"The trillions of dollars spent on military and intelligence systems, over the years, were unable to protect the nation?s largest city from attack, while a president ? whose job, it was believed, was to formulate an effective strategic response ? spent the day hiding out in an underground bunker near Omaha."
So? No amount of money spent, weapons purchased, technologies developed, military units created, security and surveillance systems deployed can possibly create a perfect impermeable shield of defense, within and surrounding a free and open society. Some how, at some time, in some place, determined, some suicidal fanatical and criminal organization can catch us off guard and cause the carnage and atrocity as we saw on 9/11. We can only prepare as best we can, work together for a common defense, try and anticipate our sworn enemy's next move, and arm ourselves with the intent of utterly destroying the threat when and where we can find it. To wait to be struck, of withdraw into our shell, is to do exactly what our terrorist enemies desire. They aren't foolish enough to try and challenge us on the field of battle, but deviously seek to terrorize, divide and disrupt our resolve to find and crush these murderous international criminals. Yet Mr. Shaffer would have us believe that the state, our government, cannot carry out effectively the it's most important constitutionally mandated function; to protect and defend the citizens of our country.
I am a free market capitalist, and a supporter of constitutionally based democratic republican government. You know what that means, and you know why it has been an effective means of maintaining our nation's existence in a hostile world. I see no way markets forces, or decentralized grass roots libertarianism can possibly offer a more effective defense, if at any at all. The author essentially is making the Al Qaida's argument for them: our country can only defend itself by no longer acting like a superpower, withdrawing from the world stage, and to crawl into an illusory shell. History long ago ended any credible argument for this kind of head-in-the-sand ideology of governance, in a world of aggressive totalitarian empires where the United States was the only real counter to their ascendancy. Like the various lunatic fringe leftists, cynically motivated Democrat political schemers, and isolationist populists, the author unwittingly is leaning toward exactly the wrong course of direction for our country- division, defeat, internal squabbling, the use of the situation to jockey for political gain, and the kind of dissembling and equivocation we see here. Nothing could be more stupid, unless of course one's goal would be the ultimate victory of terrorism and totalitarian oppression.
This author is not questioning specific methods or means of resisting terrorism, but whether we should be in a position to need to resist it in the first place. May he fare well in his fantasy world, in the meantime I recommend he not attempt to undermine the consensus for a realistic defense of our country and society, or risk more than just my criticism, certainly!