Posted on 05/28/2004 9:03:44 PM PDT by FairOpinion
It is likely that an attack would be intended to kill thousands, though an attack remains conjecture at this point, based on intelligence gathered by our agencies and other nations.
Headlines tell us of government predictions that al Qaeda may intend to mount an attack on the US this summer. Soldiers in Iraq recently found an explosive in Iraq filled with Sarin, a deadly chemical capable of killing many people. The widely expressed doubt that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction should end.
In a recent Washington Times column by John McCaslin, he cited a poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, “Because of the ‘current political polarization’ in America today, the United States will suffer another ‘large scale’ terrorist attack within the next year."
McCaslin reported the poll revealed, “that 95 percent of the nation's police commanders and security directors expect a ‘catastrophic’ terrorist incident within the continental United States. "If Americans believe we're not being targeted for terror in the near future, they are fooling themselves," says NACP Vice President Jim Kouri, who predicts the killers, among other dastardly missions, will be attempting to influence this November's presidential election. It worked for them in Spain.”
It is the opinion of many counter-terrorism experts that al Qaeda will attack America again and many believe it will come before the elections in November. Their thinking is that the success it had in Spain can be repeated here and their aim is to elect Senator John F. Kerry. The objective will be to demoralize the resolve of Americans to support the occupation of Iraq until it can establish a democratic form of government.
It is likely that an attack would be intended to kill thousands, though an attack remains conjecture at this point, based on intelligence gathered by our agencies and other nations.
Here are some targets al Qaeda might have in mind.
If Al Qaeda wants to kill a lot of people to ratchet up our level of terror, New York remains a prime target and there are recent reports of empty suitcases showing up in its subways and other locations as a possible test run on the delivery of a WMD.
What other city would be a likely target? One answer is Los Angeles and, in particular, Hollywood. Radical Muslims regard the films and television shows coming out of Hollywood as a direct attack on their sense of moral superiority. A dirty bomb or bioterror in Los Angeles would have the desired effect. Remember, too, that a terrorist was caught in the run-up to Y2K when he crossed the border from Canada with a car full of explosives. His target, we were told, was the LA Airport.
Recently, Jordanians thwarted a plot to attack the US embassy and other targets there with poison gas. The estimated casualties are estimated to have been as many as 20,000. A similar target in the US would reap a similar result. Again, the belief that Iraq did not have WMDs should be put to rest. The belief that it was not cooperating with al Qaeda should have been dispelled by now. Supporters of the deposed Saddam Hussein are continuing their insurgency against our troops and would surely want to strike at the American homeland.
If I were Osama bin Laden, a trained engineer, what might be another likely target in America? One answer is oil refineries. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the US since the 1970s and the ones we have are strained to capacity. When even one is closed down for routine maintenance, the price of gas spikes. Imagine if two, maybe three, were destroyed? The highways would empty out, followed by the office buildings and just about every other enterprise that depends on workers who drive to work. That includes schools, hospitals; just about everything, everywhere. America would have to declare martial law.
Another likely target would be the disruption of the aging electrical grid that distributes this vital source of energy around the nation. Remember when the grid failed a year or so ago? It shut down the entire East Coast from Ohio to New York. Destroy key components of the grid and people will be cooking dinner over an open fire in the backyard.
The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9-11 had a destination about which we can only speculate. But let’s say it was the Capitol Building and a direct hit could take out a major number of Senators and Representatives? Our Constitution does not make provision for the killing of enough members of Congress to render it unable to function. Congress, however, is debating legislation that would allow for emergency elections in the event that should occur.
While America remains a target, so are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, England and just about every other nation around the world. We are dealing with people willing to kill anybody for their crazed notion of protecting a failed way of life, a belief that Islam must dominate the world and be practiced in a fashion Osama bin Laden dictates.
It should never be forgotten that bin Laden has already issued a fatwa, an Islamic edict, calling for the deaths of all Americans.
As our level of anxiety rises, al Qaeda has already achieved one of its objectives. The question, if an attack occurs, is whether Americans will deepen their resolve to destroy its enemies or seek to withdraw from the fight?
Alan Caruba is the author of Warning Signs, published by Merril Press. His weekly commentaries are posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
Black wind and black smoke are two different things, though...right? Nuclear fallout and basically widespread and nasty death by some covert means. I think.
