# Iraq: Losing the War on Terror **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211 "2003-06-16T13:48:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/1 "2003-06-16T13:48:17Z")
Iraq, losing the war on terror The Washington Post published an interesting article that deserves discussion. Now of course I confess this goes right to my point of view and what I have argued in re Iraq: **Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror** By Laura Blumenfeld Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A01 The article is on Rand Beers, who was a Bush White House anti-terror specialist until a few days before the current unpleasantness in Iraq began. He resigned a 5 days before the war began. > [@](#): > > Beers’s resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know? Now I am not sure about his choice to join Kerry, so if possible I’d like to exclude this from the discussion (that is Kerry et al.). Rather it is this: > [@](#): > > “The administration wasn’t matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They’re making us less secure, not more secure,” said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. “As an insider, I saw the things that weren’t being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out.” Well, at the very least I can say, having known a large number of bureaucrats, it takes some balls to do something like that. Some balls indeed. On his background > [@](#): > > … Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush…. Yet Beers decided that he wanted out, and he is offering a rare glimpse in. > > “Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense,” Beers said. “The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork.” Well, it strikes me as fair to say the Bush admin. is certainly more focused on offense than not. Further to his point of view: > [@](#): > > In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush’s war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is “underestimating the enemy.” It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. “The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded.” > > The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. _ **The Iraq war created fissures in the United States’ counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."** _ Emphasis added Here of course is what piqued my interest, for this has been precisely my feeling and in re the kinds of State and other specialists I know, his estimation matches what I have heard informally. > [@](#): > > “I continue to be puzzled by it,” said Beers, **who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. “Why was it such a policy priority?” The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully."** Again emphasis added. And once again, precisely my feelings. It has been hard to escape that the war was launched with a WWI rationale, that is the clockwork of military mobilization and the costs involved locked policy makers into less-than-optimal decision making frameworks, and inappropriately drove policy, rather than policy driving the military framework. Expensive to keep the troops in, scaremongering re the immediate threat rather than rational analysis, skewing the results…. The recipe is all there. Further, I must agree with the estimation following: > [@](#): > > He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. “Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don’t even know what’s going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan,” he said. Bingo. Omitting a longer discussion on his anlaysis that domestic security measures are woefully inadequate as I have no opinion on this. On his departure, insofar as some will no doubt go for the smear response: > [@](#): > > When asked about Beers, Sean McCormack, an NSC spokesman, said, “At the time he submitted his resignation, he said he had decided to leave government. We thanked him for his three decades of government service.” McCormack declined to comment further. > > However it was viewed inside the administration, onlookers saw it as a rare Washington event. “I can’t think of a single example in the last 30 years of a person who has done something so extreme,” said Paul C. Light, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. “He’s not just declaring that he’s a Democrat. He’s declaring that he’s a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office.” Well, the man has balls, that is for sure. He may or may not be right, certainly on the foreign policy front I agree with the brief insight to his views, but am unable to judge the domestic side Further to the background and what should be unsettling in re the actual office: > [@](#): > > When Beers joined the White House counterterrorism team last August, the unit had suffered several abrupt departures. People had warned him the job was impossible, but Beers was upbeat. On Reagan’s NSC staff, he had replaced Oliver North as director for counterterrorism and counternarcotics, known as the “office of drugs and thugs.” > > “Randy’s your model government worker,” said Wendy Chamberlin, a U.S. Agency for International Development administrator for Iraq, who worked with Beers on counterterrorism on the NSC of the first Bush administration. “He works for the common good of the American people. He’s fair, balanced, honest. No one ever gets hurt feelings hearing the truth from Randy.” Well, seems well respected by colleagues and does not have the air of a crank. Again, I note this as the smear campaign is to be expected in response. Again I omit a large section on domestic security, to move on to a critique of the White House. > [@](#): > > Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: “It’s a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. **There’s almost a religious kind of certainty. There’s no curiosity about opposing points of view**. It’s very scary. There’s kind of a ghost agenda.” Well, I am not sure I would necessarily agree with the final clause, but I would submit that the emphasized section rather goes to the issue of the mistaken judgment – one rather hopes it is that – on Iraqi NBC programs and threat. There is more on his rational for joining the Kerry campaign, which I would prefer not to discuss insofar as it gets away from the core. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/2 "2003-06-16T14:24:15Z")
