On Meet the Press yesterday, Mary Matalin, Republican strategist and all-around Bush fan, just finished listening to James Carville, her husband, explain that Bush’s foreign policy “has not enhanced American prestige and American standing around the world.” Her response was simple and direct.
“[I]t would be nice if everybody liked us, but it’s more important that we are secure,” Matalin said.
It’s actually a sentiment I can agree with, in part. Ensuring Americans’ safety should be the highest priority for our government. It’s one of the reasons we have a government in the first place. I would expect this administration, or any administration for that matter, to choose domestic security over international public opinion every time.
“[I]t’s more important that we are secure,” Matalin said. Fine. With this in mind, it’s worth asking, is the Bush administration doing taking the appropriate steps to make sure we’re secure? By any reasonable standard, the answer is no.
The Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan group, has released a new report on American preparedness relating to potential future terrorist attacks. A CFR panel, chaired by former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), has drawn a number of conclusions and made a series of recommendations on what needs to be done. The picture the group’s report paints is not a pretty one.
“Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons,” the CFR said. “If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11.”
The group drew these conclusions after a lengthy research process that consisted of on-the-ground investigations about the resources needed at the local level. Panelists spoke directly with police chiefs, emergency responders, public health and hospital officials, mayors, and fire chiefs to determine what they truly needed to “establish a minimum effective response to a catastrophic terrorist attack.”
The group quickly found that these local agencies lacked the equipment, training, and resources needed to respond adequately.
“On average, fire departments across the country only have enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatus for only one third. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse…. Police departments in cities across the country do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack using weapons of mass destruction…. Public health labs in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack, and 75% of state laboratories report being overwhelmed by too many testing requests…. Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing.”
Naturally, none of this will come cheaply. The Council on Foreign Relations estimates that taking the steps it believes are necessary will cost in upwards of $100 billion. This is certainly an enormous expense, but I’d remind you that it’s less than a third of the recent tax cut package Republicans pushed through Congress.
This is not a new issue, it’s just an issue that gets largely ignored. America was unprepared on 9/11, but we had never faced domestic terrorism on that scope before. The question became what lessons would we take from the tragedy to prepare us in the event of another attack.
Sadly, domestic security has consistently taken a back seat on the administration’s agenda. As Jonathan Chait explained in The New Republic in March, Bush’s record and commitment to domestic security has been “abysmal.”
“Through passivity or, more often, active opposition, President Bush has repeatedly stifled efforts to strengthen domestic safeguards against further terrorist attacks,” Chait explained. “As a consequence, homeland security remains perilously deficient. ‘President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today,’ concluded a report published last month by the Brookings Institution…. Bush’s record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal.”
But yet it does not become a scandal. Bush will continue to ride a wave of unearned trust on national security issues into his re-election campaign next year, but Democrats must make this a campaign issue. We needn’t try to scare voters; we can, however, remind them that much more can and should be done to protect our country from future attacks.