Environment and Security

I have not blogged very frequently in 2014 and thus have a big stack of magazine clippings surrounding my desk. One story that caught my eye this past year was authored by journalist Sharon Lerner in The Nation back in November. It concerned alleged links between local pollution from a defense contractor and a cluster of pediatric brain tumors in a small Florida community called The Acreage.

This paragraph caught my eye given that I often work on both environmental issues and national security topics:

“If Al Qaeda sent a team of sleeper cells to poison our groundwater and release toxic materials into the air, people would go nuts. It would be an act of war,” [Law Professor Stephen] Dycus [at Vermont, the author of National Defense and the Environment] notes. “But if we do it to ourselves in the name of national security, in preparation for war, that seems to be sort of OK.”

These are the key paragraphs about the pollutants and area in question:

...the plaintiffs’ attorneys have been constructing their case based on the defense contractor’s well-known history of involvement with projects that involve radioactive materials. Since so many of its operations are top secret, it is difficult to disprove the company’s claims that it has never worked on nuclear planes or spacecraft in Florida. But documents from the 1960s through the ’90s show that Pratt & Whitney had licenses to use at least a dozen radioactive substances [PDF], including radium D and E, thoriated nickel and cesium-137, in Florida. The plaintiffs’ lawyers also unearthed company correspondence indicating that some of these radioactive materials wound up outside of their proper storage places. In court filings, Pratt & Whitney denied having any “contaminations” beyond “properly stored chemical compounds.”

In fact, there is a clear documentary record, stretching across many decades, of Pratt & Whitney contaminating its Florida environs with a variety of toxic materials, both radioactive and nonradioactive. According to a 1985 Department of Environmental Regulation update, the company had soil on its property that contained PCBs—chemicals that have been linked to brain cancer—at more than 200 times the maximum level now allowed even in fenced-off, nonresidential areas. PCBs were also found in fish [PDF] that swam in ponds on the company’s grounds, at more than 7,000 times the safe level set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for human consumption.

Jet fuel, which was the suspected cause of another cancer cluster in Fallon, Nevada, may also have played a role at the Acreage. A mixture of chemicals that can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause cancer in mice, jet fuel was found at the Pratt & Whitney facility in Florida. According to a 1983 report, there were three plumes of jet fuel totaling some 53,000 gallons beneath the company’s property, and a layer on top of the groundwater in certain places as well.

 In 1979, just one year after the Acreage Homeowners Association formed and began constructing a system of canals to make the area habitable, 2,000 gallons of trichloroethylene (TCE), a carcinogenic solvent, leaked into the groundwater and surface water on Pratt & Whitney's campus, as the company later admitted. 

The entire article is worth your time.

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Gun Rights and Violence

Photo credit: Jay Mallin on Flickr

On December 18 (yesterday), the Christian Science Monitor ran an excellent short piece by NYU history professor Jonathan Zimmerman that contests the claim that the Second Amendment to the constitution has always protected individual gun rights. Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the relevant text from the Bill of Rights:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun advocates typically emphasize the last two clauses of that sentence and claim an individual right to own firearms. Two recent Supreme Court cases have upheld this apparent individual right: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Yet, as Zimmerman argues, the individual right to bear arms was never really upheld until these recent cases. Previously, the Supreme Court had pointed to the words "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" and concluded that individuals did not have a right to own guns.

Until the very recent past, individual gun rights were severely restricted. Believe it or not, the entire concept of “gun rights” – that is, of citizens’ unbridled freedom to buy and own firearms – is largely a creation of our own times.

Yes, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the “right to bear arms.” But if that means individual citizens – as opposed to state militias – can carry firearms anywhere they want, someone forgot to tell our 19th-century forebears. As law professor Adam Winkler has found, 10 states passed laws in the 1800s barring the possession of concealed weapons.

One of them was Texas, the lodestar of the gun-rights movement today. But as the Lone Star governor said in 1893, “the mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man.”

Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University, made a very similar argument in The Daily Beast on December 18:

A cursory look at the history of the Second Amendment shows that regulation was a central part of its rationale—putting “well regulated” at the very start of the amendment was no accident. For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of “safe-storage” measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston. Up until the 1980s, there was no “individual-rights” theory of the Second Amendment.

See also Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker, December 18.


