September 11, 2008
Op-ed Contributor
All Too Quiet on the Homeland Front
By CLARK KENT ERVIN
Washington

IF recent history is any guide — the first World Trade Center bombing a month after Bill Clinton became president; 9/11 itself, in the first year of the Bush administration; the Madrid bombing in 2004 on the eve of a national election in Spain; and the foiled London-Glasgow bomb plot last summer at the start of a new government — President Barack Obama or President John McCain may well be tested by terrorists soon after taking office.

And it is not just historical patterns that suggest that another major attack is likely to be attempted sooner rather than later. Our intelligence agencies tell us that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. The sanctuary the group found in Afghanistan has been recreated just over the border in Pakistan, and the departure of former Gen. Pervez Musharraf as that country’s president makes it less rather than more likely that the terrorist training camps there will soon be flushed out.

Thanks to the strain that Iraq continues to place on our military, it may not be long before the Taliban reclaims all of Afghanistan. With two bases of operation, Al Qaeda would be even stronger than it was before 9/11. And around the world, the flames of anti-Americanism have rarely burned hotter, creating a geopolitical environment that increases the risk of a terrorist attack here.

The candidates owe it to us to explain — loudly often, and in detail — exactly what they think the federal government has done right and done wrong in the seven years since 9/11 in securing this country against another terrorist attack.

Yet neither candidate has said much, during the long 2008 presidential campaign, about homeland security. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama address the topic to some degree on their Web sites, but they do not discuss it in detail in stump speeches, nor do they tend to bring it up unbidden in town hall meetings or interviews with the news media.

The government’s approach to homeland security needs to be changed drastically if we are to close the gap between how secure we need to be and how secure we really are. Airport screeners still fail undercover tests of their ability to spot concealed weapons. Scanners at seaports are unable to detect the presence of deadly radiation in cargo containers. Here are just a few of the questions that each candidate should answer:

•

What sectors and sites remain most vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and in what priority should these vulnerabilities be addressed? Should, for example, all airport workers, and not just crew members, be routinely screened like passengers?

•

Once detection technology is improved, should all cargo arriving at seaports be scanned for radiation?

•

Is additional spending needed to address any of the nation’s vulnerabilities? How much more, and how should the money be allocated?

•

How would you improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence related to homeland security?

•

What is the proper balance between security and liberty?

•

How, if at all, should the Department of Homeland Security be restructured?

•

What background and qualities would you look for in the next secretary of homeland security and, assuming you retain the position, the next White House homeland security adviser?

As Hillary Clinton’s iconic campaign ad underscored, the phone may well ring in the White House early one morning next year, with news of an attack on our soil. Americans want to know that the president who would answer that call has the judgment, expertise and experience to execute an effective response.

We also need a president who will do everything within his power to prevent such an attack. Knowing the answers that Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama would give to questions about homeland security would help voters judge which candidate is best prepared to defend and to deter.

Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department from 2003 to 2004, is a fellow at the Aspen Institute and the author of “Open Target: Where America Is Vulnerable to Attack.â€