One more reason we can't afford a permanent presence in Iraq!

Published February 05, 2008 @ 08:19AM PT

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has already cost the United States upward of $700 billion – but we can't afford the war in more ways than just monetary value. A new congressional commission report was released just a few days ago that said there is an "appalling gap" in our readiness to defend ourselves against a catastrophic event within our borders.

The Washington Post reports that: "The situation is rooted in severe readiness problems in National Guard and reserve forces, which would otherwise be well-suited to respond to domestic crises but lack sufficient personnel and training, as well as $48 billion in equipment because of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves."

The New York Times reported in 2005 that Homeland Security (DHS) was focusing its training on terrorist attacks it deemed "most plausible" in the United States, which included "detonation of a nuclear device in a major city, release of sarin nerve agent in office buildings."

These are the exact type of attacks that the latest report said the United States defense structure was ill-equipped to deal with – chemical, biological and nuclear strikes on U.S. soil. It's disheartening that the types of attacks DHS thinks are most plausible are the types of attacks we're least ready to deal with.

"Because the nation has not adequately resourced its forces designated for response to weapons of mass destruction, it does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available. This is an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risks," said the report.

Some presidential candidates, and some in the current administration, have made a lot of Americans believe that we are fighting the terrorists abroad so that we don't have to fight them on our own turf. Well, our lack of border security and the fact that a dirty bomb is easier to assemble than a fisher price toy makes me believe that someone, some group, some terrorist, is going to make it through the gates, over the fence, etc. If only we weren't using all of our resources toward a war in Iraq (where before the invasion Al-Qaeda presence was scarce), we might have enough equipment, enough funds, enough man/woman power to defend our own country.

So, what's the greater risk? That if we leave Iraq, all the terrorists there will trail us home? Or, is it that while we're in Iraq, terrorists can plot against us in multiple locations. It seems to me like we're giving ourselves the short end of the stick here.

Read the Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2008/01/31/AR2008013101833.html?hpid=moreheadlines.