Cornell (as does Zimmerman) quotes this interesting statement from conservative chief justice Warren Burger:

As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Indeed, Cornell, Toobin and Zimmerman all credit  (or blame) the National Rifle Association (NRA) for creating the political movement to change the Court's interpretation and make gun ownership an individual right. 

Cornell points out that the Court's recent cases, especially Heller, are clearly not grounded in the original intent of the Founding Fathers:

[Justice] Scalia produced a pompous, error-filled opinion that has done more to discredit his beloved originalism than a generation of liberal academics ever could. Even leading conservative legal scholars have harshly criticized the ruling: federal judge Richard Posner said most professional historians reject Scalia’s historical analysis in the case, and described Scalia’s jurisprudence as “incoherent”.

See also this Harvard Law Review article by Reva B. Siegel.

In any case, virtually all the legal analysts agree that even if individuals now have a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, it is certainly not an absolute right that trumps other freedoms. America is a land of free speech, but the First Amendment does not allow anyone to yell "fire!" falsely in a crowded theater, incite illegal activity, defame others, publish obscenity, utilize false and deceptive commercial advertizing, etc.

Thus, the federal government surely has the constitutional power to ban assault weapons, as it has done previously, limit the number of bullets in a magazine, tax ammunition, close the gun show loophole on background checks, etc.

Stanford Law professor John Donohue explains the effectiveness of Australia's set of gun policy reforms after a horrific gun massacre in 1996 that left 35 dead:

The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to implement tough new gun control laws. Under the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearms legislation was tightened throughout the country. National registration of guns was imposed and it became illegal to hold certain long guns that might be used in mass shootings.

The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

Australia's policy, by the way, was changed under the political leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, a self-described conservative.

As Peter Bergen wrote for CNN this week, gun violence can be viewed as a national security issue. Since the 9/11 attacks, jihadi terrorists have killed 17 Americans in the US, while "88,000 Americans died in gun violence from 2003 and 2010." The numbers are actually lower because of improved medical treatment in U.S. hospitals -- "the number of people seriously injured in gun-related violent incidents has actually gone up almost 50 percent in the past decade."


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Duck doings

Today, at the Duck of Minerva group IR blog, I posted "Joking Cousins" about the "joking relationships" that operate throughout Africa. Practitioners insult one another without taking offense -- a social tie that is said to promote peaceful order within various societies.

On Wednesday, June 10, I posted "Domestic terror" about the recent shooting inside the Holocaust Museum and the murder of an abortion services provider in Wichita. Do these violent attacks mean that the Department of Homeland Security was correct a few months ago when it warned about the danger of radical right-wing extremism in the US?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Anthrax emergency declared

Did you know that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on a recent determination from the Department of Homeland Security, declared an anthrax-related emergency on September 23? This is from the HHS website:

DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 564 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(b)

On September 23, 2008, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security determined that there is a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a specified biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents--in this case, Bacillus anthracis. Pursuant to section 564(b) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(b), and on the basis of such determination, I hereby declare an emergency justifying the authorization of the emergency use of doxycycline hyclate tablets accompanied by emergency use information subject to the terms of any authorization issued under 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(a).

/s/

Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary

Date: October 1, 2008

Read the Notice in the Federal Register (pdf warning), however, and it seems clear that the HHS Secretary does not, in fact, believe that the U.S. faces an anthrax emergency:

there is no current domestic emergency involving anthrax, no current heightened risk of an anthrax attack, and no credible information indicating an imminent threat of an attack involving Bacillus anthracis.

So what the hell is going on?

In a letter (pdf warning) to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff argued that the current situation justifies imposition of something like a domestic version of the Bush Doctrine. First, an anthrax attack would be a "material threat to the United States population" affecting national security. Second, a future attack would "result in a domestic emergency." Thus, Chertoff concluded that "there is a non-negligible possibility that a heightened risk of attack will arise."

Parse that last sentence: "a non-negligible possibility," (are you scared yet?) "that a heightened risk" (shaking?) "will arise" (you know, in the future).

I think scholar John Mueller would say the threat is "overblown" and that the risk of overreaction might be greater than the risk of attack.

Paranoid people link this to recent warnings about the potential declaration of martial law (thanks to the financial emergency) and the recent deployment of an active army brigade on U.S. soil (to address civil unrest, particularly in the event of a WMD attack).

