Thinking back to my summer internship on Capitol Hill, one thing seems perfectly clear: our nation took security for granted.
Each morning, I entered the Senate Russell Building through a staff only entrance and rarely was I asked by the guards to present my official Senate identification card. The entrances for the general public required no identification at all. Individuals were just required to walk through an airport-style metal detector and run their bags through an x-ray screening belt.
On one occasion, a man was arrested for leaving a bag of firecrackers in the reception room of Senator Clinton's office, where I worked. Because I was an eyewitness, I was questioned by the police; however, I had questions of my own. I asked the officer how the bag with the firecrackers made it all the way up to the fourth floor of the Russell Senate Building. If a bag full of firecrackers was not noticed on the x-ray screen by a security officer, what would prevent a weapon from slipping through the cracks of Capitol Hill security? The officer's response to my question was, "We are going to look into that."
While hindsight often proves to be 20/20, hindsight is not of much value when major security breaches result in terrorist attacks on our nation and thousands of deaths.
Today, the political agenda of education, energy and the environment has been replaced by a louder national dialogue that had not even been a faint whisper in the marble halls of the Senate, prior to Sept. 11. During my time working on the hill, there was little discussion or debate about responding to terrorism or heightening our national security. Everyone seemed confident in the security systems that were intact and nobody seemed to be questioning the tactics employed by government agencies, such as the CIA. Now, everything on the political landscape has been permanently altered.
The three R's at the corner of a large, partisan education debate seem almost inconsequential and they have been replaced by the three R's currently dominating national rhetoric: recovery, retaliation and return to normalcy. However, I find myself wondering if one major R is missing from much of the government's dialogue with the American people. Reality. As grim as it may be, we must come to terms with the reality of the situation that we currently face.
Recently, while surfing around CNN's website, I read that some of our nation's leaders failed miserably in a role-playing war game simulation back in June. The hypothetical emergency consisted of a germ-warfare attack, using the smallpox virus, on three states. In this mock scenario, elected leaders used government resources to try to minimize the damages. It only took two weeks for 16,000 Americans to become infected and for 6,000 to be dead or dying.
The smallpox scenario was only an imaginary war game, but last month's attack blurred all the lines that once divided our paradigms of political fact from our paradigms of political fiction. The tragedy on that day did not just consist of a physical collision between planes and buildings, but also of a psychological collision between imagination and reality. The 'war game' has quickly been transformed into a frightening possibility and I struggle to understand why this new type of war appears to have been outside the realm of our previous political dialogue.
While flying on airplanes, going to concerts, attending sporting events, working on Capitol Hill and living in a suburb of New York City, I never really thought much about my safety. Now, these seemingly unrelated aspects of my life are linked with a new connotation of heightened awareness and security. While I will continue to fly on airplanes, attend large public events and work in our nation's capitol, I cannot help but notice that my "return to normalcy" is within the context of a new reality. However, I think it is problematic that the government has focused disproportionate efforts and resources on working to create a perception of security instead of preparing the public for the next terrorist attack.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has informed us that he thinks "there is a clear and present danger to Americans, not one that should keep us from living our lives, but one that should make us alert." The government informs us that we should feel safer on our nation's airlines because they have taken a number of additional measures to prevent my plane from being highjacked. I must admit that I really do feel an overwhelming sense of security when I hear that airlines have banned silverware from the flight meals. Of course, now that nail clippers and hangers have been banned, I'm certainly at no risk. Recently, Pan Am Airlines has even announced a new policy about carry-on luggage. The policy states that travelers cannot bring any carry-on items on the plane " except for purses and diaper bags. Armed officers are going to be placed on random flights and cockpit doors may soon become locked.
I agree that these measures will make passengers feel like they are safer, but do we really think the terrorists are dumb enough to use the same methodology again? Plus, even if they wanted to repeat the tragic events of Sept. 11, couldn't they just get on an international airline's plane that is coming into a United States' airport? While I'm glad that the government is pumping in money to the airlines so that travelers feel more comfortable booking flights, I find myself asking whether or not such measures are really making me feel any safer in the context of the new war on terrorism.
The rhetoric about returning to normalcy and the appointment of Governor Tom Ridge to a new cabinet position are certainly important in light of what has happened. However, our government's emphasis on making us feel safe may in fact be detrimental to our overall safety.
I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot change the way we live our lives and that we must focus on trying to resume normal activity, however, I must reiterate that we cannot do this at the expense of being prepared. I want to walk around in our nation's cities and in our nation's capital and feel safe. But at the same time, I want to know what to do if we are subject to an attack of biological or chemical warfare.
I want to hear our government officials taking preventative measures against a possible smallpox outbreak or release of anthrax; however, I also want to hear our government informing us about vaccinations and antibiotics that may prove to be lifesaving. I want to be educated about the new security systems being implemented around the country; however, I also want to be educated about how to use a gas mask and about what to do in the case of a terrorist-initiated emergency.
I want the American public to know what to do if we find ourselves to be the subject of an unprecedented biological or chemical attack. I don't want the fate of that tragic war game to become the fate of our reality.
