Ouch

IN THE NEWS
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission has finished the last of its reports. In this case, it looks at how well the US government has responded to its recommendations. Some of the Commission's points may appear esoteric to the average citizen, such as fixing Congress' process for the national security budget. Some recommendations are obvious, but they won't get done unless the incumbent President and Congress push them through. Breaking the FBI of its determination not to cooperate with other agencies tops that list. Finally, there are the recommendations that shouldn't have to be re-stated at all, such as, Stop making counterterrorism a pork barrel program.

You should read both the transcript and the report card. As a lifelong news junkie, I can't remember any statement from a similar commission that contains as many stinging rebukes as this one. Here's an example:

We see some positive changes. But there is so much more to be done. There are far too many C’s, D’s, and F’s in the report card we will issue today. Many obvious steps that the American people assume have been completed, have not been. Our leadership is distracted.

From the Unfinished Tasks section:

The first responders to any attack will be local police, firefighters, and emergency
medical technicians. They are a crucial part of our national defense. Therefore,
the Commission recommended that federal grants to first responders be distributed
based on an impartial assessment of risk and vulnerability.

However, the current formula for allocating these grants has no risk assessments or
benchmarks to guide this spending.

One city used its homeland security money for air conditioned garbage trucks.

One used it to buy Kevlar body armor for dogs.

These are not the priorities of a nation under threat.

On the FBI:

Reforms are at risk from inertia and complacency. Reforms must be accelerated,
or they will fail. The President needs to lead. The Congress needs to provide
careful oversight. Unless there is improvement in a reasonable period of time,
Congress will have to look at alternatives.

A strong and effective domestic intelligence function is not an option for the
United States – it is an obligation. Our nation’s security depends on its success.

On weapons of mass destruction:

Preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be
elevated above all other problems of national security. Why? -- Because it
represents the greatest threat to the American people. The Commission called for
“a maximum effort” against this threat.

Given the potential for catastrophic destruction, our current efforts fall far short of
what we need to do.

Back in the 1980s, a different Republican president gave thumbs up to a plan to improve relations with Iran and get American hostages in Lebanon free by selling the Iranian theocracy surface-to-air missiles. Meanwhile, highly place members of the national security community saw an opportunity to fund the Reagan Administration's pet project in Nicaragua, the anti-Sandinista contra insurgents, by secretly re-directing profits from the Iranian arms sale to the contras. Both aspects of the Iran-contra scandal became the occasion for a bipartisan Congressional investigation of exactly what the hell happened, as well as a separate inquiry spearheaded by three-man panel of old foreign policy veterans, the Tower Commission.

In neither case did the authors of the final report make statements as pungent as, "Your grade for Maximum effort to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs is a D." The panel was being a bit generous in other categories, such as Full debate on the Patriot Act (B) and Afghanistan (B). Maybe, after its scathing comments on other topics, the commission didn't want to look as though they were just piling on. Still, it's an extraordinary rebuke.

Comments

[J.]

I'm going to try to expound on the whole "domestic terrorist WMD incident" thing in the near future. I've seen a recap of a recent (this year) Defense Science Board report on the issue of US vulnerability to terrorist WMD, and they pretty much agree that our state of readiness is not good and we could do better. I think the real challenge is that people don't appreciate the political and economic side of this issue. To really improve the grade on terrorist WMD to an "A", it would require an unprecedented civil defense-type effort to improve intel capabilities, lock down all the loose WMD material and hazardous material sources in industry, pump up the local emergency responders' capabilities, network our medical surveillance effort, and (perhaps most importantly) educate the public. Again, if the goal is to protect the US citizens in every city (because you never know where or when terrorists will hit), it will cost tens of billions of dollars every year.

Now the parallel is the civil defense effort in the 1970s. Interestingly enough, while Congress was very willing to pay for anti-aircraft missiles and interceptors, ICBMs, bombers, and submarines with nukes, they consistently underfunded and/or denied funding for a national shelter system that (had nuclear war occurred) would have saved millions from certain death. The RAND studies proved it, but Congress believed more in the "strongest defense is a good offense" mantra. As a result, the best that could be hoped for was a civil defense warning system and designated shelter areas in existing public buildings.

The same thing is occuring today. Congress will support fighting terrorists overseas and hunting terrorists within the United States, but they will not go the distance to protect against radiological dispersal devices, chemical hazards, or CB warfare agents smuggled into the country. It's just too expensive, so they settle for partially funding what they think is the worst threat - a contagious BW attack (smallpox) or use of anthrax. Plus they throw funds to the cities and say, here's a list of equipment, do the best you can with whatever you want to buy. Oh, and the DHS's "valuable" tips to the families on keeping an emergency kit ready. That's it. I don't see it getting any better.

[Kingdaddy]

Remember when, in the early 1990's, everyone was in a panic about nuclear weapons, manufacturing implements, raw material, and scientific know-how that wasn't locked down in the former USSR? That problem just didn't go away.

[J.]

No, it hasn't gone away, but the (current) political decision makers are satisfied enough to give it lip service while underfunding or voting down those efforts (such as the proposed Lugar-Obama bill) that would address the problem. I suggest it's rhetoric for them and they expect to solve the problem by funding efforts stamping down on terrorist groups as opposed to preemptive "passive" actions.