Hopefully, they pat down Middle Eastern types, too.
We have to do it all, fight them in their lair where they live and train, and try our best to keep them from coming here illegally or otherwise. We did catch some Nazi saboteurs during the WWII, attempting to land on Long Island, but it's apples and oranges really. Time is different, means of delivering widespread death almost a smorgasbord of goodies now, plus the enemy rationale, if you can call it that, makes them happy to act like lemmings. Nothing about this is easy, esp, as most of the third world is headed in our direction by any means possible. We are being invaded, like it or not, and the nature of the illegals -- cultural and language differences, plus the lack of the American mantra, the old protestant work ethic, responsibility, etc., makes their eventual assimilation problematical. That's the difficulty. Victor Davis Hanson writes about this eloquently, as you probably know.
If you get the chance, and are so inclined, please consider getting the following DVD presentation/film:
where PBS explores in detail Bush's Christianity. I am sure they did it in an effort to expose how deeply rooted his faith is and therefore get people to recoil away from him. It had the opposite effect on me.
>"Sadly, some of the Canadians will place the blame on the actions of Americans when the attacks hit their soil. Peter Jennings will run with it, giving the argument "legitimacy".<
- You know, I hadn't even considered that.
But yeah, that's probably exactly what will happen.
Whaaat??? Where did you get your statistics? Source, please, or retract your claim.
That would depend on whom you choose to believe. The census, I.C.E., the Border Agents in the field or the landowners in the immedeat vicinity of the border that are watching this first hand.
I believe that if you take the reports of the locals indicating 4-5 fold increase over last year (and last year was pretty heavy) and project that onto known counts from INS for previous years one gets both accurate and frighting numbers.
I am at work, I will see what I can put to writing later.
good job, and thank you on behalf of those of us who feel the same way. You expressed my view on who the President is.
The man is just too consistent not to be what he says he is.
I never get 100% of what I want, so I've gradually learned to pick those issues on which I won't compromise, and to spend my energies almost exclusively on them. Every little victory the President manages to win is the "end of the New Deal" to the Dems and never enough for some of the Republicans. I don't want a dictator and only a dictator could run the country exactly as he wants. Presidents with in a democratic Republic that has been influenced by the Left for so long and for whom there is no support in the media, will necessarily compromise, give way here and there. But, when it comes to life issues and to his faith, this President does not compromise.
Thanks, my Google searches aren't very helpful on this one.
There are about 30+ AWAC's right here in the states that could use a bit of airtime.
Oh, trust me, they are getting PLENTY of airtime as it stands.
I figure no more a threat than the east and west coastllines present, 4-5 in the air on each coast ought to do it.
OK, you've just allocated 4-5 AWACS to the mission of detecting small boats. That means you've just pulled all of the AWACS away from other missions around the world--such as supporting air operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, keeping an eye on NORPAC/WESTPAC, routine training...and I suppose that you're going to pass a law requiring all Zodiacs and other such small vessels to be equipped with radar reflectors so the AWACS can actually detect them. (Newsflash: they can't.)
Beyond that, there is that U.S. Navy thingy that is known for keeping a few boats in the water. Perhaps you have heard of them? I hear they are actually pretty good.
Yep, they're pretty good.
They are also committed to other missions around the world. Which missions do you wish to eliminate?
Might even be able to handle a few targets spotted by the AWACs. Ya think, poopmaster?
Nope. Remember, the AWACS aren't going to spot Zodiacs without radar reflectors.
MEXICO.
Ahhh, the war in my backyard. I was running surveillance ops on the Texas border in `86 - `88 and then it was cake. No probs from the local LE, they seemed to welcome any help. Now days, probably would have to make the local LE work for it. Which, in all probability, would be the end of their enthusiasm. Not to say it would be difficult today by any means to close even the most select areas of the border favored by the coyotes. For the right team. That is motivated. And not being held back with a truckload of pee-cee Bull$hit. And corrupt local LE taking being payed off to give them grief. NO SIR, mister poopster, not a problem.
I notice that this paragraph has a great deal of verbiage, and no factual content.
As for the rest of the border? The u.S./mexico border could close in 24 itty bitty hours, given the correct resources.
