A retrospective

This time of year, many people reflect on what has happened as a way of figuring our what may happen in the future. Looking at world affairs, it seems 9/11 may be a good place to start.

Qaddafi, Hussein, and bin Laden have been killed in the years since 9/11 yet much remains unchanged. Al Qaeda remains the terrorist boogeyman and the Middle East is perhaps less stabilized than before the beginning of the war on terror. Mubarak's ouster has had a more dramatic impact with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was outlawed by Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat).

In Obama's second term, Kerry will replace Clinton at State, Hagel has been nominated for Defense and Brennan will take over at the Central Intelligence Agency. Kerry is not seen as doing anything to lessen use military presence overseas. Hagel is seen as anti-Israel and Brennan is seen as major proponent of drones. The three combined means tensions in the Middle East are unlikely to be decreased and more remote targeting of "terrorists" will be conducted via airborne robots. (Hagel should get confirmed but pro-Israeli groups and politicians may lobby to block his confirmation.)

All of this continues to ignore our neighbors to the South. A long time, I heard a South American analyst lecture about Colombia. His conclusion was that the perceived exploitation of Central and South America by the US was the reason for the drug cartels success. Basically drugs were being produced by with the intent of destroying the US from within (this was back in 1988).

Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, cocaine was the main drug the Colombian/South American drug cartels smuggled into the US. At some point in the mid-90s, the cartels realized the market for cocaine was pretty much maxed-out, no room for increasing the market with new users. Thus was born the higher grade heroin that we see today. Heroin with a higher concentration could be snorted or smoked so cocaine users would be attracted to the new heroin (and not appear to be a junkie shooting up in an alley). Unfortunately for these new users, they discovered the real strategy of the cartels was to get users hooked.  Heroin is immediately addictive unlike cocaine.

Heroin is produced from poppies which aren't grown in Colombia so a new partnership was formed between South American cartels and Afghani poppy growers. The connection between cartels and Taliban leads many to speculate as to the real reason we are in Afghanistan. The new Secretary of State (Kerry) and Sec Def (Hagel most likely) will have to assess the consequences of keeping troops on the ground in that part of world.

China continues to build-up and improve its military capability which begs the question, why? Even if not for a direct confrontation with the US, Chinese technology will force the US to keep developing new weapon systems at a somewhat quicker rate than has happened in the past. Part of the reason the F-35 cost so much is its lengthy development time (plus coming up with three distinct variants to meet the needs of three different service components).

Speaking of the F-35, this is most likely the last manned fighter aircraft we will see. Drones and robots have advanced to the point that manned aircraft are actually a barrier. Flight characteristics are hampered by the need to keep the pilot from being squished to death in a high G-turn. Drones can now take-off, fly and return to base without human intervention. Drones can maintain extremely times on-station and the best part, they are much more affordable than the F-35. Ground forces are not to be outdone, robots now walk and look like men and pack animals. Meaning robots can handle rough terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot and again don't get tired (or want promotions or healthcare). 

Despite those advances, we still pretty much remain focused on fighting asymmetrical threats with symmetrical forces. Despite being at war for over a decade, we still are using much of the same tactics. 

It is unlikely that under the second Obama Administration much will change. There may be some increase tensions and perhaps some more air campaigns but in the end, nothing much is going to change.

C-27J

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told members of the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday that he expects the Pentagon's strategic review to be complete by year's end. That review is likely to outline the fate of the Air National Guard's newest airlifter, the C-27J, which embarked on its first deployment to Afghanistan this summer. The service already has purchased 21 aircraft, with plans to purchase 17 more. However, that appears to be under debate as service leaders grapple with fiscal uncertainties. Schwartz said the "decision is not final" over whether to put the remaining C-27Js on the chopping block, but he added that such a move "would be extremely painful to me personally." He explained that he made a "commitment" to retired Gen. George Casey, former Army Chief of Staff, "that I would not do this deal with him and then back out." The C-27J was originally an Army program, but was later transferred to the Air Force. "That was two years ago, so I've got personal skin in this," said Schwartz. But, Schwartz also said that budget constraints are forcing the Air Force to look at reducing entire fleets, "not a few here and a few there.

