There are two kinds of borders that nations erect. One kind is to keep people in. The other kind is to keep people out. This may sound silly, since a border can and does do both of those things at the same time. But the function of a physical border has little to do with the reason for its being. It exists either to entrap or to protect. Deciding which is the case is the tricky part, because your interpretation will depend upon which side of the wall you sit. Walls are built when trust has vanished and the result is the creation of enmity where little may have been before. Walls destroy the spirit of freedom and the chance at prosperity. Walls may provide temporary comfort, but at what price? When you build a wall, you can’t see what is happening on the other side. You can’t hear what’s being said on the other side. The lack of trust grows. And in its wake, it breeds envy, and loathing, and bigotry, and greed.
And yet for a variety of reasons, but primarily for safety and peace of mind, America needs to seriously reform our own border security. It is easy, when talking about border security, to involve the matter of immigration, both legal and illegal. In reality, while the two do have obvious connections with each other, lumping them together as a single issue serves no purpose but to dilute the importance of both. Immigration is really a fiscal and social security matter, so I am not going to do that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without a precise and practical border policy in place, the issue of immigration becomes a moot point. Border security, as I see it, must focus on creating barriers that it can defend, not on preventing the attacks themselves. It is from this standpoint that I submit this essay.
When we talk about our national border, many of us see an overhead map projection of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. We imagine the lines on the page to be like lines in the sand we used to draw on the beach. In fact, in many cases, a line would be better than what is there now, which is nothing. This begs the question, “What border?” Except for the ports of entry, established along major and minor highways, our land borders to the north and south are mostly non-existent, save for some latitude and longitude readings on some very old treaties. In effect, our borders existence is based mostly on arbitrarily agreed upon lines in the sand. This system has worked over the years because of the mutual trust between our neighboring countries to preserve the social and political sovereignty of each other. Due to the military advantage of America, security was never a real concern, at least not security of the life and death variety.
All that has changed. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York, America has a new enemy to deal with. This is not an enemy who will muster their forces and meet you on the battlefield. This is not an enemy with a single geographical base. This is not a foreign government with expansionist or resource driven policies. This enemy is an idea borne from anger turned into a weapon whose aim is to destroy. And while it is easily arguable that we not only created this weapon, but we helped feed its anger and continue to do so, we must still seek protection from its wrath where we can’t meet it head on. So, America must build its walls for protection.
In a society based on personal freedom such as ours, when does the publics right to safety outweigh the inconvenience to individuals? Because our newest enemy operates outside the boundaries of so-called “civilized warfare,” border security becomes increasingly complex. Defendable land borders still have relevance, but become just a small piece of the pie. You now have to consider coastal port security, airport and airspace security, and possible biological or radiological attacks coming from overseas in packages or suitcases or letters. You have to consider all of these “ports of entry” and devise effective security methods for them all or you are not protected at all. Our current security regime consists mostly of some land border checkpoints (mostly to interdict drug trafficking), airport security screening (yeah, right!), and unenforceable agreements with other nations. How does this protect the public? I’m not sure, but I’ve heard that it costs a whole lot of money. And I’ve heard that people can still pretty much slip in and out undetected at will, if they really have the desire.
Protecting our nation in the age of technology should be easier than we make it out to be. Surely our scientists could be better employed creating practical defense barriers instead of studying things like condom elasticity or pheromone production of the mole rat. We should have as a goal the creation of a land border barrier that utilizes sound frequency technology or a similar non-lethal incapacitating agent that would render all trespassers incapable of crossing. Of course, it would have to affect only humans and not birds or other animals whose natural migration knows no borders, but we’ve got some pretty sharp scientists. They’ve managed to exponentially increase our computing power in such a short time; they ought to be able to handle this too. For our ocean ports, which are vulnerable due to the amount of goods shipped into the country each day, we should utilize our satellite technology and create a system that could scan a ship for radiological material while still at sea and a decontamination/sterilization station just out of harbor. Further x-ray scans could be made as cargo is offloaded and all passengers could funnel through an inspection process to verify luggage, identity, and general health. Airport security should also utilize more non-invasive scanning technology. We have the capability to detect most metals, chemicals, nuclear, and explosive materials. We just don’t use them. We could end the cries of racial profiling and improper screening just by implementing the technology we have and creating better systems.
