The entire framework of argument currently being pressed for how to best protect the United States against the Islamic extremist threat is gravely defective.

Bush’s announced view, seconded by his actions, is that Iraq is the most serious threat to U.S. security and that remaining in Iraq is the most important element of U.S. defense.

Now, the Urban Area Security Initiative has come in for much criticism for distributing money not based on an area’s risk factor. The arguments go that St. Louis should not be receiving more security funds per capita than New York because the threat against St. Louis is lesser.

For 2006, the Urban Area Security Initiative will have $765 million out of a total of $2.5 billion budgeted for state and local antiterrorism programs.

The published cost of the occupation of Iraq varies, from $1 to $2 billion PER WEEK.

I’m repeating these numbers: $2.5 billion per year to protect U.S. territory, $1 to $2 billion PER WEEK to continue the occupation of Iraq.

Bush claims that making public his warrantless domestic spying program helped the enemy (as if the enemy didn’t suppose it might be spied on). I dare say it helps the enemy a good deal more to let it know that medium-sized cities like St. Louis are not adequately protected.

As is known, bin-Laden does not fight his war in a conventional manner with regular attacks and defenses. He plots big strikes at great length and plans events he believes unimaginable to the attacked.

So I ask you to imagine the effect of simultaneous catastrophic attacks on ten medium-sized U.S. cities, such as St. Louis. Is Bush really doing the best anybody could possibly do for our protection, spending $1-2 billion per week in Iraq, but $2.5 billion per year on securing our cities?