More on Code Orange

This from P.J. Crowley at The Center for American Progress

When the Department of Homeland Security elevated the threat level over the holidays, it did more than add the color orange to the traditional holiday colors of red and green or blue. The banter between Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg over the wisdom of being in Times Square on New Year’s Eve illustrated the government’s mixed message of buying plastic sheeting and duct tape while proceeding with holiday travel and celebrations.

The heightened security level will remain at least through January but we have learned three things from this latest alert. The elevated terrorism threat is real. Conspicuous gaps remain in our ability to protect ourselves and find out what our adversaries are planning. In 2004 we must devote more money to homeland security if we are to overcome the challenges we face today.

In 2003 there was progress in disrupting potential attacks, arresting terrorists associated with al Qaeda and its offshoots. But al Qaeda still conducted significant attacks in Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey while the United States did little to repair its image in the Islamic world.

In fact, there are a number of reasons to believe that we are in graver danger entering 2004 than at any time since Sept. 11. First, al Qaeda’s leadership has not abandoned its goal of launching significant attacks against highly visible and symbolic targets in the United States. Second, as the videotape released Sunday by al Jazeera demonstrates, Osama bin Laden remains at large and continues to incite his followers. Release of such videos have coincided with attacks in the past. Third, we know that al Qaeda and others are still underwriting training camps in southeast Asia and, more ominously, have not stopped their search for chemical or biological weapon technology.

I don't believe that our efforts to thwart al-Qaeda have been that successful. I have no evidence of this, but the lack of evidence showing real progress in thwarting al-Qaeda internationally would lead to this conclusion. The fall-out in post-war Iraq, and the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian issue make me less sanguine than Mr. Crowley regarding our 'successes' regarding the reining in of international terrorism. The fact that we are at Code Orange would support this view.

More....

Finally, there is the simple question of the bottom line: are we spending enough to properly counteract the threats. Consider:

• The Department of Homeland Security’s budget for the current fiscal year is $31 billion, less than one tenth that of the Department of Defense.



• The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that the last time DHS went to orange alert, cities and counties across the country had to spend another $70 million a week in response. As anyone who pays property taxes today can testify, this burden comes at a time when communities already under extreme budget pressure are laying off police or cutting back on hospital services, two critical homeland security components.



• Private sector projections indicate that corporations, which own 85 percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure, today spend roughly $50 billion on security and have failed to increase security beyond pre-September 11 levels.

Even accepting the administration estimate in last year’s Homeland Security Strategy that, as a country, we are spending roughly $100 billion on homeland security, these funds are clearly insufficient. Terrorism remains a relatively low-cost business, with a handful of potential hijackers posing a threat that requires us to spend millions in response. It may be a matter of increasing budgets but it also is a matter of setting priorities that match the threat we face. Much more at link

I knew roughly what the figures were, as I have delved into this issue a bit. I am sure that homeland security will be either the number one, or the number two issue on people's minds during election 2004. As to why the DHS is so woefully underfunded, yet the Department of Defense is flush with cash is readily apparent. The Bush Admininstration convinced enough of the American people and Congress that Saddam Hussein was a real threat. We now know that this was a fantasy. Between UN inspections and 10+ years of sanctions, Saddam was a though criminal on the world stage. Sure he was a bad man and his removal seems a good thing. But what hath we wrought in his absence? Few people dare ask this question.

The Bush administration, guided by a small group of neo-conservatives have really turned U.S. foreign policy on its head. The ramifications of this are for another day.

What we need to do today, is to shift money from the Department of Defense to the Department of Homeland Security. Today.