer prison where our citizens are manipulated by global financial interests, and denigrated for dedicating their lives to useful and meaningful work.
In my opinion, the changes that have occurred in the name of 9/11 are illogical and have little to do with our safety.
The possible benefits to be gained creating a non-porous border will be swamped by these costs.
We're already paying for all of that.
So, if those numbers are correct (and please let us know if you find otherwise) and if a mile still contains 5,820 feet, then over a 12,000 mile border (your figure), 451,197 people would come out to one person every 140 feet.
Of course, as Arktig already mentioned, a lot of your 12,000 miles are ocean borders, and as you can see, I didn't even mention of the 331,682 on active duty Navy personnel, the 6,455 in the Navy Reserve, the 94,454 people in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, the 7,286 people in the Marine Corps Reserve, or the 14,981 people in the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Terrorism is alive and strong in the US: The fundamentalist jihad against doctors performing abortions and murder of the guard at the Washington holocaust museum come from the same mindset as those flying the planes into the WTC and Pentagon. We may not have moslem jihadists here since our mosques have not traditionally been seen as that "other." We'll see if that changes. But we do seem to have enough of our own.
of those so outraged that they would use such means, means which reveal their own total sense of hopelessness.
Using the primitive response of slaughtering those who are so outraged only serves to creat more outraged people.
I absolutely agree with you that the Obama administration dispensing with the phrase, and notion, of a "war on terrorism" is a very good thing. I thought the phrase typically used was "the war on terror," but we won't be hearing either anymore.
I believe it's quite likely we'll be attacked again, but the method I think would be most effective against terrorists is a sensible and dexterous foreign policy, including copious doses of adroit statesmanship of the kind Mr. Obama is famous for. We need to engage the world with nobility and a firmness of purpose. We need to be fully grounded in the principles of our Constitution, consistent with it across the board. We need to make it clear to the world that we are the United States of America, founded in 1776 and wholly respectful of the rule of law and civil liberty.
We need to be who we are, do what we say, and uphold our principles, and we need to make it clear to the world that we're back in our right minds after nearly a decade of insanity. In addition to our public strategies against terrorist attacks, I think this would go a long way towards pushing back against terrorist strategies.
An open-ended war like the War on Terror is a brilliant population management tool, even better than the rotating enemies of Orwell's Oceania. 'Terrorists' can be inside the country, they can be outside the country, they're like ghosts and the wind and Martian invaders all rolled into one.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 10, 2009
NOTICE
- – - – - – -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT
TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2009. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency the former President declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 10, 2009.
More than the foreign enemies, I have a great deal of concern about our domestic problem of people within our communities and certain media who are fomenting some pretty hosti1e actions against the peace and civility of this nation.
Nope. The republicans are somehow still running things.