The Fallout from Detroit

Since the attempted Christmas Day terror plot was foiled, there has been a plethora of commentary, and I have been playing catch-up. I was late to the game, having found out about the attempted attack two days after it occured (I took a break from TV and online news sources during my four day Christmas vacation; go figure, I missed out on something huge).

I personally find the plot's timing to be eerie. Just a few weeks ago, I discussed terrorism with my family and opined that an attack carried out over the holidays could be devastating. American morale is not at its highest, and the respite provided by the holidays is key to a stable national mood. It would not surprise me if terrorists symbolically used a western, Christian holiday as an opportunity to remind us that they want to bring our society to its knees.

I must say, I find it unforunate that the AFP and other media outlets are referring to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's "averted" terror plot. The plot was not "averted". To say it was averted is to imply that direct action was taken that derailed the scheme. Nothing could be further than the truth: it was a happy accident that the plane was not destroyed, and nothing more.

It is sad that the terrorist's own incompetence was all that stood in the way of innocent lives being lost. This incident has shaken the country's confidence in its federal government severely; bureucratic snafus and a lack of vigilance on our government's part are completely unacceptable. We know how real the danger is, and we ought to be past the point of making stupid mistakes.

There has been much scrambling on both sides of the aisle to either minimize or maximize the political effects of the plot, and the ensuing public ire. Some are blaming the Obama administration, while the administration's supporters are pointing to (who else?) George W. Bush, saying that he was never given any grief for presiding over faulty airline security regulations. I guess it's true that you can't let a crisis go to waste. For my part, though the partisanship on display in light of a serious terror plot is somewhat nauseating, I believe that the questioning of the Obama administration's handling of the incident is legitimate (just read Tony Harnden's compelling Telegraph piece on the subject).

Obama's initial dismissal of Abdulmutallad as an "isolated extremist" is particularly troubling, as it has become clear in recent days that the terrorist has clear ties to Al-Qaeda. Was Obama downplaying the scale of the plot? Was he misinformed? Was he lying? None of those three possibilities inspires confidence. Nor do the words and deeds of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had to retool her initial assertion that "the system worked" in regards to U.S. security efforts to stop the attack.

Blame games aside, this incident is proof positive that the federal government needs to drastically reduce the bureaucratic lollygagging betwixt its intelligence, law enforcement, and security agencies if it is going to successfully protect U.S. citizens. After the Fort Hood massacre earlier this year, this need became obvious. Now we've been given a harrowing second reminder. There should not be a third.