For over five years, Sea Power was the only publication in the United States featuring a monthly column on terrorism. Written by this author, the column stands as a tribute to the prescience of the national officers and other members of the Navy League who, long before the catastrophic events of 11 September, considered terrorism to be one of the gravest dangers facing this country and the world.

As evidence of this concern over terrorism, the May 1999 issue of Sea Power included a special report entitled, "A Threat to America's Very Existence." The article focused on the threat posed by a previously little known Saudi dissident named Osama bin Laden who, it was noted, had been "waging a continuous war on this country for the past seven or eight years." The article concluded by predicting that the United States "will soon face new and unprecedented challenges to its safety and security."

Unfortunately, many in the U.S. government, academia, and the media routinely dismissed the notion that terrorism threatened our national security, the lives of our citizens, and our economic well-being. The warnings sounded by various terrorism specialists were regarded as naive and unmindful of "the larger realities of geopolitics."

As illustration, a former State Department counterterrorism specialist, Larry C. Johnson, wrote in The New York Times, just two months before the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, that "Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism." He gave short shrift to those who "believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal," and concluded by asserting that "terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way." One can only speculate what, if they were still alive, the 3,000 innocent victims of terrorism on September 11 might say about Johnson's comments.

Similarly, in February 2000, The Austin American-Statesman ran an article headlined, "Likelihood of Germ Warfare Is Exaggerated, Experts Say." In downplaying the possibility of an anthrax attack, the author of the article, Paul Richter, focused only on the use of a plane to deliver the agent, maintaining that "terrorists would need highly specialized equipment capable of dispensing particles from 1 to 5 microns in size." Richter apparently never considered the far more simple strategy of using the U.S. mail to deliver the highly lethal spores to their targets.

Moscow Was Involved

The "debate" over terrorism, muted though it was, actually has gone on for more than a quarter of a century. During the early 1980s, many in the media, and in Congress, objected to then President Ronald Reagan's assertion that the Soviet Union was playing a major role in fostering and abetting international terrorism. Today, thanks to previously classified information from KGB and other East-Bloc intelligence agencies following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is general acceptance that Moscow was even more involved in international terrorism than was first surmised.

Similarly, virtually every leading U.S. media outlet opposed the use of military force against terrorism during the 1970s and 1980s. The headline from a USA Today editorial in June 1985 is fairly typical of the sentiments of the day: "Military Retaliation Can Endanger USA."

When former Secretary of State George Shultz asserted in 1986 that the United States has the legal right to use military force against terrorists and against states that support or encourage terrorism, his statements were met with nearly universal criticism from the media, academics, and many members of Congress. "We cannot accept the call to a 'simple principle' that we are 'at war with international terrorism,'" wrote Stephen S. Rosenfeld in The Washington Post. Even Reagan's vice president and eventual successor, George H.W. Bush, distanced himself from Shultz's comments. William Webster, then FBI director, also joined the chorus, stating that, "The problem of terrorism is outstripped by the level of concern."

Literally thousands of other examples of such shortsightedness could be cited. A survey of public statements by policymakers, academics, and national opinion leaders over the past quarter century yields one inescapable conclusion: Nearly all were wrong about the growing terrorist threat faced by this country, especially the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and his minions. It is for this reason that the current efforts to scapegoat the military and intelligence establishments with so-called "Pearl Harbor" inquiries on Capitol Hill and in the media are wrong and would likely discover little that we do not already know. The fact is that there is blame enough to go around, and that the real failure was that of policymakers--in several recent administrations and in the Congress--who consistently dismissed warnings of the growing terrorist threat and chose--in terms of policies, national priorities, and funding--to ignore the mounting evidence of potentially catastrophic terrorist attacks against the United States mainland.

Quo Vadis?

Where does the United States go from here? At this writing, the country is engaged in a protracted war against the perpetrators of the outrages of 11 September and the nations that supported them. Unlike several of his immediate predecessors, President George W. Bush clearly sounded the call to war and rejected out of hand those who said that the United States should instead be seeking to prosecute terrorists and punish their state supporters with diplomatic sanctions.