The C-27J was procured to backfill the tactical airlift gap created by the culling of the C-130s from the Air National Guard. As Katrina proved, the ability of the Air National Guard to use C-130s to move materials into Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana was critical to restoring infrastructure and services. Despite this track record, the 2005 Base Re-Aslignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations was to cull most of the C-130Hs and C-130Js from ANG. The C-27J was a stop-gap to allow the National Guard some tactical airlift for contingency response and homeland security. Barely a year after the first C-27s were fielded, the remaining airframes are in jeopard of being slashed. Not only will these airframes never get purchased, there is no other option available to the states.

Be very afraid

Hardly a month goes by without someone in authority reminding us to expect another attack imminently. I have lost count of statements from MI5, the police and other experts that an attack is a matter of "not if, but when". The attacks never occur, or are brilliantly thwarted, like the one reportedly prevented this week, apparently by dropping bombs from drones on Pakistani villages. What is noticeable is that the tempo of such threats increases immediately before Christmas and when the security lobby is involved in a fight over money, as now.

Be very afraid – we are being fleeced by purveyors of fear | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

US Apologizes to Billionaire Added to Terror No-fly List - ABC News

Thanks to Yussi Pick for the following story.

I've written about Abdulmutallab before and how despite being a suspected terrorist did not manage to end up on the no-fly list. Both the CIA and MI5 knew about Abdulmutallab but for whatever reason the National Counter-terrorism Center (NCTC) did not add his name to the no-fly list.

The NCTC and other intelligence agencies are now rightfully sensitive to missing another underwear bomber so Mr. Chagoury was put on TWO no-fly lists. How did billionaire philanthropist/businessman/former ambassador manage to get on TWO no-fly lists? Mr. Chagoury's company banks with Abdulmutallabs father.

Chagoury spokesman Mark Corallo: “Everyone understands that after the December attempt, the government re-examined a lot of travelers. Ambassador Chagoury has no problem with the government taking a second look at him, and he’s pleased that he’s been cleared to fly to the United States. What he doesn’t understand is the decision by someone in the government to disclose his name to the media and to unfairly suggest that he was a potential threat."


ACLU's Ben Wizner: "This is a secret, unchecked executive power with absolutely no due process for people who are on the list. You can wake up one morning and find yourself unable to fly without ever being told why and without any meaningful opportunity to challenge it."

The best systems are the ones that are constantly being evaluated where ineffective practices are eliminated or corrected. As this story illustrates, our homeland security system is still unable to evaluate its processes even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

US Apologizes to Billionaire Added to Terror No-fly List - ABC News

A Fourth Amendment victory

Airport rules changed after Ron Paul aide detained - Washington Times

The knee-jerk reactions to 9-11 created the TSA and US PATRIOT Act, both of which seem to fly in the face of the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments. Whenever concerns about the Constitution are brought up, critics cite national security. The Bush Administration may have created TSA and the Patriot Act but the Obama administration isn't showing any signs of changing course either. The incident with Ron Paul shows what happens when rules are given out to without thought to the larger implications. TSA screeners have a thankless job are work with a constant set of changing rules and procedures. Add an overzealous screener and you get a violation of our Constitutional rights. I hope this incident doesn't just go as a foot note for the Obama Administration. I hope they take a hard look at our security policies.

Homeland Security in the Obama Administration

I received a copy of a report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) from my friend Claire Rubin a JHSEM. Neither candidate spoke much about issues of homeland security or emergency management during the campaign. The CSIS article is entitled “Homeland Security in an Obama Administration” and covers eight categories the President-elect intends to address during his administration.

Defeating Global Terrorism

• Update strategies/ capabilities to fight terrorism
• Re-equip, retrain, and expand armed forces
• Improve public diplomacy

This seems consistent with his pledges during the campaign to refocus the war on terror more in Afghanistan. These were developed before the attack in Mumbai and the advent of Somali pirates. The attacks in Mumbai could be launched anywhere without the tell-tale signs associated with weapons of mass destruction. The increase threat of pirates means the role of the Navy will have to shift from less of a force-on-force role to something akin to its earlier role of protecting commerce shipping.