[Link to the article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2003Jun15.html?nav=hptop_tb) (requires free registration). I don’t have much to add, since I agree largely agree with what Beers has to say. In particular, it seems to me that the Bush administration’s handling of Afghanistan has been disgraceful, with most of that nation quickly reverting to the terrorist safe haven that we went in there to eliminate. His general description of the administration’s wrong-headed approach to combatting Islamic terrorism also fits with my observations. Plus, my early vote is going to John Kerry, so I happen to like that part pretty well too. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/3 "2003-06-16T14:51:51Z")
Right, but can I reiterate the request to keep the Kerry issue out of this? I myself don’t have a position on that in any case. BTW, will not be back to this thread for several days, have a bit of a trippy to make. Fuckups, must go see to fuckups. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/4 "2003-06-16T15:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*[Link to the article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2003Jun15.html?nav=hptop_tb)Plus, my early vote is going to John Kerry, so I happen to like that part pretty well too. 🆒 \*\* Thanks for the link, **minty**. A few observations:[ol][_]FAIK everything Beers says may be true and fair.[_]It’s smarter politics for a Dem to allege that Bush is messing up the war on terror than to allege that there are no WMDs in Iraq IMHO.[_]A cursory reading of the headline makes it sound as if this “former aide” had switched to become a Democrat. However, farther down, the article says he has served both parties and he’s a Democrat. [_]There’s nothing surprising about a 60-year old choosing to retire and getting hyped on politics. That description fits me as well.[\*]The article would be less impressive if the headline accurately said, "Retirement-age Democratic federal bureaucrat retires, joins Kerry campaign, and enunciates Kerry’s talking points.[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/5 "2003-06-16T15:20:50Z")
If those are Kerry’s “talking points,” as you put it, I have not seen them before. Beers’ criticisms are wide-ranging, quite specific, and apparently well-informed. Would you care to comment on Beers’ analysis? There’s quite a lot of interesting stuff in that article, you know. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/6 "2003-06-16T15:22:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*The article would be less impressive if the headline accurately said, "Retirement-age Democratic federal bureaucrat retires, joins Kerry campaign, and enunciates Kerry’s talking points.[/list] \*\* But in addition to having a political stance, the fellow clearly is an authority on which he speaks and the only newsworthy aspect is the reason WHY he chose to resign. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/7 "2003-06-16T15:38:03Z")
> [@](#): > > The article would be less impressive if the headline accurately said Does anyone have a spare irony meter? Mined just red-lined and burst. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/8 "2003-06-16T15:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* Would you care to comment on Beers’ analysis? There’s quite a lot of interesting stuff in that article, you know. \*\* Sure. consider two questions: 1. Did the war with Iraq aid or hamper the war on terror? 2. Is Homeland Security Dept. doing a good job? Regarding #1, the arguments on both sides are still pretty speculative. Since the war, Israel and the Palestinians have embarked on new negotiations, [the Egyptian intelligence chief urged terrorist groups to cooperate with Palestinian Authority officials](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62803-2003Jun15.html?nav=hptop_tb), there have been significant demonstations against Iran’s terrorism-supporting mullahs, and we haven’t seen major new terrorst attacks. So, on the evidence to date, the war with Iraq seems to have done more to quell terrorism than to exacebate it. Regarding #2, I don’t agree at all with Beers that they should be giving more grants to localities. Such grant money is often spent wastefully. The Homeland Security effort is far from perfect IMHO. It’s easy to find example of foolish actions by Homeland Security Dept., particularly in the impact of some of their bureaucratic regulations. OTOH Stephen Brill (who is a Democrat) praised Tom Ridge’s performance in his new book, _After : How America Confronted the September 12 Era_ ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/9 "2003-06-16T16:31:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > The Homeland Security effort is far from perfect IMHO. It’s easy to find example of foolish actions by Homeland Security Dept., particularly in the impact of some of their bureaucratic regulations. \* \*\* I’m in shock! We agree on something! OK, back to redrafting the two petitions Homeland Security/BCIS has rejected, although neither the person’s job nor the legal requirements for the visa category have changed since the prior 4 approved visa petitions. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/10 "2003-06-16T16:38:14Z")
Regarding the assertion that the feds should not be “giving more grants to localities” because “[s]uch grant money is often spent wastefully,” I could not disagree more strongly. While it is necessarily the task of the federal government to conduct the international aspects of the fight against terrorism, the state and local governments have huge roles to play in the domestic portion of that fight. Those governments must have the resources to secure the safety of their citizens, both prospectively and reactively. It wasn’t the Department of Homeland Security that went charging up the stairs of the World Trade Center; it was FDNY and NYPD. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/11 "2003-06-16T16:49:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*It wasn’t the Department of Homeland Security that went charging up the stairs of the World Trade Center; it was FDNY and NYPD. \*\* True, but not because they had federal grants. Seriously, taxpayers will have to pay for local security arrangements. I think the process is apt to be more effective if Dallas pays for Dallas’s security and New Jersey pays for New Jersey’s. Money collected locally tends to be spent more carefully and wisely. When money is collected by the feds and allocated to states and localities, the allocation process tends to get political and inefficient. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/12 "2003-06-16T17:32:59Z")
