Homeland Security as Sport

E-mail this story Write a letter to the Editor Printer-friendly version del.icio.us [ What is this? ] digg [ What is this? ]

Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail. Subscribe for free.

One critical assessment has come from the left-leaning Brookings Institution in a study that presages coming political battles on Capitol Hill and in November's midterm elections. The report faults the administration for focusing too much on preventing another hijacking or anthrax attack while not doing enough to head off or cope with "doomsday" attacks, such as a bio-bomb, that might cause mass casualties or huge economic losses.

The report claims the federal government will need to spend annually for homeland security $7 billion more than the $38 billion estimated by the White House, with another $10 billion needed from the private sector. That extra $7 billion, it says, is needed for more FBI staffing, information technology, cybersecurity, food inspection, as well as for protection of chemical plants and tall buildings.

Such kibitzing by think tanks is usually helpful in Washington. But before Congress uses this report to cry "security gap!" and demands more spending (with the smell of pork barrel), a less partisan tone is needed. Some members of Congress have already politicized the war on terrorism by demanding that the president's adviser for homeland security, Tom Ridge, testify on the Hill, even though he has no authority over spending.

Americans are unlikely to stand for squabbling over which buildings' air vents should be made more secure, or the details of how agencies should be reorganized in order to make the country safer.

Measuring the level of terrorist risk should not become an annual political game. Unlike past wars, the level of threat remains very uncertain. Intelligence agencies know more than anyone where terrorists might strike, and can advise the president and Congress on what actions to take. Then a consensus should quickly form.