Is air security a threat to better “relations”?

I have not had time to read the entire 516 page 9/11 Commission report.
But the Philadelphia Inquirer has, and I can only hope that they’re wrong, because they declare — as a central thesis of the report — that the United States must:

….repair relations with Muslims around the world, saying that growing hostility among Muslims toward American power and influence had fueled the terrorist movement.

I don’t know what that means, but I worry that it’s code language for appeasement.
I hope I’m wrong about this, but I think the war debate is shifting gears — away from Iraq and towards the idea of whether we are (or should be) at war. Everywhere I look, I see evidence that the country that the country is divided into two groups: those who acknowledge that we are at war, and those who won’t. The latter believe that the war can be wished out of existence, and will go away if we make peace with people who are sworn to destroy us, and have been doing their best for years.
I agree with Ryan Boots:

Here are just a few questions we really need answered:
-What has changed in airline safety since 9/11?
-Are we still frisking grandmothers and six-year-olds and letting Mohammed Atta-lookalikes cruise through metal detectors? If so, why?
-How well is the Patriot Act really working? Is it preventing terrorism? Is it helping track down al-Qaeda cells? What aspects of the Patriot Act work, and what portions of it don’t?
-What is being done to protect industrial infrastructure, such as nuclear plants and sources of water?
-What has been done to strengthen border security? (snicker)
-Have the immigration loopholes exploited by the 9/11 hijackers been closed? If not, why not?
These are just a few of the questions that we need–desperately need–a fair, nonpartisan group to look at and analyze. The one thing the 9/11 Commission did for America was to illustrate how such a nonpartisan team should not be run.

Via Glenn Reynolds, who reflects elsewhere on the sorry state of airline security nearly three years after 9/11:

Bureaucracies are naturally slow learners, but they’ve had nearly three years — and an expensive new Cabinet-level agency — to learn the lessons of September 11. It looks as if they haven’t gotten there yet. That’s particularly sad since, as Brad Todd noted, it took American civilians only 109 minutes to learn the lessons in question. I hoped that things were getting better, but now that seems doubtful.
If I were running the Kerry campaign, I’d be making a bigger deal about this stuff. I wonder why they’re not?

I think the reason they’re not is because of an inherent conflict between “repairing relations” and fighting the enemy, which of necessity means ensuring Americans are safe when flying in their own skies. Political correctness has made it impossible. Bush and the Republicans not only can’t change things, they’ve institutionalized political correctness. Does anyone imagine that a Kerry administration would do otherwise?
UPDATE: In a related vein, I heard something on the radio today that I have been unable to confirm on the Internet. David Hackworth, speaking on the Liddy Show, stated that when agents of the Border Patrol, in the course of their duties, apprehended a group of aliens trying to cross the U.S. at the Arizona border, an Arabic-speaking agent discovered them speaking in Arabic. Colonel Hackworth was told that they were wearing baseball hats and American-style clothing [the garb of choice for Mexicans trying to blend in as United States citizens], and that the Border Patrol has been ordered not to discuss this incident. Wish I could provide a link, but I am unable to find this story anywhere. (That does not disprove it, however, and so I decided to share it here.)
Justin speculated that one reason this story might be suppressed would be the inevitable political fallout from predictable defenders of the Arabic-speaking aliens: that they shouldn’t be treated any differently than any other aliens trying to slip through!
I certainly hope that wouldn’t happen, but in a way, I wish it would, and I hope the story is confirmed. Perhaps if enough people yell holy hell, something will change.
MORE: Also from the Arizona border, there’s this report about the successful sneaking of fake WMDs into the United States:

American Border Patrol spokesman Glenn Spencer told the Arizona Daily Star the test was intended to show how easy it would be for terrorists to sneak deadly weapons across the border.
Mike King, a former Army sniper who was assigned to Fort Huachuca as a National Guardsman after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said he’s hoping the demonstration will help convince government leaders that the country’s southern border is a national security risk.
“I mean, you have people with backpacks, bottles of water and zero training coming across. I just wanted to show how easy this is for somebody with training to come into this country,” said King, who now works as a technical director for the border-watch group.
Two members of the group carried a suitcase in a backpack into Arizona west of Naco Monday night.
One American Border Patrol member said the two men crossed a border fence that separates the United States from Mexico, then headed to a house in Sierra Vista without detection.
The Border Patrol had no immediate comment on the claim by the Sierra Vista-based group.

Looks like there’s a lot of stuff not to be commented on these days…..
MORE BORDER INSECURITY: The 9/11 Commision ducks the issue of easy availability of visas for Saudis:

Afforded only a brief mention?buried in a footnote on page 492?was a reference to what Mr. Mohammed reportedly told U.S. interrogators last year: that 15 of the hijackers were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas.
The Saudi visa policy was the natural result of the ?courtesy culture,? an effort spearheaded by the former head of Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan, which started with her appointment in 1993. The goal was simple: make ?customer? service and satisfaction the top priority in visa policy, where the ?customer? was not American national security.

If the problem is “buried in a footnote,” is it fair to guess what will be done about it?