Official Remarks & Reports

House Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations

Combating Terrorism: Protecting the United States – Part I

Colonel Randall J. Larsen (USAF, Ret.) Director, ANSER Institute for Homeland Security

March 12, 2002

Introduction

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege and opportunity to testify before the Committee. Americans face grave threats to our homeland both today and for decades into the future. Biological, nuclear, radiological, cyber, chemical, and even enhanced conventional weapons could be employed by our enemies against a wide range of targets. While there is a long list of potential weapons and targets, my greatest fear from an external threat is a large-scale attack with a contagious pathogen on one or more cities. On the other hand, the threat I fear most from a domestic source is uncontrolled spending--government spending that is neither guided by a detailed threat assessment nor a national strategy.

The 9-11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax-laced letters confronted the nation with urgent threats to the homeland. We have had to meet these immediate, short-term threats while developing the concepts, policies, strategies, and institutions that will produce homeland security for the long-term. To do both simultaneously is both difficult and necessary.

The Bush administration has met the initial homeland security challenge. I support the vast majority of immediate and short-term programs that have been introduced during the past six months. Because of my particular interests in the biological threat, I must say I am pleased with the leadership and actions of many within the public health community such as Dr. D.A. Henderson and Mr. Jerry Hauer from Health and Human Services, Dr. Anthony Fauci from the National Institute of Health, and Dr. Robert Kadlec from the Office of Homeland Security. Our nation is indeed fortunate to have such leaders during time of crisis.

However, our focus at the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security is on the long-range challenges, including strategies, policies and the organization of America's national security institutions. While this will require a sustained effort that encompasses all levels of government and the private sector, we must understand that only the Federal government can lead this effort.

Purpose

The first step required to ensure long-term security of our homeland is a detailed and integrated threat assessment. I know that the committee Chairman has long been a leading proponent of this idea, and will therefore waste no words herein, other than to say I fully endorse and support the Chairman's recommendation.

Therefore, my testimony focuses on two important dimensions of developing homeland security for the long-term: a strategic framework for analysis which will facilitate both strategy development and resource allocation, and the requirement for an extensive executive education program in addition to the various training programs currently available for first responders. Finally, I offer one specific recommendation for a research and development program that could provide this nation with the best hope for effective defense against large-scale biological attacks in the 21st century: preclinical detection.

Recommended Framework

A strategic framework for analysis is required to develop a national strategy and determine proper resource allocations. On October 8, 2001, the Bush administration issued Executive Order 13228 which outlined six homeland security missions: detect, prepare, prevent, protect, respond, and recover. This operational framework was appropriate for the initial and immediate actions required in early October 2001. No one knew whether the next attack would happen tomorrow, and if it would be more deadly and more wide-spread than those of 9-11. We do not know this even today; consequently, much of Governor Ridge’s attention must remain focused on the immediate and near-term. However, this framework is not sufficient for developing a strategic approach to homeland security. Therefore, I recommend the following framework that is the product of eight years study of homeland security.

My study of the biological threat to the American homeland began while serving as a National Defense Research Fellow at the Mathew B. Ridgway Center for Strategic and International Studies in 1994. Several years later, while serving as the Chairman, Department of Military Strategy and Operations, at the National War College, I developed a strategic framework for the study of homeland security. Assisting in this effort was Colonel Dave McIntyre, the Dean of Academics at the National War College, and Dr. Ruth David, the former Deputy Director for Science and Technology at the Central Intelligence Agency. Today, Dr. McIntyre serves as my deputy, Dr. David is the President and Chief Executive Officer of ANSER (a nonprofit, public-service research institute), and this strategic framework is the intellectual foundation of the Institute for Homeland Security. It contains seven elements: deterrence, prevention, preemption, crisis management, consequence management, attribution, and response.

The differences between the framework identified in Executive Order 13228 and the framework recommended in this statement are more than just semantics. Deterrence, preemption, and response must be critical elements of our nation’s homeland security posture and declared strategy. It is imperative that we think of homeland security as an integrated cycle instead of as a set of discrete, unrelated missions. This is the framework that can best ensure the proper development of long-range strategies, policies, resource allocations and reorganization efforts. Integration and coordination would be far simpler if all Federal agencies adopted this framework.

