U.S. Response:  Proposed Security Department Too Large, Report Says

A new report by the Brookings Institution says the White House plan to create a homeland security department is too large and would probably cause many problems, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, July 12).

The Bush administration and Congress should instead create a smaller department to focus on border and transportation security, intelligence and threat analysis and infrastructure protection, according to the report, which was released Saturday.  Congress should also postpone any decision on whether to include research for WMD countermeasures in the proposed department, the report says (see GSN, June 28; Elizabeth Becker, New York Times, July 14).

According to the report, the proposed homeland security department needs to have more access to raw intelligence information than the Bush administration has proposed (see GSN, July 2).  Rather than creating a new center to analyze information gathered by U.S. agencies, the department should control an FBI unit that focuses on terrorism-related intelligence analysis, the report says (Bill Miller, Washington Post, July 14).

Also counter to the Bush administration’s proposal, the report recommends keeping the Federal Emergency Management Agency separate from the proposed department, according to the New York Times.  The department’s mission would be compromised if it had to take on FEMA’s natural disaster response efforts, according to the report.

“Fortunately, terrorist attacks are rare, but you can count on national disasters every year — right now there are floods in Texas, fires in Arizona — so why should the Department of Homeland Security be pulled away from its mission and worry constantly about those disasters?” asked James Lindsay, an author of the study.

The Bush administration does not agree with many of the recommendations in the Brookings report and President George W. Bush “looks at homeland security in total,” said Homeland Security Office spokesman Gordon Johndroe in response to the report.

“Our mission is not only to prevent against attacks, but to respond to them, and FEMA is the response mechanism in the government,” Johndroe said (Becker, New York Times).

Congress Continues Work on Proposed Department

Both houses of Congress are expected to hold hearings on the proposed homeland security department this week to finalize legislation to create it, CongressDaily reported.

The House Homeland Security Committee, a special committee created to oversee homeland security department legislation, is expected to hold a series of hearings featuring testimony from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge as well as the heads of the agencies that might be transferred to the new department.  Leaders in the House of Representatives hope to be able to vote on the homeland security department legislation next week — the last week the House is in session before the August recess — if the committee can get a bill out by the end of this week, according to CongressDaily.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee plans to finish producing a version of proposed homeland security legislation next week and move it out of committee, CongressDaily reported.  The Senate Agriculture, Finance and Health, Education Labor and Pensions committees are expected to hold hearings on the proposed department this week.  Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has said he wants the Senate to vote on the proposed department by Aug. 2, the last day the Senate is in session before its August recess, CongressDaily reported (CongressDaily, July 15).

Back to top

Iraq:  Troops Will Abandon Hussein, Exiles Say

A major U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would not be necessary because the Iraqi military would not support President Saddam Hussein, several Iraqi exiles said yesterday during a conference of exiles in London.

“Morale is at a disastrous level, and the troops are sick of continuous war,” said former Major General Najib al-Salhi.  “Saddam will find himself surrounded by a few hundred soldiers.  The United States appears to be preparing all options, such as land war, covert operations, special forces … It will not need all of this” (Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Reuters/Yahoo.com, July 14).

“The army will defect, even those closest to Saddam,” former Col. Hamed al-Ziadi said.

Iraq’s former head of psychological warfare Brig. Gen. Saad al-Ubaidi, however, said ousting Hussein might be more difficult.

“Most Iraqi officers hate Saddam, but he remains very strong,” he said.  “Even if you make a joke with a friend about Saddam, they will kill you” (John Burns, New York Times, July 14).

Instead of launching a large-scale military campaign against Iraq, the United States should focus on removing President Saddam Hussein from power, many exiles said (see GSN, July 11).

“Any campaign must be limited to toppling Saddam.  The army will not defend him and neither will the Republican Guard,” al-Salhi said.  “The United States will not find support inside or outside Iraq for an offensive that would harm civilians, destroy infrastructure and target troops not defending the regime.”

Some of the opposition leaders also expressed concern that the United States and United Kingdom might help persuade Iraqis to revolt against Hussein but then abandon them as at the end of the Gulf War  (Kim Sengupta, London Independent, July 15).

Exiles Call on Iraqi Military

Several Iraqi opposition leaders focused attention on persuading Iraqi military officers to prepare for a U.S.-led attempt to force Hussein from power.

“We are sending a message to the Iraqi military that there is life for them after Saddam, that they must not fear change,” said Ahmed Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (see GSN, Feb. 12).  “We want them to know that when the moment comes for a military move to bring about a change of regime, they should either join us or stay home” (Burns, New York Times).

