Red Alert: Al Qaeda's Stronger, The US is More Vulnerable, and We Haven't Executed On WMD Defense Plans

Be afraid. Be very afraid. When it comes to terrorism, things are worse than you think.

The New York Times covered yesterday's Congressional testimony by our government's "senior terrorism analyst," Ted Gistaro. As the Times summarizes:

"Al Qaeda is more capable of attacking inside the United States than it was last year, and its cadre of senior leaders has recruited and trained 'dozens' of militants capable of blending into Western society to carry out attacks."

Mr. Gistaro also said that Pakistan is "a stronger, more comfortable safe haven than it was for (Al Qaeda) a year ago."

The Gistaro testimony hasn't gotten much airplay. Neither have the findings of a bipartisan review panel co-chaired by a Clinton DoD appointee and a Bush II undersecretary with hard-right, hawkish credentials. Their panel found that the Bush Administration has failed to execute a strategy for responding to WMD attacks that was laid out in 2002. Its report concludes:

"Performance has fallen short in all three pillars of the National Strategy to Combat WMD: prevention; protection; and response."

So let's have a pop quiz:

Q. How is Al Qaeda doing these days? A. It's stronger and safer. Q. What is Al Qaeda doing? A. Recruiting dozens of militants capable of blending into Western society (note: that means they don't "look like terrorists.") Q. How's the government doing at the "three pillars" of anti-WMD readiness? A. It's failing ... at all of them.

Got that? Great. Now, remind me again: Why are we always told that national security is a "strength" for the GOP?

Then there's the war between Russia and Georgia, which is partially the result of a breakdown in the US's traditional role as a diplomatic broker in the region. That role's now made difficult, if not impossible, by the fact that a McCain advisor has been a lobbyist for Georgia (and his firm is still receiving money from the former Soviet state).

This tragedy demonstrates why diplomats are often the unsung heroes of history. There's a Republican faction - which McCain recently joined - that holds diplomacy in contempt. If our Foreign Service had been allowed to do its work this conflict might well have been avoided.

The Russia/Georgia conflict now threatens nuclear non-proliferation efforts. A destabilized Russia, or one that is ostracized from the world community, poses a greater risk for loose nukes. And while Georgia lacks nuclear weapons, it has materials and know-how that nuclear experts worry could wind up in WMDs.

So now let's put these stories together:

1. Al Qaeda is safer and more secure in Pakistan.
2. It has recruited "dozens" of potential attackers - against us.
3. A nuclear power is at war with a government that has potential WMD materials.
4. Our government is failing at "all three pillars" of WMD defense readiness.

Oh ... and the media keep saying that "national security is a strong point for the GOP."

To be clear, the media sometimes overstate the threat from WMDs. A nuclear explosion is far more difficult to create than we're sometimes led to believe. But we've been surprised before. And the widespread dispersal of radioactive material is much easier to pull off than an explosion. That kind of attack would be devastating, too - not just for its victims, but socially, economically ... and for our embattled democratic rights.

"There is no intelligence that suggests to me that Al Qaeda has a preferred candidate in our upcoming election," Mr. Gistaro said. There may not be specific intelligence, but it's reasonable to conclude that an Obama Presidency would be lousy for terrorist recruitment. And remember Bin Laden's well-timed videotape before the 2004 election? It could be something considerably more unpleasant this time around.

There will be those who say that discussions of the terror threat play into the politics of fear. That's a point: The TSA hasn't made us any safer, according to studies. There's a good argument to be made that screening machines, shoe removals, and new rules like those permitting them to impound and search laptops, are at least partially aimed at lowering our resistance to infringements on our civil liberties. It's a very credible argument.

But the threat is still real, just as it was in August of 2001 when Bush and Condi got that memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US."

Here's a question: What will happen if terrorists attack on U.S. soil before the November elections?

RJ Eskow blogs:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post