Cynics will simply point out that the latest notice assures that millions of dollars will flow to drug companies -- and that both the pharmaceutical companies and the officials ordering the drug production will be released from future liability because of the declared emergency.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Threatdown: al Qaeda of Iraq

As I pointed out on Saturday, the President wants you to believe that al Qaeda of Iraq is a serious threat to US security. Not all the generals in Iraq agree. This is from a press briefing with Lt. General Odierno in Iraq on July 19:

LT. GEN. ODIERNO: What I know is there is clearly a relationship between al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan or Afghanistan or wherever they are. I -- al Qaeda in Iraq, I think, is struggling as -- with its mission here in Iraq, and currently I think it'd be very difficult for them to export any violence outside of Iraq.

The Lt. General is worried that Iraq could become a safe haven training area, which would then eventually create terror risks for the homeland.


Visit this blog's homepage.

The 700 Club

Art Levine included this scary statistic in his piece on "Dick Cheney’s Dangerous Son-in-Law" in the latest Washington Monthly.

[EPA] data showed that at least 700 [chemical] sites across the country could potentially kill or injure 100,000 or more people if attacked.

The story explains how the Bush administration has let industry prevent any regulatory attempts to make these plants safe from attack.

3/16/07 Update: I forgot this telling passage from the article:

In January 2005, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) began a series of hearings looking at the subject before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, during which one grim highlight had been the testimony of [Richard] Falkenrath, the former homeland security adviser, who called chemical security the nation’s top domestic vulnerability and admitted that since 9/11, “we have essentially done nothing.”

Gulp. If only someone could do something about this problem.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Who needs Batman?

NY Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly was at the Belfer Center today, talking at lunch (off-the-record) about the city's counter-terrorism efforts.

Kelly testified to the 9/11 Commission, and I'm not sure he told us much that he hasn't said publicly.

As he sees it, NYC is the #1 likely terrorist target in the US and it is his job to prevent that from happening. Clearly, he takes the threat and his responsibility very seriously.

Beginning in January 2002, we created a new Bureau of Counter Terrorism and we expanded our Intelligence Division. We dedicated over 1,000 police officers to counter-terrorism duties....

[Deputy Policy] Commissioner [for Counterterrorism Michael] Sheehan also oversees the Counter Terrorism Division and Regional Training Center, which were established as sub-units of the Counter Terrorism Bureau. Among the core responsibilities of these divisions are to train and equip all 36,000 uniformed members of the department for their counter terrorism duties...

We have assigned 250 officers full-time to the Counter Terrorism Bureau. Over 130 of them have been posted to the Joint Terrorism Task Force with the FBI, including one detective assigned to the FBI National JTTF in Washington D.C. That compares to just 17 officers assigned to the JTTF on September 11th of 2001. We have also posted a New York City detective to Washington to serve as our liaison to the Department of Homeland Security. NYPD detectives assigned to the JTTF have taken part in important, terrorist-related investigations in Jordan, Germany, Kuwait, and Bali...

We have posted New York City detectives to Interpol headquarters in Lyon, France; Tel Aviv, London, Toronto, Montreal and Singapore. We have also sent our detectives to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to Afghanistan to interrogate terrorist suspects there.

In addition to these transgovernmental efforts, the city has stepped up its foreign language testing and training, as well.

According to Kelly's testimony, these counter-terror efforts cost NYC $200 million annually. The city wants a greater share of the Homeland Security budget and hopes to get it (too much goes to smaller localities that are unlikely targets).

Incidentally, these stepped up counter-terrorism efforts and the increased spending has occurred in a context when the Department has lost thousands of police officers. During that time, however, crime rates and especially homicide rates are down dramatically. Manhattan has fewer murders now that at any time since the turn of the century -- and I mean 100 years ago! The city as a whole is at its lowest levels of murder in 40 years. NYC declares itself the country's safest city, and by some measures it is.

In the fictional Gotham City, Policy Commissioner Gordon contacts Batman when his force needs help to mitigate crime. It looks like Commissioner Kelly is doing just fine without a superhero.

Better living despite chemicals?

The Boston Globe headline from yesterday is accurate: "Chemical plants are vulnerable, specialists warn; Former Bush adviser urges law calling for improved security."

