These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Can the reforms come any slower?
Published on December 5, 2005 By singrdave In Current Events
The tragedy of September 11th caused America to do some self-examination:

How did it happen?
Why didn't we prevent it?
How can we prevent future attacks?

The 9/11 Commission issued this report on how well Congress and the Bush administration have done in protecting American lives after 9/11...

From the Washington Post:

In its final act before formally disbanding as a private group, the former Sept. 11 commission gave the federal government failing or mediocre grades today for not enacting numerous reforms aimed at protecting the country from terrorist attacks.

The 10-member bipartisan panel, whose investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks resulted in a book-length report that stormed the bestseller lists in the summer of 2004, issued a final report card that included "F" grades in categories ranging from airline passenger screening to the establishment of universal radio spectrums for first responders.

Today's report card, which ranks 41 of the commission's recommendations by letter grades, is likely to mark the last official event of the panel, which recast itself as a private education group a year ago after it ceased to exist as the official independent Sept. 11 investigation. The group has been holding panel discussions and news conferences during the past year aimed at keeping pressure on Congress and the administration to enact its recommended reforms.

According to the panel, the government only deserves one top grade, an A-, for its "vigorous effort against terrorist financing." The panel also handed out a smattering of B's and C's for such issues as the creation of a director of national intelligence and an ongoing commitment to Afghanistan.

But nearly half of the categories merited a D, F or incomplete, according to the report card. The panel was especially critical of the federal government's failure to allocate funds for fighting terrorism based on jurisdictions' risk level, reacting to reports of the use of some of those funds for items not directly linked to threats.


So the results are in. The bipartisan panel has spoken.

If I ruled the world (and this is MY soapbox), I would rank the following criteria in assessing the post-9/11 America...

Security on airplanes: D
Airplane security is the first and most obvious since the perpretrators brought attacked the WTC and Pentagon with aircraft. Civilian aircraft are not safer by any stretch of the imagination. Airport security is equal to mall police. And just as effective, probably as highly paid and trained. The lines are always incredibly long, especially when you have to take off your shoes. And the security guards are very passive, just herding people through the nylon barricades as quickly as possible. Okay, maybe it takes a little bit more effort to get something past the screeners today than it did on 9/10, but someone as few brains as Richard Reid will come up with another clever way to get a bomb on an aircraft. In the spirit of MacGyver, who would always leave out one key ingredient from his pine-cone land mines, let's leave out how one would sneak something past an airport screener. Leave that kind of brain storming to the terrorist websites, not JU.
And how much more protected can we really be if they're allowing screwdrivers, tools, and scissors on aircraft? Check that crap. Who needs a screwdriver on an airplane, anyway?
In a nutshell, I agree with the Commission; I don't think airport security is as good as it could be. They're focusing on the wrong areas.

National Director for Intelligence: B
Good idea, but is it helping? I get memos from the DNI every so often at work. (He says hi, by the way.) Is he really helping? Charting the course for a new century? Ridding the country of people who would do Amerficans harm? I think, yes. The formation of a Director of National Intelligence is a good move for the country. While it does create another line of hierarchy and one more appointed official, Ambassador Negroponte and his deputy, LTG Michael Hayden are good for spearheading the kind of broad, sweeping intelligence reform the country needs. Now if only Congress would listen to them!

Department of Homeland Security: C- / Secretary of Homeland Security: B
Michael Chertoff, like his predecessor, Tom Ridge, is doing his best with a disparate group of departments and bureaus. He has the responsibility of taking in everything from Border Patrol to the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) to Coast Guard to the Secret Service. What an array of human endeavor! Anything that falls inside the US, except for actual law enforcement (that's FBI) falls under their purview. Yikes. In my mind, the DHS bites off more than it can chew. And as we saw in the recent disasters in New Orleans (the hurricanes were only the beginning!) the DHS has its hands full.
It's easy enough to "blame the government" for the problems that have come about, but I think that Chertoff's the quintessential plate-spinner. Remember at the circus, the guy who gets one plate going as fast as he can then gets two or three more going? Then, by the end of the act, he's darting around the entire stage trying to keep all the plates spinning. And keep the levees from breaking. Yeah, that's the Secretary of Homeland Security.

I know there were more facets of the Commission's review, but I have commented on the topics that I feel are really important. I'm sure there are more opinions out there than just mine...

Comments
on Dec 05, 2005
This report card from the 9/11 Commission brings a few things to mind...

1) The commission and its report have both been so completely discredited by both sides of the aisle, I'm not sure why we should care what they say at this point.

However:

2) Just because the commission itself was a joke, doesn't mean everything they say is.

3) The Commission and its report completely left out the most important aspect of any "security" measures... The fact that the most effective law enforcement happens at the local (and individual) level. (((Was it the FBI, CIA, or Dept. of Homeland Security that kept that bomber out of the ball game down in Oklahoma?))))

and most importantly...

