Better terror alert system is needed

Here's a quick terror alert color quiz: Is green higher than blue? Is orange lower than yellow? Is red the color for the most serious terrorist threat? Is aquamarine really a color of one of the warnings?

Are you sure?

If you've found yourself frustrated and confused by the various terrorist warnings that are being issued by the Department of Homeland Security -- which are being constantly upgraded and downgraded -- you are not alone.

Here are the color-coded threat levels: green, low risk; blue, general risk; yellow, elevated risk; orange, high risk; and red, severe risk.

(No, aquamarine is not one of the colors.)

The color system may seem straightforward, but even Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has acknowledged there has been widespread confusion with the color-coded terror alert system.

Many citizens don't know what the colors mean or how to react when they change. Since the alerts have been implemented, no new attacks have taken place, leading some people to admit that they no longer pay serious attention to the warnings.

Others have taken a fatalistic "If it's going to happen, it happens" approach.

The system has been more than confusing. It has been costly for federal, state and local governments, because they are required to step up security and protective measures for the length of a heightened alert.

Cities have spent an estimated $70 million a week during orange alerts, according to a 145-city survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Most of that is in the form of overtime pay to police officers and firefighters who are deployed or put on call for security purposes.

In spite of the confusion and the cost, this is no time to let down our guard. President Bush has said the war on terrorism may take years, or even decades, which means the United States will continue to be a target for attack.

Having a terror alert system in place is crucial. It is a key to keeping Americans aware of the situation, which can allow them to prepare accordingly.

It also allows law enforcement officers to ready themselves and prepare for the worst.

One problem has been that the information that dictates the warning level is coming from captured terrorists and intelligence gathered by government agencies and the military -- all of which is sketchy at best.

The public wants more specific information, but in many situations the government does not have it.

If the system is flawed, and Ridge has admitted that it is, then a new system needs to be implemented of specific alerts when the intelligence warrants it.

Some have suggested a 1-to-5 scale because everyone knows the order of numbers, but no one instinctively knows that yellow is more dangerous than blue.

Ridge has also suggested a switch to alerts that are targeted to specific places or sectors of the economy when the information warrants it. That way, if the information suggests that Washington, D.C., is the target, Cape Girardeau doesn't have to upgrade its warning level and spend money to pay police overtime.

There are ways to improve the system. Times like these call for more information, not less.

Sept. 11, 2001, has shown us what can happen when we're uninformed and unprepared.