U.S. Response I:  Delayed Effectiveness Predicted for New Department

According to a U.S. General Accounting Office estimate, it could take the proposed homeland security department five to 10 years before it would “provide meaningful and sustainable results,” the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 12).

Congress is expected to approve legislation creating the department when it reconvenes next month.  While legislation under consideration sets a date of Jan. 1, 2003, for the start of the new department, its existence will probably only by conceptual at that point, AP reported.

The Bush administration has established a transition office led by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to help set up the new department, according to AP.  Officials have already begun planning to establish the department’s leadership ahead of its creation and to find temporary office space.  Ridge can handle both the creation of the new department and his homeland security responsibilities, Homeland Security Office spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

One of the problems facing Ridge is coordinating the merger of the Customs Service, Coast Guard, Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Transportation Security Agency into the proposed department, according to AP (see GSN, July 31).  The four agencies would make up 85 percent of the proposed department’s estimated 170,000 employees (see GSN, Aug. 1).

Bringing together the four agencies’ personnel and disparate missions under the proposed department “is going to be a long-term process because it needs to be done right,” Johndroe said.

“We’re not talking decades,” he said.  “But it will take time, a couple of years.”

If the Senate version of legislation for the proposed department is ultimately approved, it would require a new intelligence-handling unit to coordinate and analyze large amounts of intelligence data, AP reported (see GSN, Aug. 7).

“Getting that up and running is going to take years,” said Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution.

Some members of Congress and outside experts have said it is dangerous to create a massive new Cabinet-level department at time of worldwide instability.  The proposed department is “a creature that would have been obsolete in the 1950s ... we should whittle it down to something more efficient” said House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“If our goal is to protect the American people as soon as possible, an unwieldy department of this size and scope is not the way to go,” Pelosi said (Curt Anderson, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 15).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Shadow Government Remains on Alert

By National Journal

Since Sept. 11, high-level career federal employees have continued to take rotating assignments at two remote bunkers to ensure that government operations would be continuous in the event of another terrorist attack (see GSN, March 1).

The parallel government operates at two locations in Virginia and Pennsylvania.  The people in the bunkers have the job of managing the country’s food, water, and energy supplies, as well as transportation needs, medical and health emergencies, communications networks, and civilian peacekeeping during any catastrophic incident that disables federal operations in Washington.

Reconstructing the constitutional government after destruction or maiming of the capital would also be the task of the staff and officials assigned to the bunkers.

“You have to have people there who really know the functions of government,” said one administration official.

The Bush administration has assigned 75 to 100 senior civil servants and some political appointees to staff the bunker locations on a rotation basis, pulling shifts of about 90 days, indefinitely.

In general, the administration’s continuity-of-government plans envision three phases:  activation and relocation within 12 hours; operation of the alternative facilities after about 12 hours, until a threat to governance ends; and the reconstitution of government, followed by normal federal operations.

As a result of the new emphasis on continuity operations, the Bush administration is making improvements to the remote facilities and their technology.

One Washington consultant who spoke with a Bush appointee while the official was tucked away doing his time in one of the secure locations said the administration contact described “a lot of people who looked like they had been there for 30 years and were so happy to have company.”

All funding for, and operations of, the remote locations are considered classified.

“Unfortunately, we’re not commenting ... for reasons of national security,” said Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Deborah Garrett.  FEMA coordinates continuity of government efforts, primarily through its National Preparedness Directorate.

During the Clinton administration, under FEMA’s direction, the 1950s-vintage shadow-government bunkers were updated with computers, videoconferencing and improved telecommunications, new paint and daybeds to replace sleeping cots, former FEMA Director James Lee Witt said in an interview.

“It was like doom and gloom in there.  We redid the entire thing,” Witt said, recalling one of the bunker locations equipped with manual Underwood typewriters.

“We replaced the water,” he added.  “There was still the water [President Lyndon] Johnson had put in there, bottled water in glass bottles from Mountain Valley water, from Hot Springs, Ark. ... It was unreal.”

Back to top

U.S. Response:  New Command Seeks Civilian WMD Experts

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military’s new homeland defense command will need more than 100 new civilian managers skilled in dealing with weapons of mass destruction and other related specialties, the Defense Department recently told Congress.

The U.S. Northern Command, scheduled to begin operations Oct. 1, originally planned to recruit civilian personnel from other agencies and military commands to help respond to a WMD attack and coordinate disaster recovery efforts (see GSN, May 9).

In a message to lawmakers late last month, however, the Pentagon said the necessary skilled personnel may not be available in time from other commands to address what is intended to be one of the new outfit’s primary missions — preparing for and responding to a chemical, biological or radiological attack on the United States. 