The meeting attendees agreed yesterday to establish a military council in exile devoted to overthrowing Hussein.  The 15-man council, which will include former senior military officials representing a range of backgrounds, will focus on replacing Hussein with a democratic government, according to the Financial Times (Jimmy Burns, Financial Times, July 14).

Between Large and Small Offensive

Meanwhile, some U.S. strategists are considering an option between a large-scale invasion of 250,000 troops and a small-scale campaign involving air strikes and local opposition forces, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, July 8).  The middle-ground approach would use between 50,000 and 75,000 troops — far fewer than the 500,000 U.S. troops used in the Gulf War, a defense official said.

Advocates for the midsized force said that the United States no longer needs a larger force due to technological advancements.

“The smaller force should be sufficient because the U.S. military is an order of magnitude better than it was 10 years ago,” said Daniel Goure, a senior analyst at the Lexington Institute.  The Iraqi military, on the other hand, is “an order of magnitude worse,” he said (Jaffe, Wall Street Journal).

Would Hussein Use Weapons of Mass Destruction?

At the conference, al-Salhi dismissed concerns that Hussein might use chemical or biological weapons (see GSN, June 21).  Iraq lacks the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction, he said (Reuters/New York Times).

Former Iraqi intelligence chief Wafiq al-Sammarrai, however, said a large-scale U.S. land war against Iraq would leave Hussein with no option other than using weapons of mass destruction.

“The U.S. should know that Saddam will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction on American military groupings.  Diplomacy is the only choice for the United States,” he said, adding that if diplomacy fails, the United States should attempt an intelligence operation aimed only against the regime (Sengupta, London Independent).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Pentagon Plan Focuses on Pre-Emption, High-Tech Tools

Classified Pentagon guidelines for the U.S. military over the next five years focus on improving abilities to respond to WMD threats, to carry out pre-emptive strikes and to fight Afghanistan-style conflicts, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday (see GSN, May 8).

The guidelines, contained in an annually updated report called Defense Planning Guidance, call on officials to focus spending on five areas:  intelligence, cyberwarfare, airstrike capabilities, military systems in space and counterterrorism and combating WMD threats, the Times reported.

The report shifts previous military strategy, reflecting recent statements by U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that emphasize the need to attack potential enemies before they can strike at U.S. forces or territory, according to the Times (see GSN, June 7; John Hendren, Los Angeles Times, July 13).

Launching “unwarned” strikes against U.S. enemies is the main tool for responding to potential threats, according to the report.  It focuses on a more “interventionist, proactive strategy,” defense analyst William Arkin wrote in the Times.  The plan “envisions the U.S. military as a global strike force capable of unilateral action anywhere, any time, with minimal risk to American lives,” Arkin wrote.

Pre-Emptive Strike Tools

The Pentagon report calls for developing certain weapons and intelligence capabilities that would enhance the military’s ability to launch first strikes.  For example, the report recommends developing by 2009 a Mach 10 hypersonic missile that could travel 600 nautical miles in 15 minutes or less, providing capability to hit mobile missiles such as the Iraqi Scud shortly after launch and before the launcher could move (see GSN, July 8).

The plan also calls for deploying 12 unmanned combat aircraft that could drop a variety of weapons by 2012.  It calls for accelerating development of nuclear-armed earth penetrators that could infiltrate deeply buried bunkers in three rogue countries simultaneously (see GSN, March 29).  It also recommends developing laser and microwave weapons capable of attacking underground targets (William Arkin, Los Angeles Times, July 14).

The guidelines state the need for improved intelligence to warn of growing crises, to identify targets and to monitor military campaigns (Hendren, Los Angeles Times).

Missile Defense

Although the plan’s focus on pre-emptive attacks overshadows the Bush administration’s earlier emphasis on anti-missile defenses, the plan still supports continuing missile defense development, Arkin wrote.  It calls for continuing other current efforts to protect the United States, particularly from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Criticism

Although the Pentagon plan embraces Rumsfeld’s idea of military transformation, it could actually slow the transformation process, Arkin wrote.  The relationship that Rumsfeld and his close advisers have with military officers is not good, he added.

Another problem is that the plan emphasizes pre-emptive intervention in countries such as Afghanistan but does not provide a way out, Arkin said.  The plan indicates a belief that the campaign in Afghanistan was successful and could serve as a model for future military efforts, but it ignores the political difficulties that have followed the Taliban’s overthrow, he wrote (Arkin, Los Angeles Times).