Deterrence must be a central element of any homeland security strategy. Our nation must have the policies and posture that deters our enemies from attacking our homeland. Deterrence is based on two elements: punishment and denial. The increased threat from non-state actors who might employ nuclear, chemical, cyber, or biological weapons demands a shift in how we practice deterrence. Throughout the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was based on mutual assured destruction—the ability to deliver incalculable punishment under any circumstances. Given the nature of homeland security threats, we must increase our ability to deter enemies by denying them the effects they seek. This will be done through methods, institutions, and programs that have not been considered elements of deterrence—for example, the public health system as a deterrent to biological terrorism. Resource allocations should reflect this new reality.

There will likely be times when our deterrent efforts fail, perhaps if only for the fact that our enemies might be undeterrable. In those cases, our nation will have to rely on its prevention capabilities. Prevention incorporates a wide group of active and passive measures that mitigate or even stop an attack or its effects; all of these activities are principally defensive. Our nation’s prevention activities include border controls, aerospace, maritime and land defenses, arms control treaties, and many law enforcement measures. It might even include political and military aid to address some of the conditions that give rise to terrorist organizations.

Our nation must also possess the capabilities, and associated policies, that allow us to preempt attacks on our homeland. Preemption is a policy that is fraught with political and military risks. In the Cold War, preemption would have meant the first use of nuclear weapons, possibly resulting in a global nuclear war. Further, aggressors have cloaked their initiation of war with claims that they were only preempting an attack on their homeland. However, preemption in the homeland security context does not have to call for the initiation of nuclear war or occupation of another nation’s territory. It will require the selective use of military force and law enforcement, in concert with our allies, to preempt terrorists before they can carry out attacks. Preemption options can span the range from a JDAM delivered by a B-2 bomber to an arrest by U.S. law enforcement officials working with allies. This is a capability our nation must possess.

Crisis management is the investigation and law enforcement response to attacks on the homeland. The lead federal agency is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, many other state, local, and even private-sector actors have important crisis management roles to play, as evidenced by the September 11^th attacks. Undoubtedly, Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the single most important crisis manager on that day. His leadership and courage calmed a city and a nation while focusing our efforts on the tasks at hand. Successful crisis management requires increased coordination and information exchange among all levels of government. We must move from the Cold War paradigm of "need to know" to the 21^st century requirement of "need to share."

Consequence management is the effort to mitigate the consequences of attacks on the homeland. This includes a wide range of activities, carried out by Federal, state, and local governments, as well as the private sector. The Federal Emergency Management Agency serves as the lead federal agency due to its established role in natural disasters. Biological and cyber attacks blur the distinction between crisis and consequence management because they are the only two types of weapons that self-replicate. Furthermore, they recognize no domestic or international boundaries. The consequence management mission is a largely local event, led by local officials with Federal support when requested. However, biological and major cyber attacks are different and will require Federal leadership as demonstrated in the DARK WINTER exercise.

Attribution occupies an important place in the homeland security strategic cycle. Our nation’s enemies are likely to disguise their identity, either because of they are non-state actors like Al Qaeda or because they employ especially heinous weapons. We witnessed the problem of attribution throughout the 1990’s in a series of terrorist attacks, as well as last year with the anthrax letters. Improving our nation’s attribution capabilities will demand greater scientific methods and technologies, as well as greater integration of the relevant law enforcement and intelligence efforts. The importance of attribution will continue to grow throughout the 21^st century as non-state actors, even individuals, increase their potential to cause catastrophic destruction and disruption. Nothing is more important than removing the anonymity that provides security for terrorists. Prior to the recent anthrax attacks, the FBI had virtually no forensic capabilities for investigating biological attacks. Robust attribution capabilities will require a major research and development effort coupled with the full integration of the resources in Justice Department, the Intelligence Community, and the Department of Defense. This does not exist today. Without attribution, there can be no response.

