Kat,

I'd be willing to bet there's a lot going on behind the scenes in North
Carolina.  After all, there's Research Triangle, a gaggle of universities,
maritime facilities, etc.  The thing that has been drilled into my head at
every class is "presentation":  making things look as normal as possible on
the surface.

This is pretty much what all the high-priced security "experts" have been
saying to me over the last couple of weeks:

When an "event" occurs, you want a "show of force".  Bring all of your
assets to bear and make sure that everyone sees them.  After the initial
shock wears off, people want to get back to "normal" as soon as possible.
"Normal" will never be possible for us again, but the APPEARANCE of normal
is just as good.  It will build confidence in people.  They will shop,
travel--in essence, they will eventually do everything they did before the
"event".

The aim of the terrorist is just that: terror.  In the scheme of things, the
actual  "damage" caused by the events of 9/11 are just a tiny "blip" on the
radar of a nation of 300 milllion people and an economy measured in
trillions of dollars.  The damage caused by the "perceived threat", however,
was much greater.  That's what agents of terror want:  They know they can't
kill or injure even a small percentage of Americans, but if they can create
enough of a bang to draw media attention and create hysteria (a symbiosis,
BTW), then their mission is successful.

It's my job, and the job of countless folks like me, to try to maintain a
sense of "normalcy" while being incredibly vigilant.  It's also my job to
get my "sphere of influence" back to normal ASAP after an "event".  That's
easier said than done because, as I said, I'm "swimming" in daily disaster
scenarios.  Tends to make ya paranoid after a while. ;-)

There are two competing schools of thought on the "appearance" issue:  One
school says to make a big presence--like at the Liberty Bell.  The idea is
not to scare terrorists--they're smart enough to hit targets they have a
decent chance of taking out--but to "calm the citizenry" by having a show of
force.

The other school of thought--the one my agency is promoting--says to keep a
"low profile" to create that "normalcy" I talked about.  Which is right?
Heck, I don't know.  No one knows for sure until it's over, and it won't be
over for a long time, near as I can tell.

I do feel that the U.S. media is not serving the public interest right now.
I think the "Ted Turners" in our country are making money hand over fist by
creating stories out of heresay and, sometimes, even whole cloth.  Americans
have a fascination with "gore and war", for some reason, and the U.S. media
are playing the public like a fiddle.  If you want the "truth" about
terrorism in the world, tune to BBC World Service.  They're not perfect
either, but you are much more likely to get "the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but...."

My $.03 (Canadian)

-Kyle






-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Salkin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: mag will be in dc soon!


When I was up in Philadelphia, I got a rude awakening as to just how
seriously
the Feds are taking the terrorist threats.  (here in NC, there are guards at
the airports and Federal buildings but that's about it)  When I was at the
Liberty Bell Visitors Centre where my cousin runs his coffee bar, it was
swarming with National Parks police.  Also, when we walked in the parks in
the
area, the presence of the police was very much evident.  Apparently the
Memorial Day holiday was seen as an occasion to really beef up security in
the
area around the Bell, since it's a prized symbol of American liberty.

One policeman told me he'd been pulling in double shifts; he looked tired.

Kat

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:04:05 -0400 "Cleveland, Kyle E."
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Mags, do be careful in D.C.  Maybe it's all
> this "disaster" training I'm
> swimming in right now, but I'm starting to get
> the heebie-jeebies again.
>
> -Kyle
>