Has anyone stopped to consider the worse case scenario of a terrorist attack in the US? Not the loss of life alone, but the loss of our civil liberties?
What seems more reasonable
There comes a time when you can no longer trust a fools action for being foolhardy. Would the loss of life be terrible, absolutely! I can no longer concern myself with the loss of life only, but the next logical step. Think about the fallout of a Islamic terrorist attack on our home soil similar to what we saw in Paris earlier this month. Better yet, think about the Boston Marathon bombings. Does the end justify the means? Does giving up civil rights during an event like the bombings or a future terrorist attack seem reasonable. I will tell you what seems more reasonable, dealing with the terrorist threat like men and not the cowards who continue to jeopardize our national safety.
The proverbial snowball
In the tactical world, a tragic accident is not the result of a single incident, but the culmination of several seemingly insignificant acts. When totaled the equal bad things and I believe the same can be said for the situation we are in right now with the threat of Islamic terrorism so high. Let’s look at it from this perspective, from a no shit logical point of view. If I had to look at a soft target with a high reward versus low risk I would look at our schools. They are very vulnerable no matter how many “gun free” zone signs are posted. Some schools have armed resource officers; obviously a good thing. Don’t be mislead into thinking it is sufficient though. The schools who do not have an armed uniformed presence are the most vulnerable so it seems logical to strengthen their security posture by adding an armed uniformed presence.
Who’s going to pay for this?
Now, here comes the bad news. There is no way we could maintain this strategy long term, absolutely no way. We could certainly beef up during times it is reasonable such as known intelligence or holidays, but to keep them there full time means it is costing us money. Plus, these bodies are coming from place, some other need. The next logical step would be to hire more officers to fill the gaps created. Again, who is going to pay for this as a permanent solution? Our economy is in shambles and not getting better anytime soon. National security should be a top priority of course, so we could cut back aide to foreign countries or admitting refugees and illegal aliens who are a drain on our resources, but even then that is not enough.
Back to the armed society
At some point we all have to acknowledge it is not feasible in those terms. A far better idea is to build our armed society. I’m not the only person who thinks this way, the former Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble suggested the solution to our security problem is arming the citizenry. His comments came in the wake of the deadly al-Shabab mall attack in Nairobi. I liked his rationale, you either harden the soft target so much you can’t get in or you go about arming the populace.
It boils down to money
One of my jobs in my former life was to evaluate and assess our national interests abroad. I traveled all over the world and I took my job seriously knowing the lives of my fellow Americans were at stake. I would spare no expense in my evaluations and it wasn’t until I was sitting with one RSO who honestly commented the suggestions were spot on, but so cost prohibitive they wouldn’t get approval. Of course, I was disappointed, but again it is the ugly truth. No, protecting soft targets is not easy. The slippery slope is giving up personal freedom, where you no longer have the ability to walk freely in your own neighborhoods. Quite frankly I loathe that idea, freedom must be preserved at all costs.
Oh the irony
I find it ironic how Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier has come out and publicly commented “taking action and fighting” is now the best option. She’s right, but what bothers me is the fact she realizes “the situation has changed”. The situation hasn’t really changed, what has changed is her opinion. Like the hundreds of anti-gun, her’s pacifist dogma is costing more lives than saving. If we want to see our way of life preserved, our freedoms preserved it will come by way of violence. At a certain point, violence is the best answer. It may not come to that if the Islamic terrorist realize the juice is not worth the squeeze, behind every blade of grass is a rifle, but it will take a nation wide effort.
Maybe this was necessary to galvanize our way of life for our children, maybe we needed the threat of freedom destroyed to stand up and defend her. What will you do?
"I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry, Politician and Founding Father