The inherent problem with relying on local revenue to fund local homeland security needs is that al Qaeda cannot be relied upon to plot only against targets whose security needs have been adequately funded. Quite the opposite, in fact. The nation cannot afford to merely shift the risk of attack from Washington D.C. to Los Angeles or Detroit. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/13 "2003-06-16T18:02:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*The inherent problem with relying on local revenue to fund local homeland security needs is that al Qaeda cannot be relied upon to plot only against targets whose security needs have been adequately funded. Quite the opposite, in fact. The nation cannot afford to merely shift the risk of attack from Washington D.C. to Los Angeles or Detroit. \*\* Could you expand on this point? What would you expect federal funding to accomplish? What local steps are needed that will not occurm if we wait for local funding? Which of them will actually occur if federal funding is increased? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/14 "2003-06-16T18:19:31Z")
Security needs for key installations and likely terror targets–utilities, transportation hubs, government facilities, sports arenas, ad infinitum–need to be assessed and provided for. Emergency response personnel–fire, police, medical–need to be trained to handle potential terrorist attacks, including coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies and response teams. They also need to be provided with the requisite equipment so that they can respond effectively in the event of an actual attack. That is only the tip of the iceberg. America today appears only marginally more prepared to meet the threat of international terrorism than it was two years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/15 "2003-06-16T18:58:00Z")
I’d just like to say that Beers pretty much confirmed all my fears before and during the war. This war wasn’t about countering terrorism. Although, the argument could be made that it was a form of American terrorism. We made up reasons to attack Iraq, and we’re occupying that nation. If the war was about terrorism, why not finish up the job in Afghanistan? Why create the possibility of more terrorism by attacking another Middle East nation, unprovoked? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/16 "2003-06-16T19:04:26Z")
Lost in all this is the fact that the nation simply can’t **afford** to adequately protect all potential high profile targets. Do we: Protect all large scale professional sporting events? Scan every single container coming into the country? Increase staffing at INS and border guard to adequate levels? and a host of others? I just don’t think the current tax structure will handle it. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/17 "2003-06-16T20:19:30Z")
Quite true, all those hundreds of billions of dollars of Bush tax cuts certainly translate into security cuts. And just at a time when we’ve managed to create a whole new batch of jihaddis through our misadventures in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/18 "2003-06-16T21:50:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Could you expand on this point? What would you expect federal funding to accomplish? What local steps are needed that will not occurm if we wait for local funding? Which of them will actually occur if federal funding is increased? Will you accept a nearly no-cites explanation from someone other than **minty**? I can give a little information. A big, big part of homeland security is watching for border incursions. As you know, thousands and thousands of people every day have little or no problem entering and exiting the United States undetected. Say another election comes around and the “buzz” to which we are not privy coincidentally sparks an elevation of the Threat-O-Meter, that requires extra vigilance on the part of Federal, State, _and_ local law enforcement. We cannot simply patrol the borders, because they are too porous and it would be utter folly to protect only the immediate border areas and leave other areas immediately behind it unwatched. Good vigillance requires a defense in depth of stepped up patrolling well inside of the borders and, ideally, across the entire nation. And that, in turn, requires increased police overtime pay, a compressed vehicle and equipment maintenance schedule, additional training, extra fuel, and perhaps even the addition of part-time or full-time positions. And that costs money–lots of money. Local governments don’t have lots of money, and if they’re going to assist the _federal_ government in the _federal_ government’s duty to protect the borders of the United States, it makes sense that _federal_ money had better be spent to fund and coordinate the operation. You can make the local governments financially responsible for those duties, but you know what they’ll do? They’ll spend what they have and when they run out of money people will quit and go home. Or you can make border towns raise local taxes and watch people migrate to less secure areas that don’t charge such high taxes, ensuring poor security everywhere. Or you can give the money to states for distribution to local governments like we are doing, but when the [states themselves](http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/06/jones-m-06-04.html) are considering ducking the next orange alert for financial reasons, it would be silly to think the states are actually going to distribute that money instead of keeping it for themselves. The law which created DHS specifically states that state governments are to be the distributors of funding to local governments and Indian tribes. A few months back Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell mentioned that there are 21 officers to cover three million acres of reservation lands along 70 miles of U.S.