Some other defense analysts expressed concern that the Pentagon document reflects a belief in “push-button warfare” that involves few U.S. casualties. 

“It’s this concept that we can sit in our air-conditioned bunkers and push buttons,” said Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution.

“That leads to the absurd decision to fight a Kosovo war without a ground component.  It leads to relying on insurgents and precision strikes to overthrow [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein].  It’s absurd to think that that’s the way we ought to fight warfare in each and every circumstance,” Daalder said.

“Wars are still fought and won in the old-fashioned way:  by killing more of the others than they kill of you.  And by taking territories,” he added (Hendren, Los Angeles Times).

Back to top

China:  Pentagon Report Predicts Chinese ICBM Growth

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In the next few years China will significantly upgrade its strategic missile forces to counter development of a U.S. missile defense system, according to a Pentagon report released last week (see GSN, Jan. 10).

Moreover, China may be planning to put multiple nuclear warheads aboard its ICBMs, according to the report.

The number of Chinese missiles capable of striking the United States may triple by the end of this decade, says the report — the Annual Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, required by Congress and made public by the Pentagon on Friday.

“China currently has around 20 ICBMs capable of targeting the United States.  This number will increase to around 30 by 2005 and may reach 60 by 2010,” the report says.  China is improving all classes of its ballistic missiles both qualitatively and quantitatively, it says.

“This modernization program will improve both China’s nuclear deterrence by increasing the number of warheads that can target the United States as well as improving its operational capabilities for contingencies in East Asia,” it says (see GSN, July 12).

China is replacing its current liquid-fueled CSS-4 ICBMs, also known as the Dongfeng 5, with longer-range versions.  Pentagon officials expect the upgrade to be completed by the middle of this decade, the report says.

According to the report, Chinese officials have also been developing three solid propellant ICBMs — the Dongfeng 31, which could be ready for deployment before mid-decade, and mobile and submarine-launched versions of the same missile, which officials might begin deploying by mid- to late-decade.

The Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community for years have forecast a dramatic growth of Chinese strategic nuclear capabilities as development programs have come to fruition.

Some critics of the Bush administration’s aggressive national missile defense program have argued it will hasten China’s ICBM development, encouraging the country to build capabilities that can defeat a U.S. missile defense system.  Defenders of the program have argued that China would improve its ICBM capabilities regardless of the whether the United States chose to deploy national missile defenses.  The report lent support to both arguments.

“China’s ballistic missile modernization began before it assessed that the United States would deploy a missile defense, but China likely will take measures to improve its ability to defeat the system in order to preserve its strategic deterrent,” the report says.

Such measures would probably include “improved penetration packages for ICBMs, an increase in the number of deployed ICBMs, and perhaps development of a multiple warhead system for an ICBM, most likely for the CSS-4,” the report says.

Pentagon officials also believe that China might be acquiring a variety of foreign technologies that it could use to develop anti-satellite weapons, including laser weapons, which could be used against U.S. missile defense satellites, the report says.

Richard Fisher, an expert on Chinese military capabilities at the Jamestown Foundation, said China’s plans to upgrade the CSS-4s may suggest its intention to arm the missile with multiple nuclear warheads.

“The question I would have, why are they building a new version of what is the equivalent to the Titan missile.  Do they have [multiple warheads] for this new version?  Or is it a new warhead chock full of decoys and other penetration aids?” he said.

Back to top

United States:  Belgium Divided Over U.S. Request to Convert Plutonium

Belgian officials are debating a U.S. request to convert weapon-grade plutonium into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, Reuters reported today (see GSN, June 21).

The United States has asked Belgium to convert 80 kilograms of plutonium to MOX fuel as part of a U.S.-Russian arms control agreement, according to Reuters.  U.S. officials plan to build two MOX plants in the southeastern United States, but they first want to ship a small amount of plutonium to a plant in Belgium or France to simulate the conversion process, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said in Brussels (see GSN, May 9).

The Green Party in Belgium’s ruling coalition is against the plutonium shipment, according to Reuters.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, however, has said he supports the U.S. request.  While it will probably take the United States several years to build its own MOX plants, Belgium’s assistance could shorten the time by four years, Verhofstadt said.

“Belgium’s agreement in principle would constitute an important signal that our country is prepared to contribute to the international nuclear disarmament program, reducing the current nonproliferation risk and the problems involving the physical protection of nuclear materials,” Verhofstadt wrote in a letter to the Green Party (Bart Crols, Reuters/Nuclear Control Institute, July 12).