Richard Falkenrath, who was Bush's deputy homeland security adviser until May 2004, decried the fact that nearly four years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has yet to pass a law giving the Homeland Security Department the authority to enforce security standards at chemical plants.

''When you look at all of the different targets for a potential attack in the United States and ask yourself which ones present the greatest possibility of mass casualties and are the least well-secured at the present time, one target set flies off the page, and that's chemicals," Falkenrath said. ''This is an absolutely inescapable conclusion. It is one that was very apparent to me in my official capacity, and it remains apparent to me now as a private citizen."

Tens of millions of Americans live near these plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency says 15,000 facilities use enough toxic chemicals to pose a threat to surrounding communities, including 123 where the rupture of a single tank could endanger the lives of at least a million people.

Essentially, the Bush administration has not said anything about this problem since October 2002 when Tom Ridge and Christie Todd Whitman said that voluntary security measures at chemical plants did not provide sufficient security.

Predictably, industry fears government regulation and Republican members of Congress are reluctant to act because of these business concerns.

Terror expert Richard Clarke has been worried about such attacks as well. And I previously blogged about Matthew Brzezinski's devastating critique of US homeland security efforts on this and other problems last fall.

Clarke might ask: What will industry and Congress say after a chemical 9/11?

Oops

Not good news, from the BBC:

The US government has told more than 3,700 laboratories in 18 countries to destroy potentially lethal influenza samples sent out in testing kits.

The samples are of "Asian flu", which killed between one and four million people in 1957 but disappeared by 1968.

If the virus is not handled properly, "it can easily cause an influenza epidemic", Klaus Stohr of the World Health Organization (WHO) warned....

"If this virus were to infect one person, it would spread very rapidly," Dr Stohr, the WHO's influenza expert, told the BBC.

They have also publicized the "full list of countries and areas where laboratories received the virus" between October 2004 and February 2005:

Bermuda, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the US.

Saudi Arabia?

Five of the 15 "planning scenarios" developed by the Homeland Security Council deal with biological threats.

One is a flu pandemic.

Homeland security?

Allegedly, the President is slated to give a "significant" policy address today about the "war on terror." I suspect it will be about Homeland Security, which is featured on the White House webpage today:

Today, President Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005 to provide much-needed funds for our Nation's homeland security activities. This bill contains most of the Federal Government's investment in homeland security. With enactment of the remainder of the President's FY 2005 Budget, President Bush will have nearly tripled funding for homeland security activities since taking office.

I don't have time for a full analysis of the issue, but any claims of success are likely to be distorted. In the debates, for example, Bush falsely trumpeted huge spending increases for Homeland Security.

Matthew Brzezinski had a great article in the September/October Mother Jones, which provided a devastating critique of the Homeland Security agency. Brzezinski notes that the "new" funding reflects simple reorganization of government, as immigration and other agencies are now housed in Homeland Security rather than elsewhere. That explains about two-thirds of its budget.

The overwhelming majority of the new spending is for airport screeners, a job that was in the private sector before 9/11.

The article outlines substantial areas of failure, notably in protecting the US against potential catastrophe from an attack on a dangerous chemical facility. The author writes:

...a single railcar filled with 33,000 gallons of chlorine could kill up to 100,000 people...

Not good. Yet, Republicans listened and caved when the chemical industry lobbied effectively to block meaningful legislation that would have provided a lot more security.

Homeland Security says it tries to get industry to voluntarily take safeguards that would protect all of us.

Yeah, right.

First responders are underfunded. Most cargo coming into the goes uninspected. The Department purchased ineffective nuclear radiation detectors. It's a very good article and a devastating critique of this part of the "war on terror."

Little need now to watch Bush's speech, eh?


Update: Bush did emphasize this issue. "More of the same."

Turner's speech

Well, I didn't see Congressman Jim Turner's speech tonight, but as promised, I found a transcript and read it. It's available on the KTRE-TV (Lufkin/Nacogdoches, TX) website.

Frankly, it is short and not especially informative. These are the key paragraphs:

John Kerry knows that in this new war, the front lines are here at home. Americans do not run from a fight, nor will we accept living in fear. As the lead Democrat on the HOuse Committee on Homeland Security, I have seen the work we need to do to protect America from danger.