“Civilian personnel in these skill areas may not be available from other combatant command headquarters’ reductions in the near term, and USNORTHCOM [the Northern Command] cannot wait to fill these civilian billets,” said a July 29 letter to congressional defense committees from the Pentagon office of legislative affairs.  “In order to minimize adverse actions at other unified commands, a total of 118 new civilian billets are required to meet the planned full operational capability date of Oct. 1, 2003.”

The Defense Department, in its fiscal 2003 budget request, has asked Congress for $41 million as part of the Defense Emergency Response Fund to pay for the new hires and to improve communications and training at the new command, to be located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.  So far the House has approved the request, while the Senate cut it by $14 million.  The two bodies will iron out a final version of the defense bill when they return from the August recess.

The plea for a new team of civilians at the Northern Command underlines the priority given to the threat of chemical, biological and radiological weapons at what will be the first active-duty U.S. military command responsible for defense of the continental United States.  Because the active-duty military is prohibited from operating inside U.S. borders, support to domestic authorities in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack would rely heavily on the National Guard — the state militias — as well as Pentagon civilians with unique expertise in the field.

“The civilian workforce is vital to providing long-term technical skills and expertise in areas where the military cannot, such as consequence management, chemical/biological defense, law enforcement, weapons of mass destruction proliferation, disaster recovery and interagency coordination,” according to the Pentagon’s request.

The Northern Command, to be headed by Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, is being designed with the WMD threat as a primary focus.  A major benefit of the new command — which will also include the North American Air Defense Command but will not have combat forces permanently assigned to it — will be its ability to plan for and respond to catastrophes, particularly terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, according to a senior Pentagon official.

“We will, in fact, have a command that has been planning on how to deal with that, knows what kind of resources and forces must be brought to bear on the problem, knows how to get them there and can handle the range of responses,” Peter Verga, who directs the Pentagon’s Homeland Security Task Force, said earlier this month.

For example, Northern Command will oversee 32 WMD civil support teams made up of the National Guard and located throughout the country (see GSN, Feb. 8).  Eberhart told Congress in June that one of his first activities would be to determine if more teams are needed and whether they should be outfitted with additional skills and equipment.

Also set to fall under the Northern Command is the Joint Forces Headquarters Homeland Security, based in Norfolk, Va., and including 130 civilian and military personnel.  Two subordinate units to the Joint Force Headquarters, the Joint Task Force Civil Support, based at Ft. Monroe, Va., and the military’s counterdrug Joint Task Force-6, based at Ft. Bliss, Texas, will also be folded into the new homeland security command.

“The department opposes the Senate reduction for USNORTHCOM headquarters civilian manpower associated with the creation of the new command because USNORTHCOM has an immediate requirement for a cadre of highly experienced civilian personnel who possess certain skills and must be an exception,” the Pentagon said in urging congressional action.

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Attack Might Hurt War on Terrorism, Scowcroft Says

A U.S. attack on Iraq now would not be wise because it would jeopardize the war on terrorism, former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said in an opinion piece published today in the Wall Street Journal (see GSN, Aug. 14).

“We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities — notably the war on terrorism,” Scowcroft said.

While Iraq poses a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East, there is no evidence linking the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to terrorist organizations, according to Scowcroft (see GSN, Aug. 2).

“Indeed Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them,” Scowcroft said.

Hussein would probably not give up control of his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction — and risk the destruction of Iraq — by providing WMD to terrorists, Scowcroft said.  “While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.”

If the United States chose to do so, it could destroy the Iraqi military and overthrow Hussein, Scowcroft said.  Such an attack, however, would be costly to the United States in terms of financial resources and possibly lives, he said.

A U.S. invasion could also lead to Hussein using his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in a last-resort gambit, Scowcroft said (see GSN, Aug. 1).

“In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses,” he said.

With international opinion against the idea of military action against Iraq, the United States would have to conduct any attack on its own, increasing the difficulties and costs, Scowcroft said (see GSN, July 11).  U.S. unilateral action against Iraq might also seriously damage international cooperation in the war on terrorism, which the United States vitally needs, he said.

Instead of a military attack, the United States should work to convince the U.N. Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection system for Iraq, Scowcroft said (see GSN, Aug. 13).  If Hussein does have a WMD arsenal, such inspections could keep him off balance even if they do not successfully uncover any weapons.  If Hussein were to reject such inspections, such a move might give the United States the reason it needs to press for military action, he said.

“Given Saddam’s aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power,” Scowcroft said.  “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken” (Brent Scowcroft, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Building Two Secret Sites, Opposition Group Says

Iran is constructing at least two secret facilities to further the country’s nuclear weapons program, members of an Iranian opposition group said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 5).

