Terrorism

On CNN Headline News tonight, Glenn Beck has a program called Exposed: The Extremist Agenda. It’s particularly focused on the Iranian regime and the vast differences between the way it portrays itself to the outside world–and the messages that it sends to its own people. The 7PM (ET) show is on now; it will rerun at 9PM ET and at midnight.

I have always supported securing our southern border, mainly due to concerns about law enforcement issues. This seems pretty cut-n’-dried to me.

But, for some reason, people who are critical of plans to control access to our territory usually start talking about how Islamic terrorists don’t enjoy much support down in South America. It is very puzzling to me when they do this. What, we should ignore every other criminal activity or threat unless there is a Jihadi reason behind it? That doesn’t seem very reasonable.

I also hold the opinion that any breach in your security will eventually be exploited by those who mean you harm if they possess the means. It is only a matter of time.

I am not particularly concerned about an imminent attack from Islamic terrorists smuggling arms and suicide warriors across the Rio Grande, but they will get around to it eventually if we don’t plug that hole, and things might start to escalate sooner than we think.

Allowing those who are critical of increased border security to define the debate is probably a bad idea. I have always looked to their assertions about the lack of Islamic terrorists in South America as an attempt to distract from the real issues. But, for some reason, I don’t mind pointing out that they are wrong once again.

(HT to Ace.)

It is no secret that I support securing our southern border due to security concerns. The situation as it exists now, where there are thousands of places where anyone can cross with law enforcement being none the wiser, makes us far too vulnerable.

Critics of my point of view usually point out that illegal immigrants from Mexico are hardly Islamic terrorists bent on jihad, and that my concerns are alarmist and unrealistic. They point out that fanatics bent on forging a global Caliphate will find little support in Mexico, a country with a long tradition of Catholic domination.

For some reason, I don’t find their arguments to be very reassuring.

The news article linked to above hardly says that there are terror cells waiting to swim across the Rio Grande with their suicide belts primed and ready to go. But Hezbollah supporters in Catholic dominated Mexico?

We are engaged in a global struggle between mutually opposing ideologies. Our opponents are resourceful, dispersed, secretive and determined. It is worth our while to try and fix our vulnerabilities before they are exploited by the enemy, even if our efforts prove to be bothersome to those illegal immigrants who have no intention of committing terrorist acts.

Here’s a report (pdf) on the results of some simulations run by the RAND Corp. on the effects of a nuclear bomb that arrives in southern California in a shipping container. The short summary of the probable near- and long-term consequences: very bad.

Of course this is a simulation and it’s impossible to know how accurate it is. The attack it describes may never happen, and if it does happen the effects might not be as bad as predicted. Or we might be attacked in other ways. The more important questions, which the RAND simulation can’t address and which may not be accessible via simulations, are, what are the odds of a WMD attack in the first place? and if the odds are much greater than nil, how can we minimize them?