*EPF205 02/19/2002
Byliner: Senator Torricelli on the Fight Against Global Terrorism
(Op-ed column from The Washington Post on 02/17/02) (600)

(begin byliner)

(This byliner by Senator Robert Torricelli was published on the editorial page of The Washington Post February 17 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.)

For A 'Pearl Harbor' Inquiry
By Senator Robert Torricelli

(The writer is a Democratic senator from New Jersey.)

In his State of the Union address, President Bush said that fighting terrorism at home and abroad will require massive spending increases for homeland security and the Defense Department. His budget calls for a doubling of spending for homeland security to $38 billion and the largest defense increase in two decades, $48 billion.

These increases have been generally viewed as a reasonable, straightforward response to the attacks of Sept. 11. Yet in reality these are extraordinary budget requests for which the administration has provided no thorough justification.

There is no evidence that a lack of spending on anti-terrorism agencies or programs left our country vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11. Before the attacks, we spent an estimated $30 billion annually on intelligence, and the defense budget was nearly $340 billion. By contrast, it has been estimated that the total cost to the hijackers for their Sept. 11 suicide attacks was roughly $150,000.

Despite the resources at their disposal, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies were unable to detect and prevent an attack that took several years to plan and execute. Before we dramatically increase the budgets of our agencies responsible for intelligence and counterterrorism, we need to look at what was being done with the considerable funds already available to them. An investigation must be conducted by an independent board of inquiry to determine what systemic problems need to be addressed in U.S. government agencies responsible for intelligence and counterterrorism.

This board of inquiry would not be established to place blame. Its purpose would be to find out what went wrong within our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such a board would be nothing new. Similar ones were established to investigate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Challenger disaster and other major calamities in our history.

Simply leaving this inquiry to the House and Senate intelligence committees would not provide the full and impartial investigation needed. Those committees have had continuing oversight responsibilities for the very intelligence agencies they would be investigating and would not provide the fresh perspective an independent board would bring to the issue.

The board also must be clearly focused on the actions and accountability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies leading up to Sept. 11 and not, as some have proposed, on the more general causes of the terrorist attacks.

Some may argue that a board of inquiry at this time would divert resources needed for the fight against global terrorism. On the contrary, the board would help us understand the problems in our intelligence agencies and allow us to focus our resources more effectively.

Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order creating the first of several Pearl Harbor boards of inquiry a mere 11 days after the attack. He did not view this as a diversion of resources but rather as a necessary step in helping us understand the conflict in which we were then involved.

Until a thorough review of the actions of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies is conducted, and steps are taken to correct any shortcomings, the people of our nation will not feel safe, no matter how much the administration spends on homeland security and defense.

(end byliner)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents