DC, New York to Get More Counter-Terror Aid

The bunglers at the Heimatschutzministerium have decided that Washington, DC, and New York City should probably get more counter-terrorism money for the year than previosuly announced. For example, Washington and the surrounding counties of Maryland and Virginia will get $15 million more, a whopping $62 million now. Unfortunately, that is still a 20% decrease compared to 2005 levels. Meanwhile, New York will get $10 million more, for a total of $134 million, 37% less than in 2005. That’s about half the value of Donald Trump’s office building at 40 Wall Street.

The money is supposed to go for equipment for first responders and training in emergency situations. It is supplemented by about $1 billion from the Heimatschutzministerium and the Commerce Department to fix enduring communications problems that killed people on September 11, 2001 and others in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit. It is spread around to 7 “high risk” cities, and 39 others.

Mr. Chertoff justifies this saying, “People say, ‘Well isn’t most of the threat, all the threat in New York?' . . . The answer is no, it’s not. If we put all the money there, we’d be inviting people to attack second-level cities.” If he were as good at knocking down terrorists as he as straw men, everyone would sleep better. The question isn’t whether all the money should go to New York or Gillette, Wyoming. The issue is whether the feds have their priorities straight; are sufficient funds being spent in places where they will do the most to protect Americans?

Mr. Chertoff and the rest of the Busheviks simply don’t understand the strategy needed here. Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) said aptly “vulnerabilities exist everywhere, but real threats do not.” The White House is attempting to create a nation that is invulnerable to attack, and in doing so, is focused not on real threats but rather some grand delusion of absolute security. Unconditional surrender and absolute victory sound good, but they are unachievable against an enemy prepared to die in the struggle with a suicide vest.

What a wise leader would do (and for whom the nation must probably wait until January 20, 2009) is set some priorities. First, the most likely places to be attacked that would cause the greatest harm need fast-track attention. Second come those places where the threat is high but where the damage would be less severe. Third are those where the threat is low but where the damage would be significant if the unlikely happened. And decent people can argue that second and third should swap places on the list. Fourth are places unlikely to be attacked and unlikely to suffer noticeable damage if attacked. The Mall in DC ought to be defended more vigorously than a grain elevator in the Midwest, and the spending needs to reflect that.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home