Nuclear Security

• Secure and control fissile materials
• Build international capacity to prevent theft and spread of nuclear materials
• Appoint White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
• Set the goal of a nuclear-free world

These are very laudable goals but other than the coordinator, have a low probability of success. Other administrations have tried to reduce or eliminate the spread of nuclear weapons. Russia, China and now Iran will prove especially challenging in trying to meet these goals. Both Russia and China see the United States as a waning superpower, they more than others will not be interested in reducing or eliminating their nuclear weapons programs.

Biosecurity

• Build capacity to mitigate consequences of bio-terror attacks
• Speed development of drugs used to fight bio-terror attacks
• Lead international effort to diminish impact of major biological epidemics

Biological agents are inherently difficult to use. Those producing the weapons face contamination or death before the weapons can be employed. The dissipation of the biological agent once the weapon is used reduces concentration levels. Winds and rain may prevent airborne biological agents from being effective. Chemical agents and high explosives are easier to handle and most likely will be the preferred choice of terrorists seeking WMDs.

Information Network Protection

• Protect IT infrastructure needed for U.S. economy
• Develop comprehensive cyber security and response strategy
• Prevent corporate cyber-espionage
• Mandate private data security standards

The big challenge for IT security lies in that either an external or internal agent can launch attacks. We hear often of lone attackers in India or the Philippines but the real threat of course comes from employees who may be plants or turned by the attackers. Technology moves faster than our ability to legislate standards and develop strategies. Perhaps no other area requires eternal vigilance than in the IT arena.

Infrastructure Modernization

• Improve the efficiency and security of the U.S. electricity grid
• Invest in recapitalizing transportation infrastructure

Of all of the areas, this one perhaps holds the most opportunity to help our economy. I’ve advocated before the need to improve mass transportation. Developing light rail systems between cities and revamping our long neglected long-haul passenger rail lines will increase jobs as well as help reduce the number of cars on the road.

Critical Infrastructure Protection

• Revamp national infrastructure protection plan
• Improve chemical plant security
• Track spent nuclear fuel
• Improve airline security
• Bolster port security and cargo screening
• Protect public transportation
• Protect local water supplies
• Improve border security

I’m only guessing here but with President-elect Obama’s selection of Governor Napolitano as his Secretary of Homeland Security, border security will see a dramatic increase over some of the other critical infrastructure areas. I also don’t’ see the new Secretary of Homeland Secretary erecting static barriers as much as trying to develop policies to reduce immigration issues.

Intelligence Activities and Civil Liberties

• Improve information sharing and analysis
• Revise the PATRIOT act to preserve civil liberties
• Update FISA to provide greater oversight for warrantless wiretapping
• Restore habeas corpus to those deemed enemy combatants

I’ve not been a fan of the Patriot Act since it was first crafted because of the circumstances surrounding its creation. The emotions immediately following 9-11 did not permit proper discourse to be conducted. The same for FISA and terming those suspected of terrorism as “enemy combatants”. It was an expeditious means during the days and months after 9-11 but it is time to relook at these policies.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

• Allocate funds based on risk
• Emergency response plan improvement
• Improve communications systems interoperability

Allocating funds based on risk sounds perfectly sound but is fraught with political angst. I’m not certain how you improve emergency response planning beyond what is already known; getting agencies to sit down together and start planning and then practicing their plan. The one constant is the lack of time agencies can devote to exercises and joint planning sessions. Communications interoperability remains one of the common threads in after action reports. The problem isn’t so much in the upgrade of systems; it is in getting everyone on compatible systems at the same time.

If President-elect Obama can keep his administration focused on accomplishing the above, the country will certainly be better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Mumbai

The situation in Mumbai appears to be over. Several things have already come out concerning the nature of the attacks that will have significant implications for counter-terrorism and homeland security policies in the future.

First, the attackers did not use any kind of weapon of mass destruction. No bombs, chemical weapons, biological agents or radiological materials were used. No car bombs or aircraft were used. The attackers did not rely on suicide bombers instead a small army went deep into a densely populated city. The attackers used rifles and military tactics to kill nearly 200 people.

Second, although initial reports made it seem like Westerners were the targets in actuality the attackers killed as many people as they could regardless of nationality or ethnicity. The nature of the attacks would suggest a regional agenda rather than national or theological.

