Officials’ relatively laid-back attitude towards Monday’s American Airlines Flight 587 crash begs the question: If terrorists had only crashed one airplane on Sept. 11, would we be investigating an accident or going to war?
In the moments after Flight 587 crashed Monday, low-level government officials immediately assumed it was a terrorist attacked, and prepared for the worst. The Air Force scattered fighter jets. The FAA closed New York’s airports and airspace, while New York City declared a Level 1 alert and effectively shut down Manhattan and evacuated tall buildings. Stocks tumbled on Wall Street.
But, just as soon as the nation had moved to a heightened state of alert, the White House told everyone to settle down. Citing a lack of “evidence,” the president did not down a single airplane, let alone close America’s airspace, as he did on Sept. 11.
In a display of bureaucratic cooperation and coordination unseen before Sept. 11, the National Transportation Safety Board, the FBI and the White House all said they did not believe terrorists downed Flight 586.
No matter how unlikey the accident explanation appears in light of Sept. 11, it is understandable why the government quickly moved to downplayed talk of a terrorist attack Monday.
If Flight 587 was downed by terrorists, there was little the government could have done. Flight 587 was an international flight headed towards an international hot spot, leaving from one of the world?s best guarded airports.
It would have been subject to the highest security possible — the government can not guarantee security higher than what Flight 587 received. If Flight 587 was vulnerable to terrorists, America’s air traffic can never be deemed absolutely safe.
Secondly, if terrorists did down Flight 587, the economic implications will be devastating. With the tourism and airline industries already on the brink, neither industry could withstand an economic shock this close to the vital Thanksgiving and holiday travel seasons.
The stock market agreed: After the government downplayed the terrorism scenario, stocks rebounded and finished the day mildly higher.
Lastly, as we learned late Monday night, U.S. allies were about to take Kabul. Tuesday’s headlines broadcast the downfall of the Taliban — evidence the U.S. is winning the war on terrorism, not news of another New York disaster. The White House and Pentagon knew full well that Kabul would fall Monday evening; if they could keep people from panicking for 12 hours, Flight 587 would be old news by Wednesday.
Nobody knows why Flight 587 exploded shortly after take off Monday morning. Both the aircraft and the engine have an outstanding safety record; giant jetliners are not apt to falling from the sky.
Given America’s ongoing war, terrorism is the most likely explanation for the disaster.
Yet, for understandable reasons, the government is withholding judgment on the attack. In many ways, the government’s reaction to Flight 587 is eerily similar to the first reported case of anthrax in Florida nearly two months ago.
Then too, despite overwhelming odds of terrorism, government officials said the outbreak was an unexplainable, poorly timed act of God.
Six weeks ago, the government was wrong to call the anthrax death an accident.
Let’s hope our leaders are right this time.
Alexander Conant ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics. He is the editor in chief of The Badger Herald.
