This article from CSO Magazine is one of the better columns I’ve read in a long time.

Written by a CSO who remains anonymous for unfortunately obvious reasons, he (I’m assuming it’s a he, though it could just as easily be a woman) calls out the current US defense policies for the costly, counterproductive mess that they are.

as security professionals, we should be the first to face facts about the limitations of the very processes we advocate.

I love this column even more because it almost reads like a direct application of my “3 1/2 Question” model to the problem of National Security priorities.

First, he looks at whether or not this is a problem we have. As compared to the myriad other problems which take American lives each year, Terrorism is not a major problem.

Let’s assume, first of all, that the ultimate goal of security is to prevent the loss of lives. In this risk management approach, then, the first thing to look at is the leading causes of death in the United States. The total number of deaths from all attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, was approximately 2,988, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

The 9/11 deaths were classified within a category called assaults/homicides, which was the 13th leading cause of death at 20,308.
…
eight of the top 10 causes of death are health-related… Could those billions of dollars have saved more lives if they had been spent on health research or on making health care available to a larger percentage of the population?

Next, he looks at whether or not the solution solves the problem and concludes that it probably doesn’t, pointing out that all of the Doomsday Scenarios (sail a nuke-laden boat into any major harbor, etc.) still exist despite all the spending.

Probably. But, you might ask, what about the costs of another successful terrorist attack? Another terrorist attack using say, a nuclear device, could result in hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of deaths—not to mention having a catastrophic effect on the nation’s economy and environment. That’s true. But ask yourself this question: Have the billions of dollars spent on additional security since 9/11 made this kind of attack impossible?

Third, he considers whether this is all cost-effective…and concludes it’s not.

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on increased security is not going to bring back the victims of 9/11, and it isn’t going to improve by very much our already heightened vigilance against terrorism. … As a nation, don’t we already spend more on national security than the next 10 nations combined?

Yes, there are terrorists still out there in the world, but I’ve got news for you: There have always been terrorists in the world, and there always will be—no matter how much money we spend fighting them.

Finally, he tackles the opportunity costs of all that spending, either reduced deficits, increased support for education and research or for solving larger health and safety issues, and suggests that the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Sure, my natural inclination as a CSO is to believe that if some security is good, then more security is better. But logically, I can’t help but think that it’s time for us to turn our attention to other types of threats. There is no end to them. Deteriorating educational performance, a declining manufacturing base and a lack of medical coverage for millions of Americans are but a few of the threats facing this nation. These issues are now far more likely to cause significant damage to the future health, safety and welfare of Americans than a crippled al-Qaida hiding in the bowels of the mountains of Afghanistan.

The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union finally reached the point where defense spending as a percentage of GDP became unsustainable. In the end, it was not about military might but about the Opportunity Costs of constantly preparing to fight a war that both sides knew neither side was capable of winning.

General Motors and the US Steel industry are both about to blink out of existence due to unsustainable healthcare costs for their workforces and retirees. That the opportunity for the United States government to reform healthcare as a mechanism to restore US competitiveness is consistently ignored boggles my mind. In this case, what is good for GM is truly good for the nation. So why does the Business-friendly administration oppose it so?

Meanwhile, the United States has become obsessed with constantly arming itself to fight a War On Terror that cannot be won, only controlled. In the meantime, as the column’s author points out, the foundations of future competitiveness such as infrastructure, education and basic reasearch are being badly neglected so we can focus our resources on fanning the flames of hatred overseas.

William Lind has written a significant volume of commentary on the ineffectiveness of trying to fight a “traditional” war against stateless adversaries like terrorists. His writings should be mandatory reading for both hawks and doves. He understands both the seriousness of the threat and the appropriate responses.

While it doesn’t look nearly as good on TV, multi-lateral police and intelligence work does a lot more good than invasions if the goal is capturing the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. The fact that is does so without alienating and inflaming the populations that then produce more terrorists is just an added bonus. It’s a lot harder to get worked up enough to commit violence over the fact that someone you’ve never met was arrested with a bomb than the fact that there is a foreign army’s tank parked in your front yard.