by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 25, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

etting his wires crossed with President George W. Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned the nation that, “these strategic indications, including Al Qaeda's continued desire to carry out attacks on our homeland, are perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11.” Seven days earlier, Bush hailed Saddam's capture as a watershed event in the war on terror. “America is more secure as a result of his capture,” said Bush, again linking Iraq to the global war on terror. Yet Ridge's unvarnished remarks give a truer picture of the nation's progress against radical Islam. Upping the terror alert to “orange” before Christmas tells the real story about war on terror. Mired in Iraq, U.S. forces spend valuable time and precious resources fighting insurgents hell-bent on booting America out of the Fertile Crescent. Ridge's admission is disturbing news for anyone paying the ultimate price.

      Instead of directing all resources to finding Bin Laden and fighting his global terror network, the White House finds itself committed to the most extensive and costly reconstruction since the Marshall Plan after WWII. Afghanistan receives less than 5% of the money and troops allocated to Iraq. Most key Taliban and Al Qaeda officials—including Mullah Mohammed Omar and Osama Bin Laden—remain at large, directing global war against the U.S. inside and outside of Iraq. Ratcheting up the terror alert, indicates, if nothing else, that the U.S. remains vulnerable to Al Qaeda-type terrorism. “We have not raised the threat level in this country for six months, but we have raised it before. And as before, Americans can be assured that we know what we must do and we are doing it,” said Ridge, promising extra security—yet unable to contain Al Qaeda—during the holidays.

      On Dec. 21 Ridge told the press that, “recent reporting reiterates that Al Qaeda continues to consider using aircraft as a weapon. They are evaluating all procedures both here and abroad to find gaps in our security posture that can be exploited,” hinting, yet not giving details, about future actions. Christmas eve, Air France suspended six flights between Los Angeles and Paris, suggesting as many as six Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives might be involved. Counterterrorism officials fingered Flight 68 from Paris to LAX for intense scrutiny, citing flight rosters containing similar names to known Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists. Increased Intelligence “chatter” about possible hijacking prompted Ridge to raise the nation's terror alert from yellow to orange. “This whole thing is the reason we got bumped up to orange,” said an unnamed U.S security official, unable to give any specific details.

      Private curbside delivery and check-in was suspended at LAX, except for licensed transportation contractors, including busses, shuttles and taxis. At Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris, authorities detained 200 passengers and flight personnel for questioning. It's unknown whether possible terrorists were “scared off” or detained by French authorities. Suggesting that Taliban or Al Qaeda operatives were listed on flight lists defies common sense, since terror groups don't release names of enemy combatants. Whether the current scare was credible is anyone's guess. While it's better to be safe than sorry, U.S. officials might have jumped the gun upping the terror alert and canceling flights. After delaying flights and interrogating crew and passengers, French authorities found no evidence of a terrorist plot. “There are no longer any investigations,” said a French Interior Ministry spokesman.

      Foiling terrorist plots isn't rocket science but a calculated process by which intelligence officials carefully evaluate possible threats. During the holidays, government officials must error on the side of caution, yet not jump the gun when intelligence “chatter” gets faulty information. Since Sept. 11, the intelligence community admits it got bad information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Now the same group expects credibility over predicting future terror attacks. Before Ridge boasts “extensive and considerable protections have been or soon will be in place all across the country,” he must carefully weigh out possible threats. Because the White House endured criticism following 9/11, it's no excuse to exaggerate possible terror threats. Canceling flights and bumping up terror alerts should only occur when intelligence agencies confirm new threats.

      President Bush can't have it both ways: Claim that the country is safer since capturing Saddam yet, simultaneously have his Homeland Security chief tell the nation that threat indicators are “perhaps greater now that any point since Sept. 11.” Either Iraq has linkage to the global war on terror or it doesn't. Most intelligence analysts don't believe it's essential to the war on terrorism. They see Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror organization as the greatest threat to U.S. national security. “Your government will stand at the ready hours a day, seven days a week, to stop terrorism during the holiday season,” said Ridge, failing to make the connection between Iraq and the most recent terror alerts. As long as the U.S. diverts in attention—and resources—to Iraq, terrorist threats will continue to escalate. Only by focusing on Bin Laden can global terror be contained.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.