Sometimes the best defense is a good defense

Esteemed co-blogger von just wrote:
“We know the Bush plan: all offense, all defense, all the time.”

I disagree. If anything, I’d characterize it as “all offense, no defense.” The administration has consistently neglected ways of protecting us from terrorism that do much more, in the short run, to keep us safe than invading Iraq–that would cost much less money than the war, and lead to no soldier or civilian deaths.

Let me give two quick examples:

1) They have not given nearly enough priority to securing weapons of mass destruction, and especially nuclear weapons and material, in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.

I did a fair bit of research on this last fall, after hearing two MIT political scientists (Stephen van Evera and Owen Cote) speak about it in a forum on Iraq–I decided my Congressmen needed to hear from me about this ASAP. (yes, yes, I’m a giant geek.) I’ll try to dig that up from the depths of my email archives, but for now you can read more at Senator Richard Lugar’s website. He and former Senator Sam Nunn have been the leader’s on this.

And here’s a quote from Jonathan Chait’s “The 9/10 President”, which unfortunately TNR requires a subscription for:
“The disintegration of the former Soviet Union left behind a landscape littered with unemployed nuclear scientists and poorly guarded weapons facilities. Because of this, the $1 billion the United States devotes to locking down unsecured nuclear material and scientists in Russia and elsewhere is perhaps the most cost-effective money in the entire federal budget. But it is still not nearly enough. In order to airlift enriched uranium out of Serbia last summer–a needed safety measure by any reasonable calculation– the administration was forced to rely upon private donations (see “Old Guard,” by Michael Crowley, September 9 & 16, 2002). A bipartisan Energy Department study in January 2001 urged raising the budget for such programs to $3 billion–still less than 0.15 percent of the federal budget. Bush, by contrast, last year proposed to cut overseas nuclear security funding by 5 percent and this year proposes less than $100 million of additional funds.”

It is possible to find the text of Chait’s full article on-line, but I’m not posting a link because of possible copyright violations.

(I daresay I’m the only Dean supporter in the world whose favorite line of the stump speech is when he talks about “redoubling our efforts on the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program!” It’s not always in there, but it was at the house party I went to in Nashua.)

2) They are not distributing enough aid to cities and states to defend against terrorism, and they are distributing the aid unfairly. (The pork barrel distribution is partly Congress’ fault, but presidential leadership could have solved that.) They also did not help city or states at all during the recent budget crises. New York was spending millions of dollars every week we were on orange alert, closing fire stations, does not have enough hazmat suits, has a water delivery system that is dangerously out of date. My family, my husband’s family, and most of our best friends live in the New York area so I’m nursing quite a grudge on this one.

I have to run now. I will post more specifics and cites for this stuff in the coming weeks. You’ll probably be bored when I do. It’s not sexy. It doesn’t involve going to war, or locking up bad guys, or other heroics. But it’s incredibly important, and we’re neglecting it.