We should protect our shores first

Manchester Union Leader ^ | February 2, 2003 | Roger Simon

[billorites]

AFTER LISTENING to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday, I was left with one question: Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?

Isn't he the "evildoer" that Bush once wanted "dead or alive"?

Weren't we not going to rest until we smoked him out of his cave?

"Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated," Bush once vowed.

So what did he say about bin Laden on Tuesday?

Nothing. Nada. Zip. It was as if he was never our Public Enemy No. 1.

Instead, Bush has moved on to a new villain: Saddam Hussein.

Saddam, who, as far as anybody knows, had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, is our new target for one big reason: We know where he is.

Which is what the new U.S. policy amounts to: If you can't find the villain you want to kill, kill a villain you can find.

Personally, I have no problems with somebody killing Saddam Hussein. He certainly deserves it.

Which is why I have long advocated sending an assassination squad into Iraq (or paying local talent) to take him out.

Instead, we are going to risk tens of thousands of troops and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war. And not because Saddam is any more dangerous than he was a year ago.

No, we are going in because we know where he lives.

The problem with this is that we are supposed to be protecting America first and fighting a war against terrorism second.

Fighting Saddam will hinder and delay both of those goals.

An example: As Sen. Ted Kennedy has recently pointed out, we have not yet committed the manpower and funds to inspect every cargo container that comes into U.S. ports.

Why is this important, even vital to our safety?

Because putting a nuclear weapon in the hold of a cargo ship is the most likely way that we will be attacked by such a weapon.

While we are committing billions to some "Star Wars" satellite defense system, attacking the United States by means of a nuclear missile is extremely unlikely, even if a rogue state managed to gets its hands on such a weapon.

Missiles are easy to track. Any state that attacks the United States by missile would be obliterated in return.

But putting a nuclear device in a cargo ship of international registry, sending it into, say, San Francisco harbor, and detonating it would be relatively easy. And we would not know whom to retaliate against.

Which is why we have to check all cargo on all ships.

But we aren't doing that. Instead, we are getting ready to go to war with Iraq.

Does this make any sense?

We are in no imminent danger from Iraq, which has not attacked the United States.

We are in imminent danger from terrorists, who have.

So why are we going after the former and not protecting ourselves from the latter?

Some cynics think it is all political, that the White House wishes to take our minds off a sinking economy.

If so, that plan is not working.

As Jay Leno said Tuesday night, "Earlier this evening President Bush gave his State of Delusion address. Very upbeat. He said other than the economy, health care, education, crime and the war, we're in great shape."

Is anybody out there laughing?

Roger Simon is a political correspondent with U.S. News and World Report.

[meenie]

This article makes too much sense in a crazy world. I don't think we should be cowed by terrorism, but our leaders are sure moving slow on our border security and ports. Ridge doesn't act like there is any urgency to getting our defenses up to speed.

[foreverfree]

bump

[RJCogburn]

As Sen. Ted Kennedy has recently pointed out, we have not yet committed the manpower and funds to inspect every cargo container that comes into U.S. ports.

Gotta go with Teddy here.

[Vigilanteman]

If they did that they could risk antagonizing two very important voting blocks:

The open borders crowd who are convinced we need more illegal immigration from Mexico because Americans just won't do some jobs necessary to the economy.

The free market at any price crowd who feels Chinese Communist goods should be given equal treatment to goods from proven or potential allies.

[DugwayDuke]

This article is fatally flawed.

"But putting a nuclear device in a cargo ship of international registry, sending it into, say, San Francisco harbor, and detonating it would be relatively easy. And we would not know whom to retaliate against."

Which is exactly why we need to take out Iraq, North Korea, and possibly Iran. You will never be able to stop these at the border. You've got to prevent their manufacture.

[metesky]

Don't try appealing to logic with the naysayers and squealers.

[RJCogburn]

Which is exactly why we need to take out Iraq, North Korea, and possibly Iran. You will never be able to stop these at the border. You've got to prevent their manufacture.

You make it sound easy.

[billorites]

"Gotta go with Teddy here."

Yep. Must defer to Fatboy in matters nautical.

[DugwayDuke]

Who said it would be easy? Taking out a nest of rattlesnakes is never easy. But taking out that nest is much easier than dealing with the effects of a nuclear blast in Manhattan, Atlanta, or Dallas.