4) That something much be working because, even though there have been attempts and plans for attempts, there hasn't been a successful attack on U.S. soil since 9/11!

I'd say that no "F" is warranted since whatever we are doing seems to be working. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking for better ways.

All the policies for the decades preceding 2001 are the ones that deserve the "F", since they failed to recognize and thrwart the attack. They also failed to recognize or thwart the attacks during those decades.

It's ironic, they give the last 4 years an "F", but those are the years that have met with the most success.

Personally, I give the commission an "F" for being such a waste of time, money and good ol' American rhetoric.

Now that they are disbanded, we need real investigations, real reforms and real answers.
on Dec 05, 2005

I have said it before and I will say it again... for Army intelligence to truly change it's course it desperately needs a rankless peer-peer TS/SCI discussion forum in the fasion of a JWICS Joe User. We have had abortive attempts at this before with "Crisis Pages" that really moved the study of their individual targets forward by light years.

Rankless semi-anonymous forums like that are invaluable for disabusing morons with rank of their out dated ideas. It is amazing how misconceptions held by very high level intel guys can be corrected when there is no chance of a repercussion just because the guy telling CW5 Jackhole that he doesn't know his ass from an artillery piece happens to be a Specialist instead of a General. Nicknames instead of traceable ranks make all the difference.

on Dec 05, 2005
rankless peer-peer TS/SCI discussion forum in the fasion of a JWICS Joe User.


It's a good idea that has been adopted on the server at work. I hope more people use it. A lot of people don't know about it and those that do are afraid to post ideas to it in fear that it will be used against them one day in employment reviews (NCOERs and the civilian counterpart). Leaving a paper trail of faulty or half-baked analysis (also called brainstorming) doesn't gibe with the age-old practice of CYA.
on Dec 06, 2005
especially when you have to take off your shoes


shoe inspection is one of the most obvious and egregious examples of a major failing in the overall approach to national security (referring to national security as homeland security is, in its own way, another).

some years ago, my sister's rhodesian ridgeback found hisself in the right place (under the table) at the right time (when a fairly large roast fell off the table on which it had been a bit too carelessly placed and landed right in front of his face). altho the few moments the beef remained there barely provided him with as much as a really good sniff, not one day of the remaining 9 years of his life passed without that dog returning to the scene of the miracle. after all, if it had happened once, it could happen again.

futile tho it mighta been, it always struck me as evidence he might just be the galileo of dogs.

that's about how high i rank the intelligence of the dog-brained official who was so overawed by the brilliance of richard reid's nefarious shoebomb scheme, he or she proclaimed no uninspected shoe would ever step onto a commercial flight again.

on the other foot, perhaps reid is just what he appears to be--if one can really appear to be that moronic and still find one's way to an airport--and the official is the true mastermind. mandatory shoe inspections may just set a new standard for appearing to be doing something vitally important and, yet, doing virtually nothing at all.

i realize this is like so unlikely as to call my sanity into question, but what if someone did something really unimaginable like molding some explosive to the inside of hir or her upper thighs? or maybe used a rolling pin to produce a thin sorta second skin which might easily go undetected under an ordinary shirt? and what if that person was wearing perfectly ordinary, unmodified shoes in order to put one past the tsa?

imagine the sound of a couple million hands slapping foreheads in the aftermath.

too bad f is the lowest grade available to us.
on Dec 06, 2005
that's about how high i rank the intelligence of the dog-brained official who was so overawed by the brilliance of richard reid's nefarious shoebomb scheme, he or she proclaimed no uninspected shoe would ever step onto a commercial flight again.


It's absolutely true... they claim random inspections, but guess what percent of passengers have to send their shoes through the X-ray machine? 100.
on Dec 06, 2005
Face it. The only thing that would get a good grade is Hitler's Germany or Stalinist Russia. And both would get no more than a B-.
on Dec 10, 2005
Or the Israeli Mossad. They do a great job of rooting out terrorists. And gunning them down in cold blood. But it works!
on Dec 10, 2005
The only thing that would get a good grade is Hitler's Germany or Stalinist Russia. And both would get no more than a B-.


dr g crouches and springs, launching himself from non-sequitur thru a stunning flight of fancy...before slamming into the real world where no matter how much time and money one spends selecting just the right coordinated combinations of colors, sooner or later most people are gonna begin wondering why der homeland don't seem a helluvalot safter that it did 4 years ago.

sure, oshkosh (or somewhere just like it) can mobilize 10 new garbage trucks in the event of a trash attack...and lotsa lil towns all over the country are finally equipped and already training to compete in their own version of atv nascar racing...so sooner or later them damn hazmat suits will show up down to the post office. hopefully there'll be at least one for every 5 first responders.