Nearly 20 months after 9/11, it's reasonably clear to most Americans that a heightened threat of terrorism is not some temporary "emergency condition" that will exist until we capture enough Al Qaeda operatives. Instead, it will probably be something we will have to live with to some degree for the foreseeable future.

By that same logic, we need to begin thinking of homeland security not as an "emergency response system," but as a capability to guard against terrorist attacks and their consequences day in and day out. Further, we should understand this capability can also help us fight crime and promote better public health, since the systems used to prevent terrorism or respond to an attack use the same technologies and procedures.

This "dual-use" approach is a hallmark of the new state homeland security plan recently announced by Arizona's New Democrat Gov. Janet Napolitano. Based in part on recommendations made by the Progressive Policy Institute's John D. Cohen and Maryland State Delegate John A. Hutson, Napolitano's plan argues that "the state should not have to invest millions of dollars for technology and equipment that is only used in the event of a terrorist attack. The very information technology, communications systems and business processes that support effective service delivery each and every day provide the foundation for effective efforts to detect, prevent and respond to terrorism and other critical incidents."

A May 10 National Journal article by Siobhan Gorman suggests that "dual-use" thinking about homeland security is spreading. Houston Mayor Lee Brown, in recent congressional testimony, said, "Any strategy regarding urban terrorism must be worked into a city's day-to-day operations."

In the same National Journal piece, PPI's Cohen points out that effective homeland security efforts can only be sustained if they are regularized and integrated into other state and local efforts. "We really are at a crossroads," he said. "We've been traveling along the road in response mode. Now we have elected officials around the country saying, 'We've addressed the issues of September 11, but we can't do that in the long run.'"

Aside from enhancing homeland security efforts by making them more sustainable, there's another obvious benefit of "dual-use" strategies: they'll help fight crime and improve public health. As National Journal's Gorman noted: "a statewide public health information system, for example, helps the state track and manage diseases that spread as a result of either terrorists or Mother Nature. The clear advantage of dual-use policies is that they have a guaranteed payoff even in the absence of a terrorist attack." That's true, too, of law enforcement communications systems that help cops catch criminals as well as terrorists.

Ironically enough, it's this secondary payoff of dual-use policies that may trouble Republicans in Washington. The Bush Administration, for example, has waged a relentless campaign to shut down the COPS program, the signature Clinton Administration initiative to place 100,000 police officers on the streets, on grounds that the federal government should not be involved in state and local law enforcement responsibilities.

The bottom line is that the federal government should encourage dual-use strategies because that they produce better results, instead of grousing about the possibility of federal funds being used to subsidize state and local efforts not devoted strictly to anti-terrorism programs. The idea here is to make Americans more secure, whether it's against terrorists, criminals or SARS.