Back to top

Iran-Russia:  Spent-Fuel Agreement Nearly Complete

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

Russia and Iran are nearing a formal agreement to return spent nuclear fuel from Iranian reactors for reprocessing and storage in Russia, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Friday at a Moscow press conference (see GSN, July 12).

Some work remains and relevant agencies are studying an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement on two nuclear reactors that Russia is helping build at Bushehr in Iran, he said.

Such a provision had not been included in the original contract because at the time there had been “no [Russian] legislative amendment allowing the import of spent nuclear fuel for storage and processing,” he said.

The Moscow Times reported last week that legislation passed in the early 1990s had banned nuclear waste imports, but Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation in July 2001 to allow such imports.

“Work to enact the law is drawing to an end.  In order to make this law effective, it was necessary to issue six governmental resolutions and set up a special commission for working out recommendations regarding the import of spent nuclear fuel from abroad,” Rumyantsev said.

Meanwhile, construction on the first nuclear reactor at Bushehr “is drawing to an end,” Rumyantsev said (see GSN, April 5).  “Heavy equipment is being supplied there now.  The casing of the reactor has been supplied, the piping, the pumps.  The turbine will be delivered in August,” he said.

Plans currently include a second nuclear reactor, and might include up to four reactor units in the future, Rumyantsev said.  Beyond the reactors, he said, “there is no more work with Iran.”

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Washington to Serve as Biological Defense Model

Washington is scheduled to participate in a $420 million program designed to transform four U.S. cities into models for biological weapons defense, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

“There are lots of downsides to being the national capital,” said Margaret Kellems, deputy mayor for public safety and justice, who is in charge of biological weapons defense for Washington.  “The upside is that when you’re in the spotlight, you get the best treatment.  We think the District [of Columbia] is a bull’s eye.”

Under the new program, Washington will probably receive $85 million administered by the proposed homeland security department, according to the Post.  In the Bush administration’s fiscal 2003 budget proposal, officials included the program, called the National Bioweapons Defense Analysis Center, among Defense Department activities.  The program called for $120 million to build a bioterrorism research center and $300 million to create models in four major U.S. cities for future biological weapons defense systems, the Post reported.

Washington was chosen for the program because it is an obvious target for future biological weapons attacks and because it has already received many funds to improve public health preparedness, said Anna Johnson-Winegar, deputy assistant to the defense secretary for chemical and biological defense.  The second city chosen for the program is Albuquerque because it has a well-developed radiological accident response system, the Post reported.  The other two cities have yet to be chosen.

The purpose of the Pentagon program is to build a “system of systems,” Johnson-Winegar said.

“It would include biodetection, using information from medical surveillance systems and environmental sensors and integrating the data into one comprehensive system,” she said.

Under the program Washington will receive the best available “off-the-shelf” equipment, Johnson-Winegar said.  The other three cities will use more “experimental” technologies, she added.  Even though the Pentagon will probably not control the program, its goals will not change under a new administrator, Homeland Security Office spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

Washington is also scheduled to receive funds to improve public health preparedness under a $1.1 billion Health and Human Services Department program, according to the Post (see GSN, June 7).  The city received $292 million in congressional funds to improve emergency preparedness in January.  In all, Washington could receive $400 million this year and in 2003 to improve defenses against a biological weapons, according to the Post.

Research Funding

Meanwhile, the proposed homeland security department is expected to take over $2 billion worth of biological weapons defense research projects from the National Institutes of Health, the Post reported.  The exact details of the program will probably remain vague until the Congress passes the White House’s fiscal 2003 budget and until the proposed homeland security department is created, according to the Post.

“We will provide the money and inform the scientists of the threat we want to examine,” Johndroe said.  “They do the research and disburse the money with their oversight.”

The Bush administration’s proposal to separate biological weapons defense research from the NIH might disrupt research efforts rather than improve them, several experts have said (see GSN, July 8).  Research efforts could further be damaged because the White House has not given control over Pentagon biological weapons defense research to the proposed department, according to experts.

“You really have to be careful not to disconnect some of these programs from where the expertise is,” said Peggy Hamburg, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit organization that studies weapons of mass destruction.  “You can’t just carve out pieces of a department, label them ‘bioterrorism’ and expect to get the same results” (Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post, July 14).

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Homeland Security Should Not Include CDC, Ridge Says

U.S. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should not join the proposed homeland security department, Bio-Terrorism.Info reported today (see related GSN story, today).