Third, the fact a small army was able to assemble and launch an attack without alerting intelligence networks suggests an over-reliance of technology. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) took a bashing for 9-11 for allowing their human intelligence network to deteriorate to the point that hijackers were able to train and carry out preparations without causing the agency to notice (that assessment is overly simplistic but the fact human intelligence has been forsaken in favor of high-tech sensors is very much a concern).

Preventing attacks on unprotected targets such as cities or college campuses is challenging. There is only so much that can be hardened before you end-up with a fort. A fort is not conducive to commerce and tourism. If one city becomes a fort, then attackers merely target the next city that isn’t a fortress. I’ve written before about the error of fighting the last war. Homeland security (which is essentially preventing terrorist attacks) has focused almost exclusively on airports and maritime ports. The attack in Mumbai shows what can happen when a well executed plan uses the simplest of weapons (infantrymen and rifles).

I suspect the new Secretary of Homeland Secretary, Governor Napolitano of Arizona, will tend to focus her efforts on preventing terrorist attacks through immigration laws. The lack of human intelligence networks first recognized in 9-11 have yet to be properly addressed. The purchase of even more sophisticated sensors and overhead imagery is important but still does not address what is going on in the minds of potential terrorists.

Wendell Phillips quote still remains relevant almost 200 years later, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Disaster response or stopping terrorists?

The local news is alternating between the Bengals lackluster performance and the Presidential elections. I’ve done my rant on the Bengals for now, so I thought the Presidential elections might bear some fruit.

Other bloggers are criticizing their candidate of choice based on the major issues; the economy, the war, the lack of experience of whichever candidate has caught the particular bloggers ire. Instead I tried to focus on a narrow view, what are the candidates saying about homeland security and emergency management?

On Senator Obama’s website, I found this “In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, improving our nation's emergency planning and response capacity has become a priority for Senator Obama. He introduced legislation to ensure that the mistakes witnessed before and after Katrina are not repeated in the future.” The rest is devoted to positions on homeland security including chemical plant security, transit security (subways and buses), nuclear waste and drinking water safety. I take this to mean Department of Homeland Security, and also FEMA, would continue much as they do today under his administration.

Senator Biden echoes much the same. He wants to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. After reading several books on the 9/11 commission and how it was conducted, I’m not certain these recommendations are as bi-partisan as advertised.

On Senator McCain website, he doesn’t mention disaster response or emergency management. Talking points are given for national security and border security. I was somewhat surprised not to find anything about homeland security. I’m not sure what this means for the Department of Homeland Security should Senator McCain become President. It is hard from his website to gauge the impact of his Presidency on the Federal Emergency Management agency.

Governor Palin should probably have the most experience in state emergency management issues but as yet, I have not seen her thoughts on emergency management or homeland security. Alaska does not have the types of emergencies seen in states such as California or Florida. She may not have had time in only two years to have experienced a statewide emergency.

For something different, I saw Cynthia McKinney (who is running on the Green Party platform) campaign bullets on “On The Issues” website (http://ontheissues.org) . She has perhaps the most to say on the topic: she demands the end of the rollback to civil liberties, did her PhD thesis on the role of assassination as a state political tool, and opposes the Patriot Act.

What does this all mean? FEMA, now under DHS, has to demonstrate its role in protecting the homeland from terrorist attack. The shift concerns those in the emergency management field as they see this emphasis taking away from the humanitarian role. Whoever is the next President will have to figure out if they want to continue the emphasis homeland security or go back to disaster response. The former leaves a lot of communities out of the hunt for federal grants while the latter would create more opportunities for communities to compete for federal dollars. Of course, all disasters are local and the next administration could use that axiom of emergency management to cut federal funding.

Drugs, terrorism and security

Today one of the talk shows on NPR was dealing with the drug situation and the recent shooting of a Mexican police officer. I then found an entry on Hometown Security about the first arrest in connection with drug trafficking and terrorism. Both of these stories caused me to reflect on the 7 years of commanding the Ohio National Guard Task Force. The National Guard supports law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts as well as supporting community-based organizations in drug demand reduction efforts. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) or more commonly known as the drug czar’s office directed this dual-approach. Drug law enforcement agencies (federal, state and local) spend a large amount of money investigating drug crimes, arresting suspects and seizing illegal narcotics (as well as guns, cash and other property associated with drug activity). Administrators and elected officials need to be able to justify the expenditure of time and resources by these agencies so often the amounts of drugs seized, the number of arrests or the dollar value of assets are quoted. Unfortunately, the numbers only tell part of the story. Each time a drug dealer or organization is arrested, there are several more ready to take over. For every ton of illegal drugs seized, many more are being smuggled in or are being manufactured.