And I'm here to tell you John Kerry has a plan to make our homeland secure. John Kerry will fix our broken intelligence system to stop terrorists before they strike again. He will bolster security at our borders. He will make our vulnerable targets-our nuclear and chemical plants, our refineries- more secure to keep those who live nearby safe from harm. He will ensure that every cargo container entering our ports is screened for radiation, protecting us from the threat of nuclear terrorism. The cost of securing America is great, but the cost of failing to secure America is even greater.

Given the number of speakers, I guess this was all they could include.

Winning the War on Terror

I realize the media is focused on the 9/11 Commission's report ("available in bookstores nationwide"), but I'd also be quite interested in a national debate on the recommendations contained in a different report: "Winning the War on Terror." Both reports are in pdf, by the way.

This latter report was issued by Congressman Jim Turner (Representing the 2nd District of Texas) back in the spring (April 27).

Matt Yglesias blogged about it on TAPPED back at the end of April (and wrote an article for The American Prospect), but I've seen virtually nothing about it since.

The ideas haven't just died however. First, Turner is viewed as an expert on these issues. For example, he was quoted in the NY Times story on the 9/11 Commission Report Thursday.

More importantly, the Democrats are planning to allow Turner to speak (albeit last) on Monday night, which is the first evening of their convention. Jimmy Carter, the Clintons and even Al Gore are speaking that same evening, so don't expect Turner to receive that much public attention.

Still, that night's theme is "The Kerry-Edwards Plan for America's Future." Given the Kerry TV commercial emphasis on rail and port security, which reflects some of what Turner recommended in his spring report, I think this is going to receive major play in the next few months during the campaign.

It's a one-two punch on security:

1. Iraq is a foreign policy disaster and has made America less security.

2. The administration has ignored real plans for improving homeland security (like ports and rails). Their tax breaks for the wealthy created huge deficits, which makes funding such security very difficult. The result is that first responders are being threatened.

Given that Guard callups to Iraq are often first responders at home, this all really fits together well.

General Wesley Clark is also addressing the convention and he too made many of these same points during his campaign. Kerry is a better politician and won the nomination, but the message is very strong -- and genuinely important to US security.

I'm going to try to see/hear Representative Turner on Monday -- or at least find a transcript.

Updates on Clarke

From Mark A.R. Kleiman, I learned that Senator (and Majority Leader) Bill Frist said some things last week about Richard Clarke's congressional testimony that were not true.

As I noted, Frist came close to accusing Clarke of perjury -- but Frist may have committed a similar offense within a few minutes of making his statement in Congress (since it was on the floor of the Senate, he cannot be prosecuted for a crime):

Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances. But he said, "Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know."

If Frist had no idea whether Clarke told a different story, why did he say it?

Salon has a great interview with Clarke, by the way. First come the questions from Joe Conason (in bold) and then Clarke's replies. This exchange is interesting, to demonstrate how the administration has politicized 9/11:

[White House spokesman] McClellan also said that although you criticize the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the book, you had attempted to become the No. 2 in that department and were passed over -- and that's yet another reason why you wrote this critical book.

They're trying to bait me, and they're trying to get me to answer all these personal issues. You know, the fact is that Tom Ridge opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. George Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. And then one day, they turned on a dime and supported it. Why?

As I said in the book, the White House legislative affairs people counted votes. Senator [Joseph] Lieberman had proposed the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security -- and the legislative affairs people said Lieberman has the votes; it's going to pass. They said, "You've got the possible situation here, Mr. President, where you're going to have to veto the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. And if you don't support it now, if you don't make it your proposal, not only will it pass but it will be called the Lieberman bill."

The Lieberman-McCain bill.

The Lieberman-McCain bill, in fact. So that there were two outcomes possible. One in which we have this Frankenstein department, created during the middle of the war on terrorism, reorganizing during the middle of a war. That was possible. It was also possible that a second thing would happen, and that was that Lieberman would get credit for it. And therefore the president changed his position overnight, and became a big supporter of the Department of Homeland Security.

Did you see a memo to that effect? I wondered about that when I was reading the book, because you don't say how you know they gave the president that advice.

No, I don't say ... It was from oral conversations in the White House.

There's a lot more good material in that interview. Here's the bit comparing the Clinton and Bush policies on terror:

It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice.