Some of these ideas might be expensive to get going, but others could probably begin at once. As a matter of national necessity, we should all chip in where we can, with business supplying the material, and education supplying the scientists, and government supplying the flexibility, and the rest of us supplying the support and the taxes. The drawback for most of us would be a decrease in the pace of travel and shipping, but is that really such a terrible thing compared to another terrible attack? Our society is moving so fast now anyway, slowing things down a little might just be good for us.
Border security really has nothing to do with racial attitudes or personal peculiarities. Border security is about protecting the integrity of the border. Period. If the system is to work, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be evenly applied every time, and it must be invisible yet strong. Without real border security, all conversations about immigration, terrorist invasions, and foreign relations become simply academic.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 24th, 2005 at 8:15 am and is filed under Crime, Foreign Relations, Government, national security, Politics, Reform, Terrorism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 24th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Living in a Major Port City, inspections of the large Container Ships that come direct from all parts of the globe has improved only slightly. Inspection of what is inside each and every one of those containers, however, is more mysterious, and terrifying. One packed propperly with explosives, or bio-terror weapons, and the like could decimate our fair city.
I vote for more invasive inspection of said containers. That would be step in the right direction.
February 25th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Border defenses have evolved through the ages based solely on weaponry advancements. Stone castles were at first built tall and mighty to withstand arrows. Then came the cannon ball and the walls had to be lowered to decrease the profile. Then came stronger cannon balls and the walls were built of wood because it didn’t matter anymore. You probably get the picture. We evolved into an age where walls are senseless because they can be penetrated. Thats why the Iranian power plants are far underground.
Anyway the point I’m getting at is what our future wall should look like. We are defending ourselves against a human weapon, that like water can slip through any crack if porous enough. We must increase our human intelligence ranks among the CIA to the levels we had at the height of the cold war. We must institute a national ID card (carefully). Most people would argue against it but we already have one, its called a passport.
And most importantly we MUST insist that our allies go along with us. Meaning they are responsible for what ships out of their countries.
February 25th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
All of those things are good and all (if not entirely practical due to the sheer volume) but remember, none of those things would have stopped a single 9/11 terrorist. Why do stupid illegal things when you can just legally enter the country and move around.
You could of course intall a small RFID chip into everyone’s skull and if you don’t have the proper code, you can’t get into the country. Think of it like the ultimate National ID.
Damn you know I shouldn’t suggest that because someone may think its a good idea.
I’m not making lite of this Ken, I know it’s a real issue, but I don’t think there are many practical answers. You can inspect every bit of cargo coming in, lock down every border, and expell everyone you think may be a suspect and it would still be little problem for someone here to go and blow up a federal building. Or go on a sniper shooting spree. Or plant anthrax in the post office.
That said I agree with the bastard about the human intel. I agree with you about using technology to snff for chemical, biological and nuclear materials where possible. I think further reform of foreign visa’s is probably needed. Getting a working computer at teh FBI might be nice too.
February 25th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
I agree with CL that nothing will stop every nutjob out there, but am less pessimistic overall. I should be, perhaps, because the scenario that runs in my head involves radical change.
Based on my years in the corporate world, it seems to me that accountability and integrity have long since flown out the window. The CEO of Enron claims that he is innocent because he didn’t know what was going on. Uh, wasn’t it your job to know? I have some sympathy for his personal feelings (he might well not have known) because of the things that I have seen firsthand. Turn your back and they will stab you in it.
Regardless, abdication of responsibility only adds to the problem. We want everything to be simpler as the world grows more complex every day. The fact that it’s nearly impossible to keep up leads us to conclude that it must not be necessary. And if facing a problem can’t be avoided, then by all means form a committee.
There is great comfort in a committee. Talking about the problem surely is the same thing as fixing it, right? If sage and visionary persons weigh in on the topic, then all is well. Have you ever left a meeting at work, thought back over it, and realized that no actual progress was made despite the active and intelligent participation of those involved?
For all of our good intentions, the failure of the system is in individual execution. For years, I took my car to a reputable mechanic that I trusted. They did (and do) excellent work. But every now and then (more frequently as the years passed) something stupid would happen. Because while the company has a great reputation, my car is only in the hands of the person who lifts the hood on it.