Engineers are building a nuclear fuel production plant and research facility as well as a heavy water production facility at two sites south of Tehran in central Iran, officials with the National Council of Resistance of Iran said.

“These two nuclear sites have been kept secret until now,” said Alireza Jafarzadeh, the council’s representative in the United States.

Both of the sites are nearly complete, Jafarzadeh said.  The heavy water production plant could be used support nuclear reactors that would be capable of producing weapon-grade materials, he said (John Lumpkin, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Aug. 14).

Iran is currently building a nuclear power plant at the city of Bushehr with Russian assistance (see GSN, Aug. 1).  Experts and technicians from Russia and other former Soviet republics have worked at the two secret sites as well, Jafarzadeh said.  The International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees the Bushehr project, has not inspected the two sites, he said (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Aug. 14).

The U.S. State Department has said that the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which encourages violent overthrow of the current Iranian government, is the same as an organization called Mujahedine Khalq, a terrorist group connected to the deaths of several U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2001).  Iraq is also believed to provide support to the council (see GSN, Aug 5).

“It’s a terrorist organization,” said State spokesman Philip Reeker.  “It’s listed as such, designated as a foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law” (Lumpkin, Associated Press).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Arsenal Needs No U.N. Protection, Musharraf Says

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said there is no need for concerns over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and no reason to place it under U.N. protection, the Press Trust of India reported yesterday (see GSN, March 18).

“Pakistan has the most effective capabilities for ensuring control and security of the nuclear weapons,” Musharraf said.  “They are under the direct control of the government, that’s why we do not need any U.N. security guards” (Press Trust of India/Hindustan Times, Aug. 14).

For further information, see:

Pakistani Government

Pakistani Embassy to the United States

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Back to top

International Response:  Dhanapala Sees Hope for Nuclear-Free Central Asia

U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala said yesterday that he is optimistic that the leaders of five Central Asian nations can agree on the creation of a nuclear weapon-free zone (see GSN, Aug. 13).

Creating such a zone is an “extremely realistic” idea, Dhanapala said in an interview with U.N. Radio in Tajikistan, the first of the five Central Asian countries — also including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan — that he plans to visit over the next two weeks.

“It is an indigenous proposal — it is not a proposal that has been imposed by anybody outside the zone,” Dhanapala said.  “We have negotiated most of the treaty.  What now remains to be done is to spell out in detail the security assurances for these countries from both the nuclear weapons states and from others in the neighboring region” (U.N. release, Aug. 15).

Back to top

Anthrax:  FBI Focuses on Former U.S. Army Biologist, Officials Say

The FBI is focusing on Steven Hatfill — the former U.S. Army biologist who has become the public focus of the investigation into last fall’s anthrax attacks — more than on any other “people of interest” in the case, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 14).

Hatfill’s is the only photograph that investigators have shown to people who work in a Princeton, N.J., area around a mailbox that tested positive for anthrax.  Additionally, Hatfill’s apartment has been the only one searched with a criminal warrant in the course of the “Amerithrax” investigation, a U.S. official close to the case said.

Hatfill’s personal friend and spokesman Patrick Clawson said the FBI either needs to reveal what basis it has for its interest in Hatfill or publicly clear him of any involvement in the attacks.

“The only thing the FBI has said is that he has a very colorful background, yet they are destroying this man’s reputation,” Clawson said (see GSN, Aug. 13).  “Normally, when you’re doing a photo canvassing you have photos of more than one person because you want to eliminate false identifications.  The fact that the FBI is using only one photo makes the entire process suspect” (Christopher Newton, Associated Press/Chicago Tribune, Aug. 15).

Investigators believe that the anthrax-tainted letters used in last fall’s attacks were mailed from Princeton, according to the New York Daily News (see GSN, Aug. 12).  Hatfill has never been to Princeton, Clawson said.

“I just spoke to him, and he categorically denies that he’s ever been in Princeton,” Clawson said.  “He couldn’t find it on a map, and he doesn’t even know where it is in New Jersey.”

The FBI, however, should know where Hatfill was when the anthrax letters were sent because Hatfill gave the bureau his diary and calendar months ago, Clawson said.  He added that there also are no similarities between Hatfill’s handwriting and the handwriting on the envelopes and letters sent in the attacks (Fenner/Kennedy, New York Daily News, Aug. 15).

Little Evidence

Law enforcement sources have said that some senior FBI officials have been encouraged by information gathered on Hatfill after months of little progress in the anthrax investigation, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Aug. 5).  Some investigators and Justice Department officials, however, said they still do not believe that Hatfill carried out the attacks (see GSN, Aug. 12).

