White Paper on "Homeland Defense" of the United States (Part 1 of 3)
Presented by the Emergency Response & Research Institute
Chicago, IL

Excerpted from: ERRI DAILY INTELLIGENCE REPORT, Tuesday, July 17, 2001, Vol. 7, No. 198

Domestic Terrorism Preparedness; Time to Embrace the 'Loyal Opposition'??

Opinion/Editorial

by C. L. Staten, Executive Director and Sr. Analyst
     Emergency Response & Research Institute (ERRI)

Much discussion has taken place in the past week in Washington, D.C.. Meetings and lectures at the National Governor's Association Conference on Terrorism have focused on the preparedness of the United States in regard to "Homeland Defense."

Various speeches from people like Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), John Magaw, FEMA Acting Asst. Director, and FBI Assistant Director for Counter-Terrorism Dale Watson, all pointed out problems and possible solutions to the greater problem of securing our homeland (CONUS). They discussed, time and time again, the need for greater cooperation at the local, county, state and federal level. Most openly admitted that federal efforts to date have not resolved critical issues involving the coordination of the multiplicity of agencies who will respond to a terrorist attack within the United States.

Congressman Chambliss, a former firefighter, seemed to have a particularly clear focus on the greater issues involved in coordinating the response at the local level. He pointed out with great clarity that the "first responders" in the local community are the first and probably most important line of defense...with federal response agencies acting in a mutual aid role and providing additional resources, personnel, and knowledge.

All of the speakers pointed to the need for a "comprehensive plan" that includes all of the agencies and people that might be needed to assist when a major terrorist event strikes America. And, all of the speeches seemed to be most commendable in their intentions of inclusiveness of the emergency, military, intelligence, and private sector personnel.

Unfortunately, the practice of the federal government to date has not met the test of the "inclusiveness" recommended by Chambliss, Magaw, and Watson. In the past five years, one could easily suggest that the current domestic terrorism preparedness program has been a product of the lawyers, contractors, and lobbyists within the "Washington beltway." It's critics say that the problem is that the focus of America's anti- and counter-terrorism efforts have been "top-down," rather than "bottom-up."

Further, skeptics say, this Washington-centric focus has been so intense that a vast majority of planning, training, and preparedness efforts have occurred only in the "Washington to New York City corridor." In fact, even the few fire, police, and EMS personnel, who have managed to become involved in consulting on national terrorism response plans, seem to be from Washington or one of its suburbs. Additionally, it should also be noted that an overwhelming majority of the billions of dollars spent so far for counter-terrorism efforts has been spent within 50 miles of our nation's capital. Seemingly, there are NO experts on terrorism or Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) response...nor any need for input...from anywhere else in the country. So much for this purported "inclusiveness"...

And finally, the national domestic terrorism preparedness effort, so far, has a history of disregarding or even refuting the perceived "loyal opposition" of the plans being made by the "elites" in Washington. As our own experience would indicate, those people, agencies, or companies who have pointed out problems in planning, training, intelligence-gathering, or emergency response issues are often marginalized or openly repudiated by official "powers that be" within a number of federal contractors and agencies.

It seems that rather than learning from and addressing critical issues that will affect our nation's capability to defend itself, all too much effort is spent in "criticizing the critics," and defending current policy and plans, regardless of potential future costs to our country.

Most assuredly, the "bad guys," who intend to release a toxic soup of chemicals or deadly bugs into one of our cities, or intend to bomb our country into submission, are not engaging in "conventional thinking" as they plan to do us harm. Why should our government restrict itself to "thinking inside the box" and perpetuating existing systems which may or may not be able to solve the terrorism problems of the future?

Shouldn't our leaders in Washington listen to citizens of California, Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Missouri, Michigan,  Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, or a number of other states, if they hope to understand the problems concerning the defense of the whole country? When was the last time that you saw or heard people from any of these states speaking at Congressional hearings concerning terrorism or the response thereto?

One would think that the most effective defense system for our country would embrace any person who raises relevant and vital concerns about how we defend our country and bring them into the planning, training, and preparedness process. So far, it would appear that has not been the case. Maybe the time has come to listen to others besides the "yes-men and women" who populate the staffs of all too many elected, appointed, and corporate leaders of our country. We think it's time for alternative and unconventional viewpoints and for other valid and innovative opinions to be heard in Washington.

Real "inclusiveness" should involve "smart" people and agencies from all levels, types of agencies, and parts of the country...even if they are critical of the current preparedness efforts developed in Washington. We would hope that the newly formed "Office of National Preparedness" would welcome all of the players to the table to assist in our over-all preparedness. In our opinion, only by allowing and even encouraging the participation of the alleged critics, skeptics, "devils' advocates," and members of the so-called "loyal opposition," will the country be best prepared to battle the scourge of terrorism within our shores.

* This is part I of a three part series concerning the current state of U.S. preparedness for a terrorist attack directed against the United States. It is intended to provoke thought and discussion, and illuminate issues involving anti- and counter-terrorism....particularly those involving "Homeland Defense." Editor's note: In the context of this article, the term "loyal opposition" does not refer to a political viewpoint (i.e. Democrat or Republican), but rather a professional viewpoint that may be not be in concurrence with the way that anti- and counter-terrorist planning, training, and operations are currently conducted by various subdivisions of government and the private sector that supports them.

ERRI Counter-Terrorism Operations Archive

ERRI Hazardous Materials/WMD Archive Page

Homeland Defense Review: Emergency Service Issues (Part 2 of 3)

This page has been accessed Times
FastCounter by bCentral

© EmergencyNet News Service, 2001. All rights reserved. May be freely redistributed within emergency service, military, intelligence or other government agencies. Any other publication or use requires permission of ERRI/EmergencyNet News.

Emergency Response & Research Institute
6348 N. Milwaukee Ave. #312
Chicago, IL 60646, USA
773-631-3774 - Voice/Messages
773-631-4703 - Facsimile
webmaster@emergency.com - E-Mail
http://www.emergency.com - Main Webpage