By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — As it prepares for a possible war against Iraq, the United States remains woefully unprepared for a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction and must take immediate remedial steps, including making homeland security the primary mission of the National Guard, a new report says.

A Council on Foreign Relations task force led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman — both widely credited with warning of the growing threat of domestic terrorism prior to last year’s attacks — provides a stark assessment of U.S. prevention and response capabilities in the face of a WMD attack (see GSN, Oct. 25).

“A year after Sept. 11, 2001, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil,” says the report, America Still Unprepared — America Still in Danger.  “In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.”

The report urges quick and drastic measures to minimize the damage of a large-scale terrorist attack and thereby force terrorist groups to change their strategy.

Elevating the Role of the National Guard

A key recommendation calls for dramatically expanding the role of the National Guard — now focused on supporting overseas military operations — in defending U.S. territory and responding to terrorist events that state and local authorities are currently ill equipped to address.

The prospect that Washington will launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq, to rid it of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, makes it all the more important to take immediate action, according to the report, as those weapons could be used against U.S. targets in retaliation.

“The need for immediate action is made more urgent by the prospect of the United States going to war with Iraq and the possibility that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein might threaten to use weapons of mass destruction in America,” the report says.

The report recommends tripling the number of National Guard WMD support teams located around the country from 22 to 66. It also urges new funding to help the National Guard train first responders, and remove Guardsmen from guarding borders and airports, where they are less valuable.

“Governors will expect National Guard units in their states to help with detecting chemical and biological agents, treating the victims, managing secondary consequences, and maintaining civil order,” the report says.  “The National Guard has highly disciplined manpower spread throughout the nation in 5,475 units.  When called up by governors, the National Guard can be used to enforce civil laws — unlike regular forces, which are bound by posse comitatus restricting on performing law enforcement duties.”

The National Guard’s medical units, engineer units, military police units, and ground and air transport units will likely prove indispensable in helping manage the consequences of a terrorist attack, the report added.

This includes providing critical communications, evacuating, quarantining and protecting residents, utilizing knowledge of chemical, biological and radiological threats and the capacity to supplement local trauma and triage capabilities. New and improved Guard capabilities such as detecting WMD threats in urban areas and greater emphasis on biological warfare are needed, according to the report.

“An aggressive approach to revamping the capabilities of National Guard units designated to respond to domestic terrorist attacks can in the short term provide a more robust response capability while states and localities work to bring their individual response mechanisms up to par.”

Local Authorities Need Help

The report makes a variety of recommendations to beef up public health systems to better identify a biological attack on the food or water supply, train local police, fire and other emergency response personnel, tighten security at border crossings and sea ports and ensure that major cities and counties plan for “truly catastrophic attacks.”

“While these scenarios strike many as too horrific to contemplate, imagining and planning for them can potentially make the difference between a 20 percent casualty rate and an 80 percent casualty rate,” the report says.

The document outlines a series of significant shortfalls in domestic WMD preparedness.

For example, between 1996 and 1999, the federal government was able to provide WMD response training to only 134,000 of the nation’s estimated 9 million first responders.  “Furthermore, only 2 percent of these 134,000 responders received hands-on training with live chemical agents.”

The Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama, the only facility in the country where first responders can get hands-on experience with chemical agents, can train only 10,000 first responders per year at peak capacity.

At the same time, most city and county health agencies lack the resources to operate 24-hour emergency hotlines.  The National Association of City and County Health Officials estimate that localities need between 10,000 and 15,000 new employees to work in public health preparedness functions.

To deal with chemical and biological outbreaks, local authorities need federal assistance to develop public health surveillance systems and develop and maintain lists of retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in an emergency, among many other steps.

And without adequate training, local health officials could be at grave risk themselves in the event of a catastrophic attack.

“A nuclear, chemical or biological weapon poses a grave danger not only to those who are immediately exposed, but also the entire emergency response and medical care system in the areas where such a weapon might be used,” the report warns.  “Heavy losses of seasoned firefighters, emergency technicians, police, and medical personnel can easily compromise a community’s long-term capacity to provide public health and safety.”

The report’s authors stress that quick mobilization to prepare for the worst “is an act of prudence, not fatalism.”

“U.S. counterterrorism initiatives abroad can be reinforced by making the U.S. homeland a less tempting target,” they conclude.  “We can transform the calculations of would-be terrorists by elevating the risk that an attack on the United States will fail, and the disruptive consequences of a successful attack will be minimal.”

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top