Which you have not described.
And deploying the correct resources is merely a matter of motivation.
So claimeth you, who has yet to explain what those resources are.
Resources that are ready to go right now. Resources that only require a general mission statement and offical sanction.
Again, no explanation of what those resources are.
The remaining question is, whom do we need to motivate? And just what resources you have asked. There is more than enough to handle all of Texas(and more) in Ft. Hood.
OK, you're talking about rewriting the Posse Comitatus Act. Very easy to do...then again, you're not actually trying to do any of the work.
And, trust me, there aren't enough resources in Fort Hood to handle the Texan border...unless you're talking about closing down most of the US Army's missions elsewhere (such as Iraq and Afghaistan, where, if you didn't notice, we're actually fighting wars at the moment.)
There should be no problem locating appropriate forces for the remaing u.S. / mexico border states.
Well, you've just allocated the entire CONUS theater reserve to the Texas/Mexico border.
Effective strategy? Remember, this is border CLOSURE. Not control. Not checking ID's and sorting through thousands of sob stories and accessing databases. Closure.
Which requires more boots on the ground patrolling that border than we have in the US Army, Marine Corps (active AND reserve components), and the entire frickin' National Guard.
Checking ID's and paperwork should only occure at designated locations.
In Texas there are only about 14 locations which should be open legit. They are Brownsville, Los Indios, Progreso, Hidaigo, Los Ebanos, Rio Grande City, Roma, Falcon Heights, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, Fort Hancock, Fabens and El Paso.
Anywhere else? Well, the idea is denial of access. That should make the course of action in any area not included in the list of controlled bridges, and the correct response for violations, fairly simple to asertain. And the correct response is what will hault the illegal traffic. Deploying such a response is what will require the above mentioned motivation. Which is what is not currently occuring.
Back to vague generalities and BSing, I see...
Of course there is the cost factor. To maintane such a response is not cost effective. The cost effective response? I have posted that so many times it should not be necessary to do it again. However just for you, and hopefully, once and for all here it is. It will requite a bit of time to inact, but then again, it is a long term response, not an emergency measure.
OK, at last, after a great deal of BS, you're actually going to suggest something concrete.
Ahhh, but how do we get from immedeat responst to long term closure? Interim modified response. Give me 100 miles of border. Here is what I will successfully accomplish.
Spit it out, already...
I want full company, Airborne infantry. Nothing fancy they just need to be able to exit the aircraft and not shoot each other once they get on the ground. This will represent a single position guarding a single 100 mile stretch of border. Space them at 100 mile intervals. Each instalation consists of 2 airstrips, a small controll tower, electrical power, fuel tanks, generators, enough hanger space to contain 2 C-130s, 4 Squad bays with showers, 1 admin building with mess hall. With 2 of those new 130J's at ready / alert parked 100 yards from the squad bays Time to Target could be measured in 10's of minuets. Spot a mass of illegals being escorted by mexican troops break across the border on foot and the blocking forces would be in place waiting before they made 2 miles from the border.
Leaving aside the issue of cost...buddy, I can think of a way to defeat your proposal.
Some not-small, not-especially big incursions take place all along the border, activating all of these airborne companies.
After they jump out in front of each incursion, they are leg infantry, moving at the speed of the human foot.
And the REAL incursion takes place.
Your airborne rangers stopped maybe a thousand or so illegals.
And 10,000 got through while they were doing that.
Total time it took me to think up this CONOPS: about thirty seconds.
Long Term Control.
Let us visualize a real live controlled border. That would require a fairly large construction project to build semi-sunken border stations at one mile intervals from end to end across the southern border with Mexico. By placing them at one mile intervals no point on the border is more than 30 seconds from a border station. By sinking them into the ground, one level is completely protected against almost all man-portable weapons and the second level (ground level) can be bermed on three sides except for the horizontal observation and firing ports along the east, south and west sides. the north side would extend out to include a 3 sided, covered bay where the interceptors will sit at the ready.
Oh, I see; you want to recreate the Berlin Wall on the US border.
Your idea has some huge problems that make it utterly impractical. I will explain when I demolish your cost estimate.
