At a dinner party l gave last night, just as dessert was being served, someone posed the following question: as a society, what would be more devastating to us, blowing up an Airbus 380 midair over a densely populated city or, a presidential assassination? Yes, this is a depressing choice but after a brief, stunned silence, there was much animated talk around the table. The questioner emphasized that we weren’t talking about any particular president; partisanship had no place in this theoretical scenario.
One guest pointed out that the president represents an entire nation and as a figure head, political leader and chief administrator, his death would be devastating. Everyone knows who the president is but doesn’t necessarily know any of the Airbus passengers by name.
Another guest pointed out that there are mechanisms for replacing the president as well as extensive contingency and succession plans. Historically, some U.S. assassination attempts succeeded, others were thwarted – at no time did the attack result in the nation’s demise. The president’s family, colleagues and close friends would suffer a huge personal loss, but at least the office would continue to function.
Helping herself to a slice of chocolate cake, one guest said look, if it comes down to numbers, the immediate personal loss associated with the death of up to eight hundred plus passengers would amount to tens of thousands of bereaved family, friends and colleagues. We taxpayers foot the security bill for the president and for us, the flying public. Securing the president (Secret Service, Air Force One, the Beast, etc, etc,) to the tune of (she guesstimated) hundreds of millions of dollars per year. They do an excellent job. How does that compare to the cost, effort and effectiveness of securing the public, given the numbers of people involved and the consequences of failure, she wondered.
Some guests seemed to feel there are inequities in how financial and other resources are applied to securing public figures versus the public at large.
Taking a sip of coffee, I noted that in no other way is it so easy to kill so many people than at 30,000 feet. Where other than via public aviation can you wipe out a guaranteed six to eight hundred souls plus ground casualties? Still, at the end of the day it’s surely a question of making the most of what we spend, wherever we spend it and about doing things right. I don’t know.
And so readers, I’m inviting you to be virtual guests around my table and let me know your thoughts on this topic! Dinner is served.
Most assassination attempts on U.S. presidents have been carried out by individuals, and the few initiated by groups thankfully did not have the skills, technology or funding available to current terrorists. Those assassins who were successful in the past would not succeed against today’s Secret Service. Today, if Rudolph sneezes and goes off flight plan within some radius of the president no one would find anything in his stocking the next day.
The rest of us, who get by with an indifferent squeeze from an overworked TSA employee, are more in danger of being done in by terrorists or convenience store robbers than POTUS is.
Yet the president and all other officers of the government swear in their oaths to defend our constitution, and to date a million Americans have lost their lives doing so.
Let me turn your question back to you and ask which is the greater tragedy -the loss of our freedom or some form of self-satisfaction that we will never harm the innocent as our enemies do? Do the allied powers deserve the blame for the loss of innocent life in Dresden or Hiroshima, and should an American (or Canadian or Russian)feel guilt for the vengeance we wrought on our attackers? Remorse and sadness, maybe, culpability, no.
The tragedy is not the responsibility of those who fight the attackers. The only tragedy is that we tolerate the existence of murderers, whether they murder a head of state or a worker in the World Trade Center. Winning a war is not a nice business but it is a necessary one, and despite the successful takedown of bin Laden, we are treading too lightly. POTUS is undoubtedly always in danger, but so are all the rest of us. Take off the gloves and decide whose damage should be collateral. The answer isn’t nice, but it’s clear. We have to win.
Consider the far reaching impact of the act itself-one creates sadness, maybe even outrage, but the other creates terror. Assassinating POTUS certainly sends a (ideological) message, but killing 800 people at one time (in a commonly used mode of travel) creates terror. That terror weakens the fabric of America’s strength by causing us to question the government’s ability to secure the average citizen.
At the risk of sounding callous, POTUS can be replaced and the government moves forward. When 800 people are killed (versus dying), people call for change. When a head of state is killed (unless it is caused gross negligence) people morn, agencies make adjustments/enhancements-that they probably should’ve already been doing anyway, and the machine moves on. Not so when a mass murder occurs. The ability to make the average citizen feel safe is something that may be irreplaceable once it’s lost.