The members of Bush's foreign policy team have pointed out on numerous occasions that there are 12 international treaties and conventions already in place addressing the threat to global peace posed by international terrorism, and that they had little if any effect on deterring bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network. According to a recent series of articles by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz in The Washington Post, "Like many members of his national security team, the president [Bush] believed the Clinton administration's response to Osama bin Laden and international terrorism, especially since 1998, had been so weak as to be provocative, a virtual invitation to hit the United States again."

It was not enough just to get Osama bin Laden, Bush believed. Instead, the entire al Qaeda network--wherever it existed--had to be destroyed, along with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that had harbored it and provided bin Laden with safe haven. In addition to military and covert action against terrorists, the administration launched an all-out effort to find the sources of money that financed international terrorism.

And this was just the beginning: the first battle in a long war. The "Bush Doctrine" enunciated by the president and his chief advisors also spoke of an "axis of evil" and made it clear that other governments--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, specifically--could be in the U.S. crosshairs before long if they continue to support international terrorism and/or pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction.

A Patchwork Mandate

Phase One of the war against international terrorism has been vigorously prosecuted, with far fewer military casualties than were initially predicted by many in the Congress and the media. The Taliban government has collapsed, bin Laden is on the run (if he is not already dead), and his al Qaeda network is in shambles. Nevertheless, like a wounded bear, the al Qaeda leadership is still thought to be capable of carrying out new terrorist attacks against the United States, both at home and abroad.

To counter this threat, President Bush has pledged that unprecedented steps will be taken to protect the United States and its citizens from further attacks. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was named homeland defense "czar" and given a broad, if rather ill-defined, mandate to protect the people, property, and institutions of this country. Ridge, however, only has a clipboard, a bully pulpit, and the ear of the president with which to meet the challenges before him.

While these are formidable resources, he lacks real authority, either line or budgetary, over the key government departments and agencies that do possess the wherewithal--funds and people, primarily--needed to combat terrorism and defend America. Homeland defense, as it is now shaping up, therefore, will quite possibly be little more than a patchwork of programs and efforts by more than 40 different government departments and agencies, none of which is expected to voluntarily cede power and authority to the homeland-defense czar.

Many of the initiatives for defending the United States are still in the formative stage, and some are highly controversial. As the horror of 11 September begins to recede in the public consciousness, therefore, the number of naysayers and critics of various provisions of the homeland-defense strategy is growing proportionately.

Among the principal unresolved issues still before the administration and the American people are the following:

(1) Improvements in Aviation Security: The U.S. airline industry is already in dire economic straits, despite the recent government bailout. The downing by terrorists of one more commercial jetliner would have catastrophic implications for the entire industry, and for the nation's economy, and could plunge as many as five major carriers into bankruptcy. Every effort must be made, therefore, to ensure that flying is both safe and convenient, and that the flying public has confidence in whatever security measures are adopted.

While the federal government has taken over airport security, many poorly thought out policies remain in effect. Most egregious are the random searches of passengers at airports, and the failure to adopt effective profiling and screening procedures. In recent months, former Vice President Dan Quayle and Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) have been singled out for random searches, as was comedian David Brenner (despite the fact that the security screener actually recognized him and knew that he wasn't a terrorist). "If every single terrorist is an Arab, then you have to screen every Arab," says Brenner. "That's what we should do, instead of dangling 89-year-old women over their wheelchairs."

Retired Marine World War II hero Joseph J. Foss was stopped at Phoenix International Airport and questioned about the Medal of Honor he won during World War II. "I was held up for 45 minutes," Foss said, "while they decided what to do about the medal." The foreign-born security personnel at the airport had apparently never heard of the medal--they also did not seem to know how it might have been used by an 86-year-old man as a weapon to hijack the aircraft.

The use of "trusted traveler" systems could resolve this problem easily, perhaps in conjunction with frequent flyer programs. Passengers would be issued smart cards containing personal data, biometric information, and a photo; this way, the identity of any passenger could be absolutely verified. The system also would expedite visa approval of foreign citizens wishing to travel to the United States, and would go a long way toward preventing what is now an epidemic of identity theft.