In the mid-90s, it became apparent that interdiction efforts weren’t going to be enough. So long as people kept buying drugs, there would always be people willing to smuggle or manufacture those drugs for sale. ONDCP began to suggest drug demand strategies theorizing that by reducing the demand for drugs it would curtail the drug traffickers. Every community has some type of drug demand reduction program, either through their police department or some local community based organization interested in reducing drug crime. There have been many excellent programs but even so the demand for drugs has only been to a minor degree (some may even argue not at all). The problem with drug demand strategies is a very basic one. Maintaining behavior learned during these programs once they end is almost impossible. The programs also assume that most people don’t want to use drugs. This assumption may not always be the case for the attendee or the assumption may change over time. In either event, demand reduction and interdiction efforts have yet to reduce the drug problem.

The illegal drug business generates billions of dollars in revenues for those at the very top. And make no mistake, the illegal drug trade is very much a business. During the late 90s, the Colombian drug cartels had pretty much hit saturation of the US market for cocaine and crack. The cartels decide to look at new markets and began marketing a higher grade of heroin. Previously, heroin sold on the street was of such a low concentration it had to be diluted and then injected to effect the user (the prototypical junkie). The cartels found out that potential new users didn’t have problem with abusing heroin but did not want to become “junkies”. The higher grade heroin could be snorted or smoked and thus avoided the junkie image. It was a hit and new market was created.

At the same time, other drugs started to become prevalent to include ecstasy and methamphetamine. These drugs became popular at clubs and especially raves. While methamphetamine (or meth) can be manufactured virtually anywhere by anyone, ecstasy can only be manufactured in a lab. Most of the ecstasy found in the United States is manufactured in Europe and is trafficked almost exclusively by the Russian mob. The Russian mob first made their appearance on the East Coast in the early 90s. The Russian mod was primarily made up of former Soviet Army soldiers or KGB agents. One of the effects of the Soviet Union demise were thousands of unemployed soldiers and secret police. They found new careers using their skills in illegal activities and the drug trade seemed ready made for most of them. They are well trained and absolutely ruthless.

When the Soviet empire fell not only were their soldiers left without paychecks, so were the numerous terrorist organizations that had benefited from Soviet sponsorship. Terrorists did not stop their various campaigns but they did have to find a new source of funding. Drug cartels had plenty of money and needed operatives willing to kill their enemies. Colombian drug cartels had for years played on anti-American feelings by locals who felt North America had forsaken them in favor of European or Asian trading partners. Afghanistan poppy growers are equally adept at fanning anti-American feelings to support their burgeoning heroin business. Even home grown terrorists have turned to drugs as a way of funding their efforts. Many of the militia groups that were opposed to the federal government in the late 90s turned to the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine as a means of generating revenue for the actions.

The United States has tried for the last 20 years to arrive at a solution to the drug problem. Perhaps it is time to look at things differently if we hope to increase the security of our homeland. First it appears that regardless of what we say, there are people who still want to abuse drugs. I am NOT suggesting we legalize drugs, merely recognize that we may be making a faulty assumption that people don’t was to abuse drugs. The other problem is mandatory sentences for drug convictions. People are being sent to prison in untold numbers resulting in overcrowding at a huge expense to the taxpayer for merely possessing drugs. I’m not sure that a drug addict is the same as a murderer By mandating a prison sentence for drug possession, other more dangerous criminals are being let go early. Rather than require a prison sentence for drug convictions perhaps it would be better to view addiction as a medical problem. Yes, I know our medical system may not be up to the task either but we have to try something different otherwise we will never be able to reduce the revenues for drug trafficking.

