Slate's Bizbox
hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked.

Homeland InsecuritiesSix years after 9/11, we're still not thinking strategically.

By Daniel Byman
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007, at 7:20 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

U.S. officials also need to integrate a better understanding of its adversaries into the nation's defenses. Terrorists seek targets that will resonate with their constituents. We should ask what will play in Peshawar, Pakistan, not Peoria, Ill. Despite Thompson's fears, planning for a massive agro-terrorism event would be wasteful if al-Qaida or its affiliates have no intention of laying waste to the U.S. corn crop. The United States has spent billions on port security, yet, to our knowledge, no jihadist group has ever devised a serious attack plan for such a strike.

As these criticisms suggest, better security doesn't require spending more on defending even more potential targets. Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security, warns that terrorists could attack shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, and similar soft targets and, in so doing, "terrorize the entire nation." Perhaps. But at the same time, Ervin notes that terrorism is "like water, it seeks, finds, and takes the path of least resistance." Ironically, such a statement also argues against protection. In theory, we could guard every restaurant, nightclub, gas station, or for that matter, any place where people congregate. But even if all public places were protected, the terrorists could simply shoot the guards and proceed with their attack. In practice, we can't protect everything, and we must remember that terrorists have their own priorities that lead them to concentrate on a limited set of targets.

It is tempting to say that too much preparation never hurts and that a steady drumbeat of fear is necessary to prepare for what is, in the end, a dangerous movement. After all, who wouldn't drive a car that was "too safe" or eat a diet that was "too healthy"? But excess preparation for homeland security can waste tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that could be better spent on fighting terrorists abroad, or, for that matter, on health care, auto safety, or a tax cut. Aside from the dollars wasted, many of the proposed defensive measures could impede trade, discourage tourism, and restrict civil liberties.

The very concept of homeland security is new for Americans, and the department was thrown together quickly and involved many already-dysfunctional bureaucracies. Even so, our nation's dialogue on homeland security is disappointing. Mistakes, misconceptions, and a lack of strategic thinking are tolerable in the immediate aftermath of an unprecedented terrorist attack like 9/11, but they are less forgivable six years later.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Daniel Byman is the author of The Five Front War: The Better Way To Fight Global Jihad. He is also the director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
Photograph of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

This is true only if you're speaking of the "terrists" in the president's fantasies, a centralized al Qaida who are leading the Iraq insurgency, etc.

The real terrorists are countless factions of Islamic extremists, plus a number of religious and racial "identity groups" here at home, plus an odd assortment of cults, plus plenty of individual nutcases of all stripes, plus a whole bunch of wannabees. These people don't set priorities and think strategically. They rent Ryder trucks in their own names and charge three tons of fertilizer on the wives' credit cards. They hoard weapons. They subscribe to jihadist papers or anarchist publications or mercenary newletters. They publish hate letters or warnings of impending doom in the local paper. They start bogus mosques and churches to hide behind religious freedom.

It's easy for these people to fly under the radar because the attention is on Iraq, which had little to do with terrorism. We blew off four years and countless opportunities to figure out international and domestic terrorism because our government was run by a man who knows only one song and that song has only one note.

By the way, why do you think we rated well in marine security? Because we had an agency called the Coast Guard who has lots and lots of experience guarding the coast. As clever as DHS is at fouling things up, even they couldn't ruin the Coast Guard in four years. Of course, half the Coasties are deployed to support the Iraq boondoggle, so they're stretched pretty thin here at home.

--Arlington

(To reply, click here.)

In short, the terrorists won. They have us overreacting, underreacting, and misreacting. They have us misdirecting efforts, scaring ourselves legitimately and cynicaly, wasting money as we bankrupt ourselves on futile wars and crony profiteering, and largely hassling ourselves day in and day out with pointless exercises in bureaocracy. And so on...

Historians will have a lot of fun in the next few centuries arguing wha might have happened had only America been blessed with a competent, non-corrupt, mature and level headed administration at its time of greatest need.

In short, the Bush administration's instincts on this issue have been nearly perfectly exactly wrong on every action -- from day one.

--Sarvis

(To reply, click here.)

How many years did it take for them to stop distributing the money based on the highway model rather than assess potential risks and targets? I still remember the stories that circulated about how those funds were spent on all manner of things that couldn't even be said to have a loose connection to anything resembling security while high value targets went begging. I won't get started on the absurdity of the color codes and the recommendation we arm ourselves with duct tape.

Frankly, I have seen no evidence that the DHS is remotely interested in 'strategic approaches' or issues of 'perception management'. The only thing the DHS seems to do well is to whip the American public into a frenzy of hand wringing hysteria at regular intervals. Therefore, I can't help but feel that the author of this piece might get closer to the truth if he looked at the function of the DHS as a piece of agitprop rather than a department actually looking to provide security to US citizens.

--adav11

(To reply, click here.)

(9/14)

Washington Post