But the truth of the matter is, we’re an open society, we want to remain an open society, and there will continue to be vulnerability. That’s why we have to meet the threats when they are not yet taking place on our territory and on our soil.

Rice frames a post‑9/11 security dilemma: the very features that define liberal democracies—openness, mobility, pluralism, and legal constraints—also create exploitable vulnerabilities. Rather than proposing to close society to eliminate risk, she argues that some vulnerability is inherent and must be managed. The second sentence advances a doctrine of anticipatory or preventive action: confronting threats abroad before they materialize domestically. In this logic, forward defense and intelligence-led disruption become necessary complements to civil liberties at home, even as the claim invites debate about how to define “threats,” the evidentiary threshold for action, and the costs of projecting force preemptively.