Tilting at windmills: lacy underthings the big number terrorism: the marriage solution competition for the CIA clientitis in Pakistan - Column - Statistical Data Included

Washington Monthly, Dec, 2001 by Charles Peters

"MARRIAGE INHIBITS ANTISOCIAL behavior among young adult males. Crime rates, for example, are highly correlated with a high percentage of unmarried young males in the population," reports the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. This same appears to be true of terrorists, almost all of whom are single. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about Islamic culture to know why at least some of them have unusually large numbers of young, single males, but it seems clear that figuring out what can be done about this problem should rank high in our national priorities. Solving it might do more good than bombing rubble.

The Washington Post RECENTLY published the floor plan for the George H. W. Bush Strategic Information Operations Center at the FBI. I noticed that about one-sixth of the total space is devoted to briefing rooms. One of them, the Executive Briefing Room, looks like a small theater. This reflects the fact that in the federal government nothing is valued higher than briefing skills. If you're a star with the pointer and the flip chart (or these days, with PowerPoint), your prospects are unlimited in both the civilian and military bureaucracies. You can even survive a name like Stufflebeem.

JUST AFTER WE WENT TO PRESS with this column's warning about the hazard of private planes being used by terrorists, along came two news stories illustrating the danger. From Preston, Idaho, the Associated Press reported "a man stole a single-engine plane ... and dropped a homemade pipe bomb that did not explode." And from Jackson, Mississippi, The Washington Post reported, "Emergency management officials took samples from a Mississippi tug boat and a pleasure craft after a low-flying crop-duster sprayed them with an unknown substance." In both these cases no harm was done. But they do show how easily harm could be inflicted if these planes fell into competent hands.

IN THE MEANTIME, THE DANGER from commercial planes continued through September, October and well into November, because the House and Senate were unable to agree on an airport security plan. Finally, after a series of horror stories about Argenbright Security, Inc. --"Just seven knives and a stun-gun? Let him through"--culminating in the news that Southwest, United, and AmericaWest airlines had just hired Argenbright to provide security at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, the Senate finally won on Nov. 16 when both chambers passed a bill federalizing airport security.

The House bill should not be forgotten, for it was notable in its radical departure from the GOP's customary antipathy towards regulation. Republicans argued that tough regulation of private business was the best solution to threats to airline passengers' safety. Democrats should remind their colleagues of this argument the next time a health and safety issue comes up.

Another important thing to remember about the new bill is a lesson about government that this magazine has long sought to teach: However laudable a bill may be, it means nothing unless it is effectively implemented.

In the past, Congress has told the FAA to make safety reforms with only the slightest perceptible result. In 1990, 1996, and 2000, bills were passed requiring background checks for airport security workers, but the airline lobby--which even hired former FBI and CIA director William Webster--either killed or watered down these efforts, sometimes aided and abetted by Congress itself.

So it is essential that the media follow the implementation of this bill closely to make sure the reforms are actually made. For example, will the secretary of transportation really use the unusually broad discretion the bill gives him in hiring and firing screeners to hire the able and get rid of the incompetent? If Norman Mineta uses this authority skillfully, it will have important implications for the rest of government where the need for better people is not as extreme as in the case of airport screeners but is still an unhappy reality.

A RECENT BROOKINGS SURVEY OF 1,051 civil servants throughout the federal government shows that on average they believe 23.5 percent of their fellow employees are not up to par. "We've got a very good federal work force," says Brookings' Paul Light, who conducted the survey and reported it in Government Executive magazine. "But we have a substantial number of poor performers." For me, the two greatest needs of the public service are more power to get rid of bad apples, and much more emphasis on attracting high-quality new hires.

Smart people can help by applying for government jobs. Here's a chance for them to express in a meaningful way the patriotism they say they feel.

FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE fretted, usually futilely, about the tendency of Washington journalists to forgo important subjects in favor of scandal and the horse race between candidates, a recent episode of The West Wing had a line that captures the problem: "Getting political reporters to write about issues is like getting children to eat their vegetables."