October 9, 2006

Can Government Be Smart?

I googled "hapless" AND "Norm Mineta" and got 216 hits. That's the kind of act that new Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has to follow. A few weeks ago, before Peters' Senate confirmation, the Weekly Standard editorialized on the opportunities that the change in leadership offered for rethinking existing policies in airline security. But so far, there's no reason to think Peters will overcome the rigid government PC-think that insists we treat all air travelers as equal risks for terrorist attacks.

And political correctness isn't the only obstacle we face. I thought the second paragraph of the excerpt from the TWS op-ed (emphasis added) captured the essence of the administration's other problem, one that applies in all areas of the fight against terrorism...people are constantly being told that anti-terrorism measures are a joke and a fraud, the tools of a power-mad President. Making Granny take off her shoes at the airport makes it seem like it is a joke.

First, there is no harm in acknowledging that the sort of person who is likely to be a terrorist is not just any citizen who happens to walk into an airport, but someone with specific, comprehensible characteristics of age, national origin, sex, religion, and behavior. So far as we are aware, no jihadist plots have been perpetrated against Americans by little old ladies from Dubuque, but several terrorist attacks--in particular, 9/11--have been carried out by young Muslim men of Middle Eastern origin. No, not all young men, not all Muslims, not all people from the Middle East, are jihadists or potential terrorists. Of course not. But common sense, and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, should make it obvious to airport security personnel where to concentrate their energies. The amount of wasted time in airport security, and the trouble expended confiscating harmless items, is irrational when compared with the actual threat we face.

Second, while Americans support the war against terror, they do so against various odds. The fact is that certain political figures, and certain elements in the media, regard the war on terror not as a common struggle in which we all have a stake, but as a political strategy of the Bush administration. It is not difficult to find cynicism in coverage of the war, or skepticism about its danger to our national life. In our view, the confused and confusing principles governing transportation security only add to such cynicism and skepticism. When Americans are, in effect, mistreated as they go about their business at airports--regarded with suspicion, subject to humiliating searches and seizures, forced to endure long delays and hostile questions--it undermines confidence in their government's determination to vanquish terrorism. This is especially true when they know that they are subject to such indignities not because they are effective, but because they have become a habit, or it might be politically incorrect to do otherwise....

...Do the principles that govern transportation security reflect policies designed to protect innocent people and identify and apprehend terrorists? Or are they a random assortment of panicky procedures, petty harassments, and P.C. rules that exasperate Americans, and breed mistrust about the most important issue of our time?

Posted by dan at October 9, 2006 10:48 PM