By Brigitte L. Nacos
Bin Laden must be smiling in his hiding place somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan as he follows how U.S. politicians fight publicly for their cities, communities, and states to be recognized as likely terrorism target and the federal antiterrorism funds that come along with this status. The spectacle was caused by another astounding round in the politics of counterterrorism policymaking in Washington--this time around by the Department of Homeland Security as it slashed the 2006 urban antiterrorism grants for the 9/11 targets New York City and Washington, D.C., by 40% each while increasing the funds for comparably remote places.
Advised by so-called experts around the country, one of the Department's conclusions was particularly "profound," namely, that New York City lacks "national landmarks or Icons" and, presumably, deemed less vulnerable than New York officials claim. It seems that the homeland security experts deemed targets like the Gran Ol Opry in Memphis, the Kentucky Derby site in Louisville, and perhaps the Miller Brewing Company in Milwaukee more attractive terror targets than before. Why else would they have increased the antiterror funds for these and similarly situated cities? Obviously, no one was aware of an Al Qaeda training manual that advised recruits explicitly to select "sentimental landmarks" as targets because such attacks would assure the greatest amount of publicity. The manual mentioned the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Big Ben in London, and, yes, the Statue of Liberty in New York as examples!
Faced with bi-partisan protests from New York, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and his colleagues defended their strange risk assessments by revealting that the Empire State Building had been recognized as "commercial infastructure" and the Brooklyn Bridge as "transportation infrastructure" and thus placed into higher risk categories than national landmarks. But since New York has many very important commercial, public, and transportation infastructures, it is impossible to understand why the city's grants were so drastically cut.
If national landmarks and icons are attractive terrorism targets--and they are, the vulnerability of the nation's capital is most obvious--unless those Washingtonians involved in the grant decision are sleepwalking and not aware of the national monuments and landmarks all around them.
More likely is that election year pork barrel politics trumped common sense counterterrorism efforts to prevent further terror attacks and prepare for the best possible response for the likely case that terrorists manage to strike again.
Politics as usual is not the stuff for an effective united homeland security front against the very real terrorist threat.
Comments