Defend the Homeland--or lose it. (Bird's Eye).

Six weeks before September 11, the Central Intelligence Agency informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation that two terrorists had entered the United States. Yet the terrorists were able to board a plane in Boston using their own names.

Every American must understand the drastic need to transform homeland security. It is not complicated. There are those in the world who know what America is and what it stands for and who are committed to destroying us. They are not open to negotiation. Our very existence threatens the values of the followers of the reactionary form of Islam, principally the Wahabi and Deobandi sects. We must design an enduring strategy, as we did for the defeat of communism, to ensure the victory of our values. The scale of this Islamic challenge is very important for Americans to understand, as is the inevitable violence that will continue to reach us here at home if we choose not to defeat it.

The concept of a Homeland Security Agency was contained in a March 2001 report by the Hart-Rudman Commission, started by President Bill Clinton and myself in 1997. The most sobering prediction, largely ignored by the media, was the Commission's warning that it is likely that a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon of mass destruction will be used on an American city in the next 25 years and that the most probable source would be terrorism. The Commission recommended that the United States prepare a homeland security agency that would be able to respond to as many as four cities hit simultaneously with mass-destruction weapons. The Commission's unanimous conclusion was that anything less would be to gravely underestimate the danger and unnecessarily risk lives.

We must recognize that our cities are always threatened. We are threatened not only by missiles, both ballistic and cruise, but also, and more likely, by terrorists delivering violence in unexpected ways, as 9/11 proved. Yet more than a year later, we still do not have an effective interagency process to enable 22 separate agencies with Congressional oversight by 88 committees to work together effectively. This failing could be a matter of life and death.

Just as nearly 800 people were taken hostage recently in a Moscow theater by Chechen rebels, Americans should no longer assume that wars, take place only in far-off lands. It is the nature of terrorism to disrupt stable societies as a tactic to soften public support for military action. Similarly, if we move to replace Saddam Hussein, we should be aware that reprisals might be attempted on American soil.

The recent sniper attacks around Washington, D.C. demonstrated the ease with which just two people can terrorize and disrupt the daily routines of millions. We have yet to solve the mystery of the anthrax cases shortly after 9/11. The quality of the anthrax was reportedly of such high grade that the expense and sophistication excludes the possibility of one individual and points to the likelihood that the attack had the support of a government. Despite such threats, it should be possible, with entrepreneurial leadership, to make America the best-defended country in the world with minimum inconvenience to her citizens. But moving forward incrementally is not acceptable: We must accept quick failures to get large breakthroughs.

The Hart-Rudman Commission called for a homeland security agency that is separate from the Defense Department. If the United States is engaged in a war overseas when an attack occurs at home, the secretary of defense cannot be expected to manage both an offensive campaign abroad and a defensive one at home. So, a Department of Homeland Security must be a serious agency with real power, its own budget, and the ability to hire and fire. The new department should be centered around three major functions: predictive and pre-emptive intelligence capabilities; closing existing vulnerabilities; and coordinating federal, state and local response and recovery.