A few years ago, while visiting family in East Texas a few miles from one of the biggest concentrations of chemical plants in the world, I read a Texas Monthly article called “Attack Here” (subscription required) by SC Gwynne that’s worth looking at because it lays out exactly what could happen if a carefully placed bomb were set off in the Houston Ship Channel. The story begins with this question:
Along the fifty-mile Houston Ship Channel, there are more explosive materials, toxic gases, and deadly petrochemicals than anywhere else in the country—which is why most security experts agree that it’s one of America’s top targets. So what’s the worst that could happen if terrorists were to strike?
Gwynne then goes on to describe in terrifying detail what that ‘worst’ could be, so while exploring the port security issue, I decided to see what’s being done to prevent such an attack.
According to an article in the Denver Post (“NORTHCOM & NORAD: Eyes on the Future. Anti-terror fight takes to the seas.” Feb 12 06), the US military is taking an expanded role in tracking the movements of container ships on the world’s oceans.
Of course we’re not just dealing with potential bombs, but also a clever way to bring terrorists into the country. The article mentions one particular stowaway who was most likely not just trying to find a better life:
In October 2001, Italian police seized a Canada- bound ship from Egypt at an Italian port. Aboard, they found an Egyptian man hiding in a cargo container equipped with a bed, toilet, cell and satellite telephones, Canadian passports, airplane tickets and an airline mechanic’s certificate valid for airports in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Italian authorities released the Egyptian on bail, then he disappeared.
The article goes on to say that last year US naval forces boarded 2000 ships on their way into US ports.
This is of course a necessary step in protecting our ports from container ships bearing dangerous cargo, be it bombs or terrorists. But according to an article in the Newark Star-Ledger (“On waterfront, so many crates and, say critics, so many gaps” Feb 23 06) there are still many problems stemming from the huge number of containers coming into the US (6000 per day in NY & NJ alone):
Though federal security officials have set up a chain of checks over incoming cargo and ships, criticism abounds that far too many gaps remain for terrorists to exploit on the long routes from overseas manufacturers to foreign ports and then to U.S. docks.
The Government Accountability Office, a watchdog arm of Congress, concluded in an April 2005 report, “An effective port security environment may be many years away.”
Securing ports is a huge task that requires the full engagement of the federal government. At this point, that engagement seems to be lacking:
One of the chief complaints has been a lack of funding. Critics note that the federal grant money earmarked for safeguarding the nation’s ports typically totals in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year, while aviation security gets billions in grants and a far higher profile.
“The whole system needs a lot more attention and investment than we’ve made to date,” said Stephen Flynn, author of “America the Vulnerable” and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank.
Aviation security is important and probably a lot sexier, but the potential cost to human life and the damage that can be inflicted on our cities, our infrastructure, and the environment by a container carrying a bomb or WMD is frightening to consider. Are we doing all we can and is the Coast Guard getting all it needs to prevent this from happening? I’m skeptical.
(Thanks to the bloggers who’ve linked to my Coast Guard post including: All Things Beautiful, The Daily Background, and The Washington Post’s The Debate.)
James Brush is a teacher and writer who lives in Austin, TX. He tries to get outside as much as possible.
Be First to Comment