[P]rior to 9/11, the Bush administration didn't have an approach to terrorism. They'd never gotten around to creating an administration policy. It was in the process of doing so, but it hadn't achieved that. And it was clear that the national security advisor didn't like this kind of issue; she didn't have meetings on this issue. The president didn't have meetings on the issue of terrorism.

Now the White House is saying, oh, they had meetings every day. But let's be clear about what those meetings every day were. Every day George Tenet, the CIA director, would do the morning intelligence briefing of the president, and he would raise the al-Qaida threat with great frequency. That's not the same as having a meeting to decide what to do about it. That's not the same as the president shaking the lapels of the FBI director and the attorney general and saying, "You've got to stop the attack."

Apparently on one occasion -- of all these many, many days when George Tenet mentioned the al-Qaida threat -- the president on one occasion said, "I want a strategy. I don't want to swat flies." Well, months or certainly weeks went by after that, and he didn't get his strategy because Condi Rice didn't hold the meeting necessary to approve it and give it to him. And yet George Bush appears not to have asked for it a second time.

In fact, he told Bob Woodward in "Bush at War" that he kind of knew there was a strategy being developed out there, but he didn't know at what stage it was in the process. Well, if he was so focused on it, he would have kept asking where the strategy was. He would have known where it was in the process. He would have demanded that it be brought forward. He had a fleeting interest.

Among other bloggers, Digby has been making this point.

This is a story that I'll continue to watch.

Kerry on terror

Today, John Kerry outlined his anti-terror plan in a speech out in LA. I guess I was out in front of the candidate yesterday.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

Kerry's vision is more multilateral and less military than Bush's:

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

And like I said yesterday, Kerry's nonproliferation policy emphasizes Nunn-Lugar:

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

I'm not going to reprint the entire speech, but he calls for more police and firefighters, alternative energy (he wants energy independence from the Middle East within a decade), and greater port security. All this is part of improving homeland security, which he says Bush has failed to fund adequately.

Kerry also offered plans for winning the war of ideas -- "we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas." The speech details some plans for exactly that.

All in all, it offers a realistic Democratic alternative to all-war, all-the-time.

Some good news in the war on terror

Let me quickly update two stories I've been following in the so-called "war on terror."

First, some good news. As I've blogged before, US airliners are potentially under real threat of shoulder fired missiles. Several news reports, in fact, suggest that some of the recent intelligence (and "chatter") relates to this possibility, which is behind the elevated (orange) threat level in the US.

As the Chicago Tribune reported yesterday, airlines are about to test an anti-missile system. The system will cost about $1 million per plane, and with 6,800 planes potentially at risk, that means a cost of nearly $7 billion. This is consistent with what I wrote 3 months ago.

The story says that Homeland Security will begin funding tests very soon, it will use the data to make a decision, and defense systems could be deployed in two years.

Now, some more good news -- unless you think it would be good news if Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday's Washington Post had a really long story by Barton Gellman detailing Iraq's lack of WMD.

There's lots of good stuff in the article. Much of the piece just brings together material we've all read before over the past six months -- but with added detail. For example, Gellman explains exactly why the original reports about finding mobile biological weapons facilities were so wrong. Iraq used a chemical process for inflating hydrogen weather balloons. And Iraq did have a military rationale for wanting to know the weather (wind conditions and temperature), as it improved missile targeting. But the trailers were actually for inflating weather balloons.

As I've noted before, one apparently important reason the US believed Iraq had WMD is that Saddam Hussein's scientists were lying to him to save their jobs (and lives). They deceived their boss, but that also had the effect of deceiving the rest of the world. But, in reality, they had almost no means of producing sophisticated biological weapons, and their nuclear program has been virtually inactive since the IAEA dismantled it years ago.

Hans Blix speculates that Iraq might have been using a defense strategy that my wife and I have actually promoted among our friends. When we go to house-warming parties for new homeowners, we typically take a "beware of dog" sign (when they have a pet). It's much cheaper than an electronic home security system and may work just as well as a deterrent. Blix says that Iraq may have been putting up a "beware of dog" sign without actually possessing a dog.

Republicans vs. Republicans on Security vs. Economy

I usually don't blog twice in one day, but this story caught my eye and I did miss a couple of days last week while traveling.