The CDC is expected to work with the proposed department to prevent future terrorist attacks using biological weapons, but the two should remain separate, Ridge said during testimony before two congressional committees last month.

“There is a dual infrastructure here,” Ridge said last month before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.  “That infrastructure should remain part of HHS [Health and Human Services Department].  The notion we would work through multiple agencies to establish protocol in advance of an incident is consistent with putting several agencies together, having a strategic focus.”

Senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) tried to obtain assurances from Ridge that the CDC would be have jurisdiction over any future bioterrorism attacks, according to Bio-Terrorism.Info.  The CDC and the FBI came into conflict during last fall’s anthrax attacks because of conflicting rules, according to Cleland (see GSN, July 12).

“There may be a point at which someone concludes that a threat to public safety is occurring and therefore automatically, by a stroke of a pen, CDC becomes the lead agency,” he said.  “We don’t need competition.  We need coordination, cooperation and communication” (Bio-Terrorism.Info, July 15).

Back to top

United States:  Umatilla to Begin Test Burns Next Week

The Oregon Environmental Quality Department approved a U.S. Army plan Friday to test new chemical weapons incinerators at Umatilla Chemical Depot.  The Army plans to begin initial tests next week, following up with tests on a second incinerator in January and tests on the metal parts furnace in March (see GSN, June 24).

“This is a wonderful and important step for the project,” said Gary Anderson, deputy project manager for the Army.  “Every ‘t’ has been crossed, every ‘i’ dotted.”

The first test, which will last 45 days, will involve simulated weapon test chemicals trichlorobenzene, a degreasing agent, and perchloroethylene, a cleaning solvent, the Oregonian reported.

“The surrogates are more difficult to destroy but less toxic,” said Wayne Thomas, project manager for the Environmental Quality Department.  “There’s a dual benefit here.”

The Army will monitor emissions during the tests, Anderson added.

Army officials have said that if the incinerator destroys 99.9999 percent of the chemicals, they probably could begin burning the weapons, according to the Oregonian.  Incineration of the chemical weapons, including mustard, sarin and VX gases, is scheduled to begin in May 2003.

Some activists criticized the department’s decision to approve the Army plans.  The Sierra Club is involved in a lawsuit claiming that depot plans to respond to an emergency do not meet safety criteria.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, however, said last month that communities near the chemical depot are prepared for an emergency (see GSN, June 13).  A state committee had recommended signing the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Plan (see GSN, May 15; Eric Hand, Oregonian, July 13).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Chemical Agents

Federation of American Scientists Information on Chemical Weapons

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Airborne Laser Success Could Lead to Future Weapons

A successful test of the Airborne Laser program — which is designed to be a component of a U.S. missile defense system — would probably increase program support and might lead to development of other laser systems, the head of the program said Thursday (see GSN, July 1).

The U.S. Defense Department is examining options for future laser use, including other platforms to carry laser weapons, Air Force Col. Ellen Pawlikowski said before a directed energy weapons conference in Washington.  Future laser-equipped systems might use less powerful lasers and have different capabilities, she said.

A full test using the airborne laser to destroy a target will probably not occur until at least the end of 2004, according to Defense Daily.  Within the next few weeks, however, the modified Boeing 747 designed to carry the laser may begin flight tests.  Officials plan to focus the first tests only on the aircraft’s performance, with future tests scheduled to evaluate the aircraft’s battle management system and target detection and tracking ability, Defense Daily reported.

If upcoming tests are successful they might lead to the most important deployment of laser weapons in history, said Robert Cooper, former director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

“If the ABL is successful, it will be the first deployed large-scale laser weaponry in the field,” he said.  An unsuccessful demonstration could lead to setbacks in developing laser weapons, he added (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, July 12).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Further PAC 3 Flight Tests on Hold

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency does not plan to conduct further operational flight tests of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC 3) missile for at least another year, an agency spokeswoman said last week (see GSN, July 1).

The MDA is “still looking at the issues and problems that came up doing the OT [operational testing] phase,” and “if more operational tests are done it won’t be until August or September 2003,” said MDA spokeswoman Alicia Garges.

MDA Director Air Force Lt.-Gen. Ronald Kadish has said that he is “disappointed” with the performance of the PAC 3 during testing and that he has developed a plant to correct problems that have arisen.

“One of the most nagging things that bothered me in OT was the fact that we couldn’t get off the rail, or launcher, a couple of times ... we’ll get a program together to solve those issues,” Kadish said last month, adding that he still plans to deploy the PAC 3 even if the missile is not perfect (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, July 11).

Back to top