We're ignoring flashing red terrorism alarms on the border

The heads of America’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies have not been shy in warning that the “red lights” are flashing about the likelihood of terrorist attacks on America.  

With the war in Gaza raging, thousands of immigrants pouring across America’s southern borders every day and ISIS-K reconstituting, certainly this picture is extremely worrying. Common sense suggests that among the eight or nine million “newcomers” having entered America over the past few years, at least a handful are out to cause harm. And many will and have committed crimes including murder.

Foreign powers such as China may have used the porous borders to infiltrate citizens. Not all who cross U.S. borders from China can be assumed to have entered for personal reasons. It is reasonable to believe that the Chinese Communist Party used some as agents to spy or commit espionage on the U.S. 

Several suspected terrorists from Tajikistan have already made their way into America at the San Diego entry point. And others on terrorist and criminal watch lists likewise have entered this country undetected.

Prudence, at least, demands vigilance and proactive means to prevent crime and terrorist attacks from this cohort. No matter how competent U.S. counterterror capabilities may be, as Sept. 11 and Oct. 7th in Israel underscore, it only takes one attack. And the potential targets are too many to count or provide adequate defenses to prevent.

In 1919, a series of two dozen letter bomb attacks imposed greater fear among Americans than did Sept. 11. Only two people were killed and virtually no damage was done. Anthrax attacks through the U.S. mail created a firestorm of fear in 2001, as the threat of bioterrorism became real, even though talcum powder was used, not actual spores. 

It is easy to conjure up scenarios where terror attacks could immobilize the country. Rather than blowing up banks, cyberattacks could be more dangerous in shutting down the financial system or erasing and stealing vast amounts of electronic currency. Or terrorists could attack large numbers of police and fire stations across the nation to disrupt and create panic.

One can worry oneself to distraction. But while a strong case can be made for enhanced security and preparations, could this threat be exaggerated? Some migrants have committed serious crimes including murder. Yet, is the probability of a terrorist attack any greater?  

Yes, foreign states could be using the border to infiltrate agents. However, terrorist organizations would realize that increased U.S. security could increase the chances of detecting attacks and preventing them. Curiously, if this is the case, perhaps the likelihood of attacks may not be so great.

On the other hand, the potential shock and awe that terrorists could impose cannot be ignored, especially with the November elections looming. One question is, would one party be more adversely affected by a terrorist attack than the other? On 9/11 the al Qaeda attack that destroyed New York’s Twin Towers rallied the nation. Pearl Harbor united an even more divided nation.

The tragic difference is that today, both parties display such hostility, animosity and hatred towards the other that a major terrorist attack might exacerbate these divides. The Biden administration would be challenged for allowing such an incident to occur by Republicans. Democrats would respond in defense.

An attack would almost certainly intensify these already white-hot differences. For the good of the nation, it makes no sense that a terrorist attack could impose even greater damage by widening political differences and increasing mutual enmity. 

What can be done? The administration should approach Congress and the Homeland Security Committees to discuss how to deal with possible terrorist attacks in a bipartisan manner. 

In the heat of the presidential campaign, given Donald Trump’s mercurial personality, it may prove irresistible for him not to use a terrorist attack or other disaster as a weapon against the president. Then, depending on the event's magnitude, could it change the election's outcome?

Dealing with an attack in a feeble or incompetent manner would hurt the Biden administration and could prove decisive, but a competent response could help the president. 

Could adversaries see terrorism as an opportunity to affect the outcome of the presidential election or to disrupt it from even occurring? They very well might.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” military doctrine. His 12th book, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD:  How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large,” is available on Amazon. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.