Anyway, it is quite apparent that Republicans have been playing up their strength on security questions since 9/11. It was a huge part of the 2002 election cycle, for instance.

At the same time, the traditional core of the Republican party is its friendliness towards business. During the cold war, these issues were sometimes at odds -- no trading with Cuba or China, for example.

However, it is also clear that these issues still create difficult tensions for Republicans. Today's Chicago Tribune has a story entitled, "Congressman Urges Avoiding Times Square." Here are the key paragraphs:

Concerned about terrorism, Rep. Christopher Shays urged revelers not to attend New Year's Eve celebrations like the one at Times Square this year. New York's mayor countered that Shays could use an infusion of courage.

A member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and chairman of a terrorism subcommittee, the Connecticut Republican told WVIT-TV on Tuesday that he wouldn't go to Times Square "for anything."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said nobody should stay home because of the nation's heightened terror alert, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the nation's security was unprecedented.

But Shays said it is irresponsible for officials to make people think they don't need to take precautions, like avoiding packed crowds in New York City.

It will be interesting to see whether this kind of tension hurts Bush in 2004. It's tricky to emphasize security threats without causing the kind of fear that paralyzes consumers.

Fear of Flying

Since 9/11, the media have occasionally reported on the risk that a passenger aircraft might be downed by a terrorist armed with a shoulder-fired missile. The US sent such missiles to Afghanistan when it was trying to help expel the Soviets. The Pentagon (and CIA) are unable to account for all of them, though I've seen estimates suggesting that not many are missing.

The New York Times reported this week that an unknown number of these missiles might also be missing in Iraq. Over 300 have been turned in recently, and 100s more have been found by the military.

Incoming planes have apparently been targeted in recent weeks, and this is part of the rationale for keeping the Baghdad airport closed to civilian traffic.

Plus, they are easy to smuggle (they weight less than 30 pounds), 50,000 have been sold to developing countries in the past 15 years, and Jane's says that 30 insurgent and terrorist groups have them.

Swell.

I sat next to a commercial pilot who was a former military pilot last Thanksgiving, when there was the unsuccessful attack in Africa on the Israeli aircraft. I asked him about the threat and he said it was quite real and that there wasn't much that could be done about it short of spending some bucks on countermeasures.

Swell.

If 1 or 2 or 3 (imagine a coordinated attack) American planes were downed inside the US, air traffic would come to a stop. Who would fly? Airlines and government absolutely cannot secure against this threat from inside the airport or inside the aircraft. Attackers would position themselves near airports, far away from federal security personnel.

At my University, planes fly overhead all day at very close range. I'm confident that this is true all over the country for homes, businesses, schools, etc. Earlier this year, both the US and UK (as the BBC reported) warned against the threat from attacks. Roads near Heathrow in London were apparently closed and vehicles were searched. In 1998, rebels downed a Boeing 737 in the Congo.

In his last (September) visit to "Meet the Press," Vice President Cheney addressed a question about this very threat. He said, essentially, that it would be very costly to secure against these missiles:

Well, there are technologies available. They are extremely expensive if you’re going to put them on every airliner. You've got to make choices here about, you know, when you’re dealing with a risk, there may be certain aircraft flying into certain locales that are especially vulnerable that you may want to deal with. But I wouldn't automatically go to the assumption that we need to put the most sophisticated system on every single airplane.

I've seen estimates suggesting that it would cost $7-15 billion to outfit planes with the countermeasures that would mitigate the threat from these missiles. Israel apparently requires defense mechanisms (flares, essentially) on its planes.

If you want to be reassured, the Heritage Foundation's analysts say that a lot of special training is required to fire a missile (though reporters have found US Stinger training manuals on the web), pilots can be trained in evasion techniques, and effective law enforcement can find the missiles before attackers can use them. They also say some planes could get by with just $200 in countermeasures.

The Pentagon is getting serious about a system that costs $2 million per plane, and I'm pretty sure what kind of system I'd prefer while flying as a passenger.

The US has 6800 commercial airlines, and experts say costs could drop 50% if the devices were mass produced. That means nearly $7 billion for protection.

Senator Barbara Boxer (Calif.) is pushing this system.

At $7 billion, it would cost less than 10% of the last budget supplementary request for Iraq reconstruction. Where would you like to spend your anti-terror dollars?