Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: How to measure success

Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004 | 8:18 a.m.

THE LAS VEGAS STRIP had a wild and safe celebration New Year's Eve. With the exception of a few troublemakers, the huge crowd enjoyed the beautiful fireworks and excitement that only takes place out on the Strip and in downtown Las Vegas.

Times Square also had a great celebration and the crowd was estimated to be several hundred thousand people taking part in the nation's oldest major New Year's celebration.

An airplane commandeered by terrorists didn't crash into either celebration nor did one explode near the White House. A truck loaded with explosives or a dirty bomb wasn't detonated in downtown San Francisco or near the space needle in Seattle.

Not one ship loaded with dangerous explosives, chemicals or bacteria was destroyed in the harbors of Long Beach, Houston, New York or Boston.

So why, some Americans ask, was the Department of Homeland Security demanding so many restrictions on the movement of different transportation methods into and around places where millions of Americans celebrated? This is a tough question to answer because most of us find it rather difficult to evaluate what didn't happen. A better question would be to ask if any terrorists were deterred from acting because of the alert and law enforcement preparation? At this time you and I don't know the answer to this question but may learn it several months or years from now. Nor do we know, at this time, if deadly weapons were uncovered or if some terrorists have created a trail for our security agencies to follow.

Some Europeans and their governments have also reacted negatively to the American demand that armed air marshals accompany international airline flights coming into our country. One of the complaints, which came from the British Airline Pilots Association, was that no guns should be allowed on commercial flights. This sounds reasonable, if we assume that terrorists won't bring weapons aboard any of the flights. Of course, we know that assumption doesn't ring true in the real world in which we live and die.

I have been flying on airliners with armed sky marshals for almost two decades. Never have I experienced a hijacking or gunfight on Israel's national airline. The passengers all know that there are two or more armed security people on every El Al flight. They don't know if they are men or women, where they are sitting or how they are dressed. But they are on every flight and give the crew and passengers a sense of security. The United States government has recognized this success, when combined with special passenger screening, and has created its own program.

If the terrorists had killed several thousand people in Paris, London or Berlin two years ago the complainers would be fewer in number. The British government, which shares intelligence with the United States, has been most cooperative in canceling flights for security reasons. Two days ago the British pilots union began to get the message when its spokesman said, "We think air marshals will do more harm than good, but we won't block the idea." Also, British Airways has been working with other airlines to provide for the training and use of armed air marshals. That is a positive step if they wish to continue operating in the world's most lucrative travel market.

Our government still has much work to do in protecting our harbors and international commercial operations. In the meantime, our national security operations will require our patience and willingness to provide the funds necessary to operate. As these security operations become more sophisticated they will be less intrusive in the lives of American citizens.

Eventually we will learn how effective our Department of Homeland Security has been in protecting us from terrorists. A good measure of its initial success may be what didn't happen last week and its future success may be what does or doesn't happen during the coming months and years.