The War on Terror will never end. Not because we can never actually defeat a concept like "Terror," not because we haven't been able to actually find and kill Osama bin Laden, not because we've let ourselves get distracted in Iraq -- but because the War on Terror is just so darned profitable. Everyone, it appears, has figured out a clever way to hold their hand out to the federal slop bucket.

In mid-2003, the Department of Homeland Security compiled a list of 160 potential terrorist targets, triggering intense efforts by representatives, senators and their constituents to find potential targets in their districts that might require protection and therefore be eligible for federal funding. The result? Widened definitions and blurrier categories of potential targets and mushrooming increases in the infrastructure and assets deemed worthy of protection. By late 2003, the list had increased more than tenfold to 1,849; by 2004 it had grown to 28,364; by 2005 it mushroomed to 77,069; and by 2006 it was approximately 300,000.
 

Across the country, hundreds of interest groups recast their traditional objectives and funding proposals to reflect the new imperatives of the new war. The National Rifle Association declared that the War on Terror means more Americans should own firearms to defend against terrorists. The gun control lobby argued that fighting the War on Terror means passing stricter gun control laws to keep assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Schools of veterinary medicine called for quadrupling funding to train veterinarians to defend the country against terrorists using foot-and-mouth disease to decimate cattle herds. Pharmacists advocated the creation of pharmaceutical SWAT teams to respond quickly with appropriate drugs to the victims of terrorist attacks.
 

According to a 2005 report by the Small Business Administration (SBA) inspector general, 85 percent of the businesses granted low-interest SBA counterterrorism loans failed to establish their eligibility. The SBA authorized 7,000 loans worth more than $3 billion, including $22 million in loans to Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in nine states.

Sort of like using the "Sarbanes-Oxley" stick to justify IT spending on all sorts of activities that we've always wanted but could never justify on their merits, the WoT has become the source of endless justifications for spending money on anti/counterterrorism measures. And it's better than the Cold War, because they may be among us even now. 

Filed under :: Homeland Security

Anyone could be a Cylon... the only solution is to have sex with them one by one, and videotape their backsides...

Our dependence on oil is the biggest threat to our way of life and we are doing nothing about it! We fill the coffers of our biggest fans like Middle East, South America and Russia and then try to vainly pump up our defenses against terrorist attacks from the same regions!

Just imagine if all the resources we are pumping into the imaginary threat and the war were put into solving our energy issue. I say imaginary because people forget that 9-11 was perpetrated with box cutters. Our.. Defense was fine at the 9-11 attack and is fine today. We seem oblivious to the real threats against us…

Well, it's worth noting that there was an earlier attack on the WTC that involved more than box cutters, and other al-Qaeda attacks on other US targets internationally that involved same.

That said, yes, I wish there were multibillion dollar grants being given for alternative energy issues. Unfortunately, the current administration's energy policy is lip service to future technologies and pushing to open up more oil fields today.