-Mexican border. That’s one officer for every ten miles of border, three shifts a day, with no defense in depth. As I’ve mentioned before, the chances that a state will willingly distribute funds to an Indian reservation which is off the state’s own tax rolls are small enough to fit inside a Froot Loop. When state governments _don’t_ distribute that funding, security breaks down, and it breaks down at the local level: on the ground, exactly where the terrorists are to begin with. We know this, we’ve known it, and it looks like finally something is being done about it in Congress, against the wishes of the very Administration which created the new bureacracy to begin with. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: right now Homeland Security is security in name alone, and I’m hoping against hope that I won’t be proven grotesquely correct. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/19 "2003-06-16T22:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > **And that costs money–lots of money. Local governments don’t have lots of money, and if they’re going to assist the _federal_ government in the _federal_ government’s duty to protect the borders of the United States, it makes sense that _federal_ money had better be spent to fund and coordinate the operation.** We’ve seen this problem rise its ugly head up here in Seattle, in the form of the issue of [port security](http://wwwa.house.gov/oberstar/portsecurity.htm). It’s been a problem ever since last year, that the city of Seattle couldn’t get promised federal funding for security improvements and escalations made to our ports. Finally, in April, we got [$11.2 million dollars](http://www.seattlepress.com/article-10163.html), which helps, but isn’t nearly enough. By way of backing up what **Sofa King** and **minty** have been saying, here’s some of our elected officials talking about it, from the second link above: Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle: > [@](#): > > **"Like other major cities, Seattle has had enormous security demands and costs since the September 11th terrorist attacks… We spent $6.6 million on homeland security through 2002 and we expect to spend $7 million this year. We are the front lines of public safety. When there’s an emergency in our city, people don’t call the White House – they call 911. We’ve been waiting for the federal government to step up and help cities. This funding announcement is good news and a good start."** By his estimate, between 2002 and 2003 spending, we’re already going to exceed the funding given to us. Representative Jay Inslee: > [@](#): > > **"This is wonderful news for the City of Seattle… This federal money will certainly help cover some of the homeland security costs that have been imposed on Seattle since September 11th. I will continue to work in Congress to secure funding for the smaller communities near Seattle, such as Bothell and Monroe, which have also incurred these extra security costs and deserve federal help in covering them."** Again, the money helps, but more is needed. Representative Norm Dicks: > [@](#): > > **"Many of us in Congress have been urging the new Department of Homeland Security to respond promptly to the most urgent threats, affecting large population areas, and thus we are encouraged by the announcement of these grants," said Rep. Norm Dicks, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee in the House. "Seattle and all of the Puget Sound area cities need additional funding to pay for the training, equipment and additional personnel necessary to meet the very serious threats that confront port cities in particular."** Seems pretty clear to me on this issue (and, I’m sure, many others)… Homeland Security can pass down as many recommendations and edicts as it likes, but until it has the funds to back them up, it’s pretty meaningless. Local governments do not have the capability to shoulder the entire financial burden themselves. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211/20 "2003-06-16T23:12:34Z")
Counter-terror wise, we got off on the wrong foot immediately. The best possible approach would involve the international cooperation of security apparatus and plain old police work. Naturally, to accomplish this would require close cooperation and even closer sharing of intelligence. In a word: trust. For a while there, we had the sympathy of the entire world. Hell, even people who don’t even like us very much were having candlelight vigils, everybody was on our side for maybe the first and last time in our history! And GeeDubya pissed it all away being a tough guy. The enormity of this stupidity is simply stunning. We wanted to Do Something. Something stern, something powerful. As the old saying goes, when you are a hammer, all problems look like nails. When massive military superiority is your strong suit, well, guess what. You go to war. Which is, finally, about as effective as launching an artillery barrage against an incoming fog. Loud, aggressive, impressive, dramatic…and futile. In the process of pursuing the Sisyphean strategy, we alienated the very people who were standing shoulder to shoulder with us, eager to be of help. We have enraged our potential enemies, and neutralized our potential allies. It is the geopolitics of an enraged, and rather dull-witted, child: lashing out for the sake of emotional catharsis rather than calm, reasoned, and, yes, ploddingly relentless pursuit. Our leaders crave to be seen as Men of Action, they thrust thier chins defiantly, pound the table, and beat thier presumably hairy chests. A more profoundly short sighted and counterproductive policy is difficult to imagine. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-losing-the-war-on-terror/182211.md?page=2)