Each such station will be staffed by five three man teams. As this is a closed border plan, there is no need for more than three per station. Allowing 5 shifts per station, the three normally needed for 24 hour staffing at 8 hour shifts, plus two ?weekend? shifts that could rotate out with a weekday shift, giving the week day workers opportunity for time off, vacation, backup for sick days, etc.
OK, three people per mile. That isn't even a cavalry screen.
Hello! There are many places on the border where you can't see someone ten yards from you!
Then there is the eternal question, how much?
Ahhhhhhhh, there is the beauty. ZERO. This will not add a single dime to the budget. WHY? The money is currently being pi$$ed away for nothing and where it is going will only get worse. Allow me to rub salt here . .
I costed out your idea. Based on concrete pouring alone, and excluding such costs as building the roads needed to allow heavy construction equipment into the border region, you're talking about spending TRIPLE what the US government would've spent on the MX missile "Mobile Protected Shelter" concept in the Great Basin. The MX MPS program's construction costs would've run about $316 BILLION in 2002 dollars.
Total price tag for your idea: $948,000,000,000.
""When approving the Medi care bill last month, Congress allocated $1 billion to help border hospitals cover those costs. President Bush is expected to sign the bill Monday.""
Great. That will pay about 0.1% of the total cost of just the concrete...
Which he did. So the money is there, it is just being spent in a reactionary mode. In a proactive mode most of the money will only be spent only in the first year, after that the cost would drop dramatically.
Assuming you actually dropped $948 billion for this project, and got it completed for that amount of money, you're still
OK, lets do the numbers.
1990 miles from Atlantic to Pacific ='s 1990 stations.
Congratulations, you just sawed 200 miles off of the border.
1 station initial construction 165,000
Oh, you're using illegal immigrant labor?
Does the term "Davis-Bacon Act" ring a bell?
1 electronics and weapons 40,000
Try $400,000 after the acquisition process gets finished.
3 trucks @ 40,000 each 120,000
Questionable--one Humvee costs Uncle about $75,000.
15 staff, 5 shifts at 3 per shift 630,000
One federal man-year, loaded rate, is about $150,000. You're quoting a loaded rate of $42,000. That is pure BS.
utilities (water, electricity) 12,000
Plus the cost of running water and electricity to these sites--much of the area doesn't have enough infrastructure to support anything else (in much of the Southwest, the available water rights are 100% allocated).
More clobbering your post to come, but you've already demonstrated a fair degree of idiocy.
BTW, you have not closed the US-Canadian border in your scenario.
I believed that for 32 months. And look at Bush's numbers.
I sleep better at night after reading of every probable near-miss on this country by knowing there are people doing their jobs well. We are succeeding at protecting this country from more bloody islamofascist destruction, and the American people should be more aware of that.
We'd all sleep easier if they knew, IMO.
I think the rats relish the fact that Bush gets dumped on for the Patriot Act and dumped on for near-misses and dumped on for 'crying wolf,' yadayadayada. Bush gets dumped on for everything.
Maybe it's time to publicize our successes.
As for the MIT female terrorist, they get them young. Idiots will fall for all sorts of insanity.
And Brandeis is a perfect institution to infiltrate to make the acquaintance of those you plan to kill. These guys are well-funded. Someone's playbook is being followed very well.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?
"You guys"??
I don't believe you have seen me spouting off about border control on any thread not pertaining to the subject. I also rarely post on threads that ARE about it.
So apparently you go around attacking all people who are opposed to illegal immigration? I thought you just wanted to be able to dictate everyone else's choice of discussion topic, not that you wanted to dictate their thoughts and opinions as well.
If you don't participate in posting immigration crap on every thread, why are you so upset?
However, the comment I pasted was from a thread entitled "Bush Can Count on the Right".
Doesn't sound like an immigration thread to me.
I guess you made my point for me. Thank you.
I have not told you how to think or even what to post. I just told you that I am tired of seeing it everywhere.
Might I suggest you just calm down and relax? (It's a suggestion, dear, not an order.)
hate to tell you BUT ... they (the leftists) ARE the enemy
YOU are the one who jumped all over me for a mild comment saying that discussion of illegal immigration was on topic. And that comment I made was on topic, since the thread was about how and why we were voting. So why don't you relax, and get off my back.
Have a pleasant night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.