Non-Subscriber Extract
Defending the homeland becomes a priority for Bush
- Article Tools
| 17 September 2001 |
(From JTSM, August 2001)
Assessing the real nature of the terrorist threat to the USA both foreign and domestic - and devising a strategy to respond to it - is high on the agenda of the Bush administration.
It was revealed in July, through a classified strategy document leaked to the press, that the USA is abandoning requirements that its military be prepared to fight two major wars simultaneously. Instead, the new strategy will order the armed forces to "win decisively" in a single major conflict, defend US territory from new threats - such as terrorism - and conduct a number of holding operations elsewhere in the world.
For the first time, defence of the American homeland is incorporated into the guidelines for US military strategy. This elevation of homeland defence into one of the four main military 'capabilities' refers largely to plans for missile defence. However, it also officially gives the military domestic duties in battling terrorism, especially in the case of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. "What the Pentagon is looking at is a broad range of scenarios," said Michele Flourney, who drafted the previous quadrennial review while serving in the Pentagon during the Clinton administration. According to Ms Flourney: "They [the Pentagon] are striving to break out of [the need to be able to fight] 'two-major-theatre-wars' and get to something else that still adequately supports our alliances and our global interests, and gives greater attention to defending the USA."
Too many chiefs...
The government's approach to homeland security appears less than clear at the present time. Between 23 and 46 separate federal agencies play a role in homeland security. A National Homeland Security Agency would consolidate the roles into one entity, according to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Missouri), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Skelton has introduced a bill to direct the president to "develop a comprehensive strategy for homeland security (protection from terrorist or strategic attacks) under which federal, state and local government organisations co-ordinate and co-operate to meet security objectives."
The National Security Council is developing a national plan for cyberspace security and critical infrastructure protection. In May, President Bush ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to set up an 'Office of National Preparedness' to take charge of the disorganised homeland security functions spread across the bureaucracy.
"At the present time," says Mark DeMier of ANSERAnalytic Services, a nonprofit US Air Force-funded think-tank, "there is no single, co-ordinated US government definition of 'homeland defence.' It does not even appear in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. However, consensus does seem to be emerging on the term 'homeland security'."
Vice President Richard Cheney will oversee development of a plan for responding to terrorist attacks in the USA, while a new office within FEMA will co-ordinate terrorist response efforts. President Bush, in announcing the plans for Cheney and FEMA, said that "the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the USA - while not immediate - is very real."
The extent of the terrorist threat, both foreign and domestic, remains less than clear. There is no doubt, of course, that such a threat exists. Amy Smithson, however, a researcher on chemical and biological weapons at the Henry L. Stimson Centre in Washington, concluded in a recent report that the federal government has wasted large sums of money by mismanaging an array of domestic preparedness programmes. Smithson also concluded that terrorist experts inside and outside the federal government have hyped and overstated the threat of chemical or biological attack.
False priority
Larry Johnson, a former deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, believes there are some in government who "are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980s, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the US-European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they discovered, terrorism was an important priority."
However, others disagree. As Joseph Muckerman, director of emergency planning for the Pentagon from 1986 to 1992, points out: "Weapons of mass destruction and disruption continue to proliferate and continue to be acquired by so-called rogue states and organisations, many of which have declared war on our nation. They can target our cities and infrastructure with missiles or hand-delivered terror weapons. The attack on Pearl Harbour was a success because we, as a nation, had not crossed a mental threshold that admitted that our territory could be attacked. Let us not make that mistake again."
759 of 2,200 words