HOW HE SEES IT 'United 93' movie makes us face reality

By JAMES P. PINKERTON
LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY
For the new movie "United 93" here are three public-policy points and a plug.
First, the film puts the lie to the elaborate conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks. At their most extreme, theorists claim that bombs or missiles blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Others are willing to settle for lesser conspiracies -- that, for example, U.S. Air Force jets shot down United Airlines Flight 93.
But for most Americans, seeing the film will be a reminder that hundreds of people were firsthand participants in air-traffic and air-defense jobs on that black Tuesday. These air-traffic professionals, our fellow citizens, are not likely to have been part of a cohesive conspiracy to blame al-Qaida for the actions of Uncle Sam. And even if so many Americans were complicit in such a barbarous mass murder, it's impossible that all of them could have kept their omerta silence for 41/2 years.
Second, even if there was no American conspiracy on 9/11, there was a kind of confederacy -- a confederacy of duncelike behavior at the top policy echelons. In 2004 we learned that President Bush received a briefing from the CIA on Aug. 6, 2001 headlined, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"; the document even highlighted "preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."
Not paying attention
Yet, the White House seems to have paid no serious heed to the warning; indeed, nobody in a decision-making capacity anywhere in the government seemed curious about the true intentions of Zacarias Moussaoui, the obviously suspicious semi-pilot who was arrested on Aug. 16.
The movie, narrowly focused on the fate of Flight 93, doesn't venture into the high-level back story, but we see the results of this official obliviousness on the screen. By about 8:30 a.m., it was clear that at least one passenger plane, American Airlines Flight 11, had been hijacked. Yet, at 8:42 Flight 93, was allowed to take off from Newark. Just four minutes later, Flight 11 hit the north tower. And by then it was clear that a second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, had been hijacked, too.
Even so, the feds failed to warn all pilots of the immediate danger, let alone order the immediate grounding of all airplanes. Either move might have saved Flight 93, since the hijackers apparently didn't make their assault on the cockpit till around 9:15. Meanwhile, the fourth plane, American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon at 9:39. Imagine that: Nearly an hour after the first plane hit a famous skyscraper, the military headquarters of the United States wasn't protected from an unarmed and un-"stealthed" civilian projectile.
Helpless Uncle Sam
So what was wrong with Uncle Sam? Why this helplessness? The problem started at the head. Back then, the U.S. government was focused on the long-range threat of missile attacks from China or North Korea -- and, apparently, on war plans against Iraq. So the hypothetical danger of an "asymmetric" enemy was downgraded.
The lesson here is that the dogma of the high command determines the responses of those lower down the chain. If our leaders aren't worried about a given category of threat, it's certain that their followers will be helpless to react adequately.
Third, and on a happier note, for all the lamentations about the sad state of our homeland security, it's obvious that something is working pretty well. The feds may have been asleep on 9/11, but they are awake now. Many thought that 9/11 was just the first in a barrage of domestic attacks; it proved to be the last. That's a pretty good streak, and should give pause to those who would tinker with key domestic defense programs, from the Patriot Act to tighter immigration controls.
Finally, a plug for "United 93": Yes, it's harrowing and violent. But it's about love of country, as well as love of life. And it's hard not to love such a film, even when it's hard to watch.
X Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday. Distributed by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service.