Response has two goals in the homeland security strategic cycle. The first is to eliminate the current threat, and the possibility of future attacks by that specific actor. This might be achieved through the arrest and prosecution of the terrorists or other coercive actions, such as the use of military force or covert actions. Certainly, the nature of the response would depend on a range of factors, not the least being whether the attacker is a domestic or international actor. The Bush administration’s actions after 9-11 illustrate the potential range of response options. Secondly, the ultimate goal of any response must be the reestablishment of deterrence. If the purpose of war is to establish a better peace, then the peace we seek is deterrence.

The Advantages of an Integrated Strategy

Our nation’s homeland security in the 21^st century will depend on the capacity to perform all the missions of this strategic cycle. We cannot afford to prepare for these missions once a threat is imminent. Further, it is only through the integration and coordination of the efforts across these missions that our nation can gain the greatest benefits from all of these homeland security efforts.Developing homeland security for the long-term will require allocating resources across the missions and funding programs that facilitate cooperation across the homeland security institutions. This must be achieved, of course, in the most reasoned manner possible. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower formulated his Cold War national security strategy, he decided that “the basic objective of our national security policies: maintaining the security of the United States and the vitality of its fundamental values and institutions.” We would do well to follow this advice when formulating a long-term approach for homeland security.

Regarding bioterrorism, it is important to understand that public health has both consequence management and deterrent functions. Deterrence through denial was not a practical policy for coping with the nuclear threat during the Cold War. In the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was based almost entirely on the threat of overwhelming nuclear retaliation. Today, attribution difficulties will make it difficult to punish those who perpetrate a biological attack. We must understand that improved mitigation capabilities, or denial of intended consequences, offers significant deterrent opportunities. Managing the consequences of a biological attack is a national imperative.

Allow me to illustrate this important point. As some of you know, the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security was one of the co-sponsors of the DARK WINTER exercise that simulated a terrorist smallpox attack on the United States. The exercise revealed the challenges that biological terrorism presents for our nation. In my view, DARK WINTER’s most important lesson is that the consequences of an attack are so horrific that we must focus on deterrence, first and foremost. Again, a key element of that deterrence is denial of the enemy’s goals. Thus, deterrence must play a central role in any bio-terrorism or homeland security strategy. For biological terrorism, the most effective deterrent may very well be a robust public health system that includes early detection; new vaccines, antibiotics, and anti-viral drugs; and training, education and realistic exercises.

The Threat of Uncontrolled Spending

Currently, our nation’s homeland security posture represents the “stovepipes” between the different governmental and private sector institutions that have homeland security responsibilities. This must be overcome so that each element of the homeland security community understands its role in the big picture. The homeland security strategic framework is the foundation for the development of long-term strategy, policy, and resource allocation.

The success of these efforts will depend, in large part, on how resources are allocated across the homeland security missions and various programs. Defending our homeland will require enormous expenditures. However, we must not spend ourselves into bankruptcy. Increased funding for programs that reinforce the existing stovepipes between institutions will have limited value for our nation. Without a single integrated national homeland security strategy, we are likely to spend our limited resources in a highly inefficient and therefore ineffective manner. At some point, the threat of uncontrolled, uncoordinated spending could very well become as much of a threat to our security as the weapons of our enemies.

Developing homeland security for the long-term will require allocating resources across the missions and funding programs that facilitate cooperation across the homeland security institutions. This must be achieved, of course, in the most reasoned manner possible. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower formulated his Cold War national security strategy, he decided that “the basic objective of our national security policies: maintaining the security of the United States and the vitality of its fundamental values and institutions.” We would do well to follow this advice when formulating a long-term approach for homeland security.

Role of Education

Additionally, long-term homeland security will require increased exchange of ideas between the institutions and professions that have homeland security responsibilities. Homeland security encompasses a broad group of professions, many of which have little familiarity or experience working with the others. They lack a common method, terminology, perspective, culture, or objective. As we have witnessed countless times, these present an unnecessary obstacle to cooperation and effectiveness. They prevent our nation from getting the full benefits from our homeland security efforts.

