Faster and smarter responses

Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) color-coded threat alert system has been a source of controversy and consternation. It has been criticized as too wide and too unwieldy, more a source of vague worry than a guide to action. While the system has more flexibility than previously thought, administrators and policy-makers should continue to look for ways to make it more effective.

Rep. Chris Cox, chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, is one of the most prominent policy-makers calling for the system to be amended. He recently told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, “Right now, the color code level is a one-size-fits-all notion,” adding his concern that generalized warnings were going largely to people who had little power to do anything about them. He also argued that by sowing enough disinformation about phony threats to raise the threat level, terrorists could inflict a great deal of psychological and financial damage.

Mr. Cox recently introduced HR 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders of 2003, as a legislative remedy. Section 203 of the bill would require “that any designation of a threat level or other warning … be accompanied by a designation [of] the geographic regions and economic sectors to which the designation applies.”

However, intelligence assessments are notoriously difficult to make — based on incomplete and often fragmentary information. Even when the nature of the threat is understood, it can be difficult to determine how the weapon will be deployed and what the targets are. Where threats are generalized or incomplete, it seems better to err on the side of caution, even if it entails greater expense and handwringing.

Still, the alert system can be more targeted. It was “designed for region or sector specific warnings,” DHS Secretary Tom Ridge noted in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute last September. To that end, vulnerability assessments of much of the nation’s critical infrastructure have been conducted, allowing for alerts to be applied to potential targets in specific areas.

According to Mr. Ridge, specific warnings had not been issued up to that point because “we’ve never received specific credible information that would enable us to use the system in that very focused and targeted way.” However, the system’s pliant capability was demonstrated last week when the national threat level was lowered from high to elevated, even though certain facilities and cities remained on high alert.

Those selective alerts also caused confusion for small airport managers, who were uncertain of when to revert back to elevated alert. Clearly, the homeland security communications system must continue to be improved.

Other flaws in the alert system will undoubtedly be found. Although the color-coded system appears to be working reasonably well, administrators and policy-makers should stay alert for potential improvements.