(2) National Identity Cards: In view of the ease with which the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, and many of the other suspects subsequently detained, obtained false U.S. identification cards, there is an overwhelming need to create some kind of national identity card that: (1) cannot easily be counterfeited; and (2) would absolutely authenticate a person's identity. One answer is to upgrade drivers' licenses, making them de facto national identity cards. This could be accomplished by all 50 states adopting a universal smart card with standard features and linked to national data bases. Smart cards today can store as much data as the early computers could. Each card would have a photo of the card holder, extensive personal data, and even a biometric device--a fingerprint, for example--to protect against forgery.

(3) U.S. Border Security: Border security should not actually begin at our borders, but overseas, and would include better intelligence, efforts to track and inspect cargo before it arrives at U.S. ports, and by cooperative initiatives with foreign governments to eradicate terrorist cells abroad. One word of caution, though: Care should be taken not to deploy the Coast Guard so much for coastal defense that it cannot perform its bluewater missions. To prevent this from happening, the president has requested additional major increases in the Coast Guard's budget so that it can perform all of its traditional as well as its now greatly expanded homeland-defense roles and missions.

(4) Protection Against WMDs: The cornerstone of this policy would be a new doctrine based on the so-called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine that many observers believe was responsible for preventing a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The president could put the policy in place by announcing to the world that, if a weapon of mass destruction is deployed against the United States, the U.S. government would retaliate with nuclear weapons against any government that knowingly harbored the terrorists and/or provided them with technology or support.

Such a publicly enunciated policy might well provoke Saddam Hussein's generals to overthrow him if they learned he was on the verge of providing terrorist proxies with anthrax or any of the several dozen other biological and chemical agents his regime is known to have either stockpiled or experimented with. Rather than risk a massive U.S. nuclear attack, they might well decide they had nothing to lose by moving against him.

(5) Promotion of Democracy and Tolerance in the Muslim World: There are no real democracies in the Muslim world today; instead, political extremism, intolerance, and gender discrimination are the order of the day in many countries. There are no real Christian churches or Jewish synagogues in Saudi Arabia. Leading Arab newspapers, many of them government-backed, spread crude anti-American propaganda (such as the allegation that the United States developed AIDS as a military weapon to be used against the developing world).

Muslim nations also constitute the majority of the countries (Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan) identified by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism, and all, with the exception of Sudan, are or have been engaged in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.

Nonetheless, the United States and its global partners should remain engaged in efforts to find a solution to the present Arab-Israeli impasse and should seek to systematically undermine brutal dictatorships like those in Iraq and Iran. By the same token, they also should pressure Muslim regimes to liberalize their societies, and encourage ostentatious oil-rich governments to share their wealth more broadly, both with their own citizens and with other Muslim nations.

The Terrorists Miscalculated

In the final analysis, the 11 September attacks might have been worse--much worse. U.S. intelligence officials now believe that the terrorists planned to hijack eight planes, not just four. A pair of planes was to hit each of four targets. The aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania during a heroic struggle between passengers and the terrorists is now thought also to have been headed for the Pentagon, most likely for the River Entrance.

What the terrorists did not count on was the order to ground all planes throughout the country. This action by the president and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta saved perhaps thousands of additional lives.

Nevertheless, the 11 September attacks still claimed more than 3,000 lives. They also plunged the nation into a war without end, and have already cost the U.S. economy an estimated $750 billion. The United States, and the world, will never be the same again. Americans will never again enjoy the sense of security and invulnerability that prevailed prior to 11 September. America's cherished freedoms already have been significantly diminished and, as time goes by, will probably be diminished even more.

But, as President Bush has told the American people many times, this will be a long and costly war, and it will not end with the death of Osama bin Laden, the destruction of al Qaeda, and the replacement of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. As this author wrote nearly four years ago, "The 21st century will be a nightmare time, a time of megaviolence, where nearly everyone with a grievance against a government or some other group will have the capacity to carry out horrifying attacks to instill fear in target populations and spread their message."

The century is still young. But the handwriting is already on the wall.