The War on Terror

David Unger of the New York Times had a very good article abut what is needed in the planning of our national security budget. I have tried to narrow his many points to a few very important ideas that are not discussed in dealing with this “war on terror”.
As the mid-term elections approach, candidates are lining up to prove that they are the toughest on terrorism, but that isn’t the real issue. This is a question of competence, something we need a lot more of right now in our national security planning.
1. Homeland security dollars are doled out by geographic and population formulas rather than actual vulnerabilities, so rural states that have little risk get as much or more money per capita in some programs as places like New York and Washington, D.C. There is every reason to believe an attack is much more likely — because of past patterns, and potential impact — in New York or Washington than in Wyoming. It is inexcusable that the Department of Homeland Security and Congress’s funding formulas do not recognize this.
2. Pentagon dollars are divided between the services according to traditional formulas that build in waste and redundancy and fail to take account of changing military realities. With Republican majorities running the Senate and House, Congressional oversight of military budgets has been even laxer than usual. But both parties have long had a bad habit of awarding relevant committee seats to Senators and Representatives more interested in keeping weapons production lines in their district humming than in demanding serious reform.
3. In a rational world, top Pentagon officials would sit down each year to examine the current national security situation, and propose allocations accordingly. Unfortunately, the military budgeting process in Washington long ago got disconnected from timely assessments of America’s actual security needs. Even if Homeland Security dollars were more rationally allocated, there would not be enough to meet some obvious and urgent national needs - like adequately scrutinizing the cargo coming into American ports, reducing the risk of catastrophic terrorism or accidents at chemical plants that could kill or sicken hundreds of thousands of Americans, or accelerating the development of the next generation of baggage and cargo screening devices to substantially reduce the risk of airborne terrorism.
4. The four military services jealously protect their traditional shares of the overall spending and investment budget, even when, as now, there are real wars going on whose requirements do not correspond to that traditional allocation.
5. Congress has its own issues, starting with the unhealthy symbiotic relationship between major defense contractors, politicians and military procurement officials.It isn’t only about campaign contributions — it’s also about jobs. Defense contractors are large employers in the districts of many influential members of Congress, and they are not shy about reminding congressmen that cutting back on defense contracts will mean job losses — and political repercussions — back home.


These are just a few questions to ask your representatives abut being tough on terror. There is going to be a lot of talk between now and the November mid-term elections about keeping the nation safe. Unfortunately, much of it will be delivered in sound bites and 30-second TV ads.