A bomb killed two and set off terror at a youth concert venue in Manchester, UK, in late May.
So a red flag should have gone up for U.S. security on potential concert soft targets in the United States.
One would have expected an immediate response from both the FBI and Homeland Security counterterror units: the drawing up of a list of potential music fest targets along with a report on the security flaws of each venue. Any such list would have underscored the obvious -- and not only in hindsight -- security problems at the Las Vegas venue.
The fact that the man identified as the shooter was evidently using such a list to case targets underscores that security officials would most likely have leapt into action after the Manchester bombing.
How is it that, say, the FBI's Las Vegas field office did not convey to local officials the security concerns found by counterterror experts? Was there a gum-up in communication? Bureaucratic folderol? Or did Washington experts drop the ball and draw up no such lists?
The press has not pursued this angle, as if the D.C. bureaus disdain anything that might trouble the security apparatus. By giving these questions a pass, the national press signals lawmakers not to bother raising the questions, as they will likely get no coverage.
So a red flag should have gone up for U.S. security on potential concert soft targets in the United States.
One would have expected an immediate response from both the FBI and Homeland Security counterterror units: the drawing up of a list of potential music fest targets along with a report on the security flaws of each venue. Any such list would have underscored the obvious -- and not only in hindsight -- security problems at the Las Vegas venue.
The fact that the man identified as the shooter was evidently using such a list to case targets underscores that security officials would most likely have leapt into action after the Manchester bombing.
How is it that, say, the FBI's Las Vegas field office did not convey to local officials the security concerns found by counterterror experts? Was there a gum-up in communication? Bureaucratic folderol? Or did Washington experts drop the ball and draw up no such lists?
The press has not pursued this angle, as if the D.C. bureaus disdain anything that might trouble the security apparatus. By giving these questions a pass, the national press signals lawmakers not to bother raising the questions, as they will likely get no coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment