End Notes
1) Given the recent tardy but well-meaning responses by the federal, state and local officials in the Gulf Coast, it can be assumed that the nation remains relatively unprepared for a terrorist attack of September 11-proportions. The U.S. is struggling to negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with Iran and North Korea (the latter having recently agreed to forego additional nuclear weapons testing in exchange for light-water nuclear reactors, a "breakthrough" that returns the U.S. To the same position it had under the Clinton administration) and is waging a fighting war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
2) "Taking the battle to the enemy" appears to be immensely preferable, at least from the perspective of someone sitting safely at home pontificating about it, than waiting for an attack of any sort on the nation's interests.
3) Certainly, the U.S. And much of the world has increasingly come to rely on the information highway to conduct a global economy, and any disruption of this service would have profound and far-reaching implications; however, it would appear that the authors are missing an important point in their "we can use the old stuff to fight and destroy a new enemy" analogy. The terrorist organizations that are causing the problems around the world are virtually invisible, and the recent attacks in London...
Blaming the nation's enemies for the poor state of the information infrastructure is much like blaming FEMA's response in New Orleans on Mother Nature. Rather than "taking the battle to the enemy," then, a superior approach would seem to be to identify more effective ways of protecting what we have, and by improving the nation's ability to once again live as a completely free society rather than looking for even more ways to restrict civil liberties and approve a PATRIOT Act III. While the country's immediate problems are pronounced, they will be fixed; however, what is going to remain after the floodwaters have dissipated is a global network of terrorists that will exploit every niche and every opportunity to thwart the nation's interests, and it is reasonable to assert that more attacks can be expected in the future - including those on the information infrastructure. Therefore, by recognizing these threats today, adequate steps can be taken to protect the country's interests in the future without resorting to the steps advocated by Welch and his colleagues.