Real Concerns about REAL ID

“Passed by Congress in 2005 and recommended by the 9/11 Commission, the REAL ID Act requires states to create tamper- and fraud-proof driver's licenses. Each would contain a digital photograph, a digital signature, and a machine-readable bar code. Before issuing a license, a state would have to verify that an individual is a US citizen or has a valid foreign passport and visa. That information would have to be cross-checked against other states', Social Security, immigration, and State Department databases. The intent is to make it much more difficult for a terrorist to get access to a driver's license that could be used to board a plane, as most of the 9/11 hijackers did.

Under the original proposal, the citizens of states who fail to meet the REAL ID standards would not be able to use their state driver's licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings.

Homeland security experts say such a standardized identification system would be helpful in maintaining security. ”

The above appeared in today’s on-line version of the Christian Science Monitor. My first reaction is how can this expense be justified? The cost of implementing REAL ID which, according to the article, is going to be $14 billion! The price tag is just the federal government side of implementation, this figure does not include the cost to the state governments that will have to provide data to for REAL ID to be effective. The cost to the thousands of businesses having to purchase the proper hardware and software to read REAL ID cards isn’t know but will be very high (especially for smaller businesses). All of this cost to prevent people from using false identification to board airliners under false pretenses. I want our airliners to be a safe as possible, yet the economist in me balks at the exorbitant price tag for a dubious increase to our safety and security.

The amount of data bases that would have to be cross-referenced to properly implement REAL ID is dizzying. Federal, state, county and local systems would all have to be coordinated to provide the necessary compilation for a national ID (at least if you want to do it the right way). One data error in the stream could result in someone being unable to get a driver’s license or fly home to see their families during the holidays. My experience in these things makes me leery about how quickly errors could be detected or corrected. Again, we may be setting up additional disincentives to fly without even realizing it.

The biggest hurdle to implementation, and the reason 38 states so far have introduced legislation opposing REAL ID, is the cost to the states. Ohio’s unemployment rate was 5.9% back in September compared to the US average of 4.7% for the same time period. This means Ohio is not exactly resplendent with tax revenues to pay for the costs associated with REAL ID. States are required by the REAL ID Act (and recommend by the 9/11 Commission) to create tamper- and fraud-proof driver's licenses. The state budget has been stagnant for the last few years and the emphasis has been to revitalize education. I don’t see how Ohio is in a position financially to pursue such a costly retrofit to the state driver’s licenses. Before issuing the license, the person’s information would have to be cross-checked not only with other Ohio agencies but also other states databases. Citizens of states that do not meet REAL ID standards will not be allowed to use their driver’s license to board aircraft (the backlash from this initiative has in part caused DHS to extended the implementation date to 2013).


All of this to prevent one type of terrorist attack. Anyone who has studied military actions or the martial arts knows that the enemy responds to your actions. Since 9/11, a majority of national efforts seemed only to focus on a similar used of a passenger jet. Most likely, the next terrorist attack will take advantage of some other gap in our security. Focusing $14 billion to assure only one type of attack is adverted just doesn’t make sense.

Cargo carriers could be used instead of passengers for instance. These are the same type of jets used to attack the World Trade Centers and Pentagon yet they normally only have a two man crew on-board. A potential terrorist would have to deal with less contingencies is hijacking one of these jets. Cargo carriers tend to operate from less populated airports so security may not be as robust as at a passenger airport. (I’m very cognizant of this as DHL has a major hub not that far away from my house.) Security has not been emphasized with cargo carriers to the degree it has been with passenger jets yet these aircraft are just as lethal.

We seem to be fighting the same scenario over again with REAL ID, namely the attack of a major metropolitan area with a commercial passenger jet. No one seems to consider the real possibility the next attack won’t resemble 9/11 at all. For instance, Cincinnati has two professional ball teams (the Bengals football team and the Reds baseball team) both with large outdoor stadiums. It would not take much for a would-be terrorist to ram a small Cessna into the crowd. Small aircraft are all over the Tri-State area mostly at small airports with little or no security. They can fly below radar and be upon the stadium with little warning. Granted the destructive power may not be the same as a commercial airliner but for sheer terror this is a real possibility due availability and the openness of professional outdoor stadiums.

I’d rather funding be identified and spent on regional assessments with recommendations for preventative measures than on a national ID with little hope of preventing the next attack.