So far, no physical evidence has been discovered that can link Hatfill to the attacks, and interviews with him have given investigators little information, sources said.  No grand jury has begun hearing available evidence in the case, according to people close to the investigation (Susan Schmidt, Washington Post, Aug. 15).

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions About Anthrax

FBI Amerithrax Investigation

Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Anthrax

GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)

Back to top

Israeli Response:  Emergency Service Stocks Protection Suits

The Israeli Home Front Command has delivered 500 biological protection suits to Magen David Adom, the Israeli emergency response service, Ma’ariv reported last week (see GSN, Aug. 7).  Israeli rescue teams have begun learning how to use them, Magen David Adom Director Avi Zohar said (Dan Even, Ma’ariv, Aug. 7).

Back to top

United States:  Anniston Incinerator Slows Missile Disposal Rate

Chemical weapon disposal officials at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama plan to incinerate missiles containing gelled nerve agent at a much slower rate than the depot had projected earlier, a U.S. Army official said Tuesday (see GSN, July 11).

The depot plans to burn nine missiles per hour.  The Army had previously requested a permit modification to burn the missiles at a rate of 34 per hour, according to the Anniston Star.  Officials had chosen the higher rate on the basis of an engineering study, but it was not a realistic goal, according to Tim Garrett, Army project manager at the Anniston incinerator.

“At this point, it’s our position that it’s unlikely we would proceed past nine (gelled rockets per hour),” Garrett said.

Abandoning the higher rate should also help officials meet Alabama environmental regulations, the Star reported.  Alabama regulators require the same standards for two different systems — the furnace system used to incinerate gelled agent missiles and the system that destroys liquid nerve agent already removed from missile warheads.

The effectiveness of the furnace system for the gelled missiles will now be the same as the system used for liquid nerve agents, said Steve Cobb, chief of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management hazardous waste branch.  Each system will have to destroy 99.9999 percent of the nerve agent.  The furnace system that officials plan to use to destroy the gelled rockets had originally been designed only to dispose of missile parts (Matthew Creamer, Anniston Star, Aug. 14).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Chemical Agents

Federation of American Scientists Information on Chemical Weapons

Back to top

Israel:  United States Might Provide Patriots for War

The United States might provide Israel with Patriot missile-interceptor batteries in the event of a U.S. attack on Iraq, although Israel has not formally requested them, Ha’aretz reported today (see GSN, Aug. 1).

The United States is expected to offer the Patriots based on a similar offer made during the Gulf War, according to Ha’aretz.  Israel currently has its own missile interceptor, the Arrow anti-missile system, but analysts are unsure how effective Arrows would be in a multi-missile attack (see GSN, Aug. 13).

Israeli military officials disagree over whether Patriot missile batteries would be effective, Ha’aretz reported.  Supporters have said Patriots would provide another line of defense in addition to the Arrow, but opponents of the plan have said the Arrow renders Patriots unnecessary.

Israel is not likely to refuse Patriots if the United States decides to offer them, according to Ha’aretz.  There is no formal agreement for the United States to provide Patriots in the event of war (Nathan Guttman, Ha’aretz, Aug. 15).

For further information, see:

MDA Terminal Defense Segment

Federation of American Scientists Background on Arrow

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  MDA Director Advocates PAC-3 in Iraq

U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the Missile Defense Agency, said he would support the use of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile interceptor in the event of U.S. military action against Iraq, Bloomberg.com reported today (see GSN, Aug. 5).

The PAC-3 is the most advanced component of the developing U.S. missile defense system and is intended to protect U.S. forces abroad.

“I will be advocating strenuously that we use every one of the PAC-3s we have if there is a ballistic missile threat,” Kadish said.  “We have released to the field 30-something built so far.”

U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin, which developed the PAC-3, has provided the U.S. military with 36 missiles, enough to supply two Army air defense batteries, according to Bloomberg.com.  The Army is expected to purchase 1,300 PAC-3s, worth $2.5 billion, Lockheed Martin Vice President Mike Trotsky said.

Lockheed Martin and Defense Department officials in recent months have repeatedly discussed accelerating PAC-3 production, Trotsky said.

To be deemed operational, the PAC-3 had to first pass four intercept tests involving U.S. troops.  Those tests, however, indicated several flaws unrelated to the PAC-3 design, such as in one test when the missile failed to leave the launcher.

“There are problems, yeah, but we are going to fix them,” Kadish said.  “That doesn’t mean the missile isn’t a good one.”

“If the need arose there would be no hesitation on my part whatsoever to put them to use,” he said.  “We should have done a better job of finding those glitches ahead of time” (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, Aug. 14).

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

PAC-3 Fact Sheet

Back to top