The most effective way to address this problem is to develop educational programs for senior leaders with homeland security responsibilities. These programs would expand their understanding of the scope of homeland security and place their role in a larger context. Such programs would build upon, not supplant, their own professional training and education. Workshops and exercises have already demonstrated their value in exchanging ideas across the homeland security community. Our nation has an established system for educating national security professionals from “first responders” (soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines) to national leaders. A similar educational system for homeland security professionals would provide great value to the nation for the long term.

Preclinical Detection

Finally, I would like to propose an idea that should receive immediate and long-term funding for research and development. Virtually all biowarfare experts agree that early detection is the key to successful mitigation. Various public and private organizations are busy “selling” technological solutions. Most efforts focus on either environmental sampling or rapid diagnosis of symptoms.

While environmental sampling may be of use in protecting key facilities or top government officials, it is not a realistic approach to protecting America's cities. Likewise, awaiting the onset of symptoms and relying on rapid diagnosis and response of medical and public health officials gives significant advantage to the attacker. It is the area between these two events--the incubation period of a pathogen--particularly a contagious pathogen that provides us with the greatest opportunity for successful mitigation.

For instance, smallpox has an incubation period of 7-21 days, averaging 12-14 days. With current technology, an attack would not be discovered for at least a week, probably longer. There is no current test available that can determine if an individual has been exposed to smallpox or any other pathogen. (Nasal swabs can be used if we know there has been attack; however, even this does not provide proof that the pathogen has entered the body in sufficient quantity to cause the disease.) With current technology, pathogens remain undetectable after entering the body until symptoms appear. However, some in the scientific community believe that preclinical detection (also called post-exposure, pre-symptomatic detection) is possible. Similar to the breathalyzer test we currently give suspected “drunken drivers”, we could sample certain groups that routinely move through our major cities, such as postal workers, police officers, airport screeners, or taxi drivers.

This sampling would provide a cost-effective and operationally feasible system that could provide early warning. An additional benefit to this system would be to determine who should receive treatment, ranging from antibiotics, to antiviral drugs or vaccines (in the case of smallpox). In the recent anthrax attack, close to 32,000 individuals received antibiotic treatment, but it is quite possible that no more than a few hundred were actually exposed. This system would be highly effective in allowing officials to manage scarce resources and in dealing with the "worried well."

The system required for preclinical detection could use one promising technology under development, called the “Zebra chip.” It will primarily be funded by the private sector to identify common diseases. The Federal government should partner with the private sector to fund the research on identification of those diseases that the commercial sector is not likely to fund themselves, such as smallpox, anthrax, tularemia and other likely bioweapons. The second key to this system requires a breakthrough in the science of preclinical detection. This would not only be a significant achievement for the war against bioterrorism, but also in the war against naturally occurring diseases. Early detection is critical for both man-made and naturally occurring diseases.

I am neither a microbiologist nor a public health officer. But as a national security strategist who has studied the threat of biological warfare for many years, I know of no other technology that offers more potential promise to both mitigate and deter biological attacks on the American homeland.

Summary

My testimony has focused on three important elements of long-term homeland security: a strategic framework, education, and a specific area of research and development that could offer great promise. None of these three recommendations offers quick fixes. It will likely take years for us to develop the concepts, policies, strategies, institutions, and technologies to meet the homeland security threats of the 21st century. We should recall our experience in the early days of World War II. When America was attacked in 1941, we had no central intelligence organization, no Joint Chiefs of Staff, no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no Joint Staff, no Department of Defense, no Secretary of Defense, and no National Security Council. Furthermore, many of the technologies that helped us win that war did not exist in 1941.

Today we are in a similar situation. The best way to ensure success in this war will be to build upon a proper foundation, such as the strategic framework for homeland security discussed in this statement. We must educate a new generation of national leaders in the study of homeland security--just as we did during the Cold War--when the academic discipline of national security studies was created. Finally, we must utilize our technological edge to keep us ahead of terrorists and others who would do us harm.