We have become a society in which half-assed is the standard. There are many people who work diligently at their jobs, but the crushing information overload, petty bickering, mindless certification requirements, and dispersion of accountability make it nearly impossible to know whether the job one is doing is even the job that needs doing.
Education is a case in point. It seems that we have decided that teaching English is a waste of time, evidenced by the numerous errors in grammar, spelling, usage, and punctuation that litter every medium. Even the use of readily available proofing tools is too much trouble. This might seem trivial, but we are headed for a time when we will be unable to communicate with each other coherently. How did we get to the point that a thing’s being hard means that it must not matter?
We can debate whether changes to improve national security will be effective to the end of time. In our present state of malaise, they probably won’t be. But the fact that something is difficult doesn’t mean that it is impossible or not worth doing. I won’t be convinced until we roll up our sleeves and give it the old college try.
February 26th, 2005 at 12:41 am
This is truly one of those situations which I believe that our government should be doing more to solve. And I HATE saying that our government shoud be doing anything to solve any of our problems. But we have no alternative in this one. National Security falls squarely on the shoulders of the government that our Constitution created, so it’d better act responsibly to that document.
I like some of the ideas that are being put forth. a much more stringent inspection of what, or even who, comes into this country is always a good idea. But I really don’t like the notion of a National ID card… it just sounds too Orwellian to me. And that’s even without my personal Christian convictions regarding the “Mark of the Beast”.
There is some remarkable technology out there that we could be using toward these ends. I think we really need to push our legislators to move in that general direction as quickly as possible.
February 26th, 2005 at 5:29 am
(generic response)
Thanks for all the dialogue on what I though might be an untouched topic. Like Diogenes says, we can’t throw in the towel without giving it our best shot first.
Remember that national security is not necessarily about stopping every single person who wants to do harm. It is about minimizing the chances of that person’s success TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. And that is where we are falling dangerously short of the mark.
More rigorous inspections of cargo…more human intelligence abroad…cooperation between countries…more government accountability…and more people who actually give a damn…these are all good places to start. Unfortunately, those in charge have sold out our security to their corporate dollar hounds for endorsements and future personal perks. (See Tom Ridge and Home Depot.)
A little pressure and a little common sense in the right places could make a difference. But more importantly, ordinary Americans need to cut through the BS and see what isn’t really hapenning instead of swallowing the “America is Safer” mantra.
Thanks for dropping by, all.
February 26th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Your blog is a nice find and a nice surprise. Kudos!
February 26th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Good subject to “throw onto the table”. I’ve long opposed the decision to close our many military bases throughout the country, leaving so many areas without their very foundation for “being”. But worse, we told the world that we didn’t need to defend ourselves. It seemed very arrogant then, and no different now. If we decide to replace them, aren’t we in essence saying that NOW we’ve got something to be afraid of?
As for the literal borders, it’s still shocking that it sometimes takes hours for one of us to get onto an airplane, but no one’s checking containers. It’s not as if no one knows this is happening.
Thanks for making the point that borders have nothing to do with ethnicity, or inidividual rights to a better life. We all should have a route to that destination.
February 26th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
I know that in this little discussion we have come up with ways that might help defend us but we must also look at the root problem and try to solve it. That is the ultimate defense. At my job in the corporate world when things are to messy to address people come up with more rules to try and control something rather then confronting the root cause. You see in most cases most people are non-confrontational and that is bad.
In this case we need to look at who wants to do harm to us and why. Then go forward and try and fix it. This abviously won’t apply with everyone but it will cover a good percentage of people that are trying to do us harm.
Educate the base of what these fanatics feed off of. Educate them in schools of learning not mosques of hate. Its a campaign of hearts and minds that would take years to achieve (a cold war situation) and thats the problem, most decision makers don’t have the time or the patience to fix something so they make up additional rules to make it look like they are trying.
I don’t know about you but enough presidents had the chance starting with Nixon.
What a lot of people don’t know is that we (the U.S.) were the largest oil producers up until the late 1800’s. Our political mind set was to ignore the middle east and exclude them from the advancement of the free world because of their beliefs and faith. This has mostly led to them going it their own until everyone wanted their oil. And even then most of the world discounted this region.
So you see, the problem has been a long time in the making and its going to take a long time to fix.