Foiled terror plot shows we need smarter security

AP: William B. PlowmanWith all due respect to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the system failed on Christmas Day. A quick and brave response by the passengers onboard Flight 253, along with a faulty syringe detonator, was the only thing that stopped Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab from killing every passenger. Our intelligence community did not stop him while he and others hatched the plot, they did not stop him on his way to the airport and no one prevented him getting on the plane. So what have we learned from this? To me, the near-tragedy shows what I’ve suspected all along: that we’re focusing our efforts on the wrong things.

Some in Congress and the talking heads on TV say that we need to throw more money at the problem. If the system failed, surely all it needs is more funding. It’s the liberal cure for education, crime and now terrorism. Buying new fancy equipment for the airports, though, won’t be good enough. We need to improve the quality of our security, not just the quantity. Some liberals, in an attempt to divert attention from Napolitano’s incompetence, have pointed out that some conservatives in Congress voted against $4 billion for extra screening measures, including systems for the detection of explosives. They claim that such equipment would have prevented Abdulmatallab from boarding the plane. They seem to gloss over the fact that enhanced security in American airports wouldn’t help stop a man who boarded planes in Ghana and Amsterdam.

People want to ramp up security at the airports, but instead, we need to focus on catching the terrorists before they ever get to their target. This requires better communication among the intelligence community. It also requires that the intelligence community, when not being interrogated by Congress or investigated by the Department of Justice, be quicker to act on perceived threats without having to worry about the political consequences. The administration needs to create a culture in the intelligence community that is not afraid to be aggressive and not afraid of ruffling a few feathers.

In order to win the war on terror, our intelligence community needs to be more aggressive. Of course, Obama is not comfortable with the phrase “war on terror” or the word “win.” But win we must. And doing so requires a change in tactics. The Transportation Security Administration focuses on screening for potential weapons instead of potential terrorists. When utility knives were used, the TSA started screening for utility knives. When liquid explosives were used, the TSA started checking everyone’s liquid containers. This tactic ensures that we’re always one step behind and it means we’re wasting time screening harmless people.

Spot-checks should not be random; they need to be calculated. There is no reason for the TSA to thoroughly frisk my elderly grandmother and then let someone with Mohammed in his name pass through the checkpoint undisturbed. Call it racial profiling if you want. If Smurfs were the ones carrying out terror attacks against our country, I would want the TSA giving attention to anyone with blue skin – even the Blue Man Group. Which is more important, being politically correct or saving lives? The Obama administration, like the previous one, seems to think the former. It’s time for a change of heart. President Bush was far too concerned about offending Muslims and protected their feelings at the expense of our safety. Obama in his first year has been even weaker on this subject than his predecessor. It can’t continue.

Communication has also been an issue. The entire reason the Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that Napolitano heads, was to make these communication problems a thing of the past. The DHS was supposed to tear down the “wall” between the CIA and FBI and make it easier for our agencies to share intelligence. Yet, in spite of that, miscommunication between the Department of State, DHS, TSA, and who knows what other agencies, allowed a man to board Flight 253 who had no business boarding any flight headed to America. The Bush administration created the TSA to make sure people like Abdulmatallab don’t get past the airport checkpoints, yet anyone who has dealt with TSA agents can report how incompetent they are. The screeners are given certain items to look for and are not allowed to profile or use their judgment. Not only that, but they are encouraged to not spot-check too many Muslims in order to be politically correct. The TSA relies on a virtually useless no-fly list rather than using the comprehensive U.S. terrorist databases compiled by the intelligence community.

Since its inception, the TSA has been nothing but security theater, an elaborate show of protection meant at creating the illusion of security. The system, not surprisingly for a large government bureaucracy, has failed. It is time for the TSA to become useful, by thoroughly screening passengers at the checkpoint and then conducting a secondary screening of anyone who seems suspicious – you know, people like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab. We cannot rely on brave passengers like Jasper Schuringa preventing catastrophe. Protection from threats like terrorism is one of the few things we need the government for. It’s about time it started doing its job.