Commission predicts a direct attack on the United States
ll...@a-albionic.com
Forwarded from the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]:
Note: We archive 100's of similar "Intelligence Agency Issues" posts at:
http://www.msen.com/~lloyd/oldprojects/recentmail.html
From: <msmi...@flash.net>
To: "Mark Smith" <msmi...@flash.net>
Subject: Commission predicts a direct attack on the United States
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:49 PM
The commission predicts a direct attack on the United States.
Hart-Rudman Calls for Homeland Defense
By Keith J. Costa
The warning was nothing if not blunt. "A direct attack against American
citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The
risk
is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could
undermine US global leadership."
Moreover, "in the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or
integrated governmental structures."
The act of guarding US territory from foreign depredations should be
made
"the primary national security mission of the United States." Preventing
or
deterring attacks against US soil or responding to them if preventive
measures fail will require a comprehensive strategy and new government
structures.
Such was the principal conclusion of the US Commission on National
Security/21st Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission after
co-chairmen Gary Hart, a former Democratic Senator from Colorado, and
Warren
Rudman, a former Republican Senator from New Hampshire. The panel was
chartered in 1998 by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen. It has now
reported
to both Cohen and to President Bush's Pentagon leader, Donald H.
Rumsfeld.
In late January, the group issued its third and final report. The
commission
released its Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports in September 1999 and April
2000,
respectively, setting out a threat environment over the next 25 years
and
outlining what the panel viewed as a realistic new national security
strategy.
The Phase 3 document called for dramatic changes to the US national
security
apparatus itself, including a proposal to create a new homeland security
agency. Titled "Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change,"
the
report built upon the group's previous work and raised stark concerns
about
US vulnerability.
The Focal Point
One striking recommendation: Convert the Federal Emergency Management
Agency
into a "National Homeland Security Agency." The new agency would be
chartered in law to provide a focal point for government response in
"all
natural and man-made crisis and emergency planning scenarios."
The NHSA director would enjoy Cabinet rank, undergo Senate confirmation,
and
serve as an advisor to the National Security Council--as is the case
today
with the director of central intelligence. The panel believes the
proposed
structure would ensure that one person is accountable to the President
for
homeland defense policy-making and implementation.
The NSC, though, would still play a role in planning and coordinating
homeland security missions involving other federal agencies like the
Defense
Department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the
Department of Health and Human Services.
"Through the commission's proposal for a National Homeland Security
Agency,
the US government will be able to improve the planning and coordination
of
federal support to state and local agencies, to rationalize the
allocation
of resources, to enhance readiness in order to prevent attacks, and to
facilitate recovery if prevention fails," the report stated.
"Most important," it added, "this proposal [places] the problem of
homeland
security within the broader framework of US national security strategy.
...
We are mindful that erecting the operational side of this strategy will
take
time."
The report said NHSA's planning and coordination activities would be
carried
out by three components:
* Directorate of Prevention, to oversee border-security activities.
* Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection, to head up the
agency's cyber-security operations.
* Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, to set training
and
hardware standards, give resource grants, and promote information
sharing by
DOD, FBI, and state officials.
The new agency would also feature a National Crisis Action Center, led
by a
two-star National Guard general, responsible for coordinating the
federal
response to crises.
The commission said the NHSA structure, consolidating today's disparate
homeland security activities, would focus the government's attention on
preventing terrorist attacks against American citizens and critical
infrastructure. Prevention activities would include a commitment to
verifiable arms control and nonproliferation and establishing "vigilant
systems of border security and surveillance" carried out by the Border
Patrol, Customs Service, and Coast Guard, all three of which would
become
NHSA components.
An increased number of people and a rising volume of trade crossing US
borders means it will be necessary to develop "new transportation
security
procedures and practices designed to reduce the risk that importers,
exporters, freight forwarders, and transportation carriers will serve as
the
unwitting conduits for criminal or terrorist activities," the report
said.
Enhanced homeland security requires better intelligence gathering and
sharing throughout the government so that high-risk shipments and
individuals can be targeted for inspection by border-control agencies.
Further, those border-patrol officials should have greater authority to
apprehend terrorists and stop shipments before they reach the United
States,
according to the commission.
Pay Attention
All signs are that the Pentagon will play a vital role in responding to
a
terrorist attack on US soil using Weapons of Mass Destruction, the
report
said. The Defense Department itself "should pay far more attention" to
homeland security, and it should be reorganized to better support the
overall mission.
The report noted that, at present, the department assigns responsibility
for
WMD incidents to the assistant to the secretary of defense for civil
support
while the Army's director of military support responds to non-WMD
contingencies. The commission didn't like that setup. "Such an
arrangement
does not provide clear lines of authority and responsibility or ensure
political accountability," the commission concluded.
The panel recommended that the President ask Congress to establish
within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense the post of assistant secretary
of
defense for homeland security. This official would have powers to
oversee
the department's homeland security activities and make sure "mechanisms
are
in place for coordinating military support in major emergencies."
The new assistant secretary would report directly to the Defense
Secretary.
"He or she would work to integrate homeland security into Defense
Department
planning and ensure that adequate resources are forthcoming," the report
added.
To that end, the committee recommended that the new assistant secretary
work
closely with Joint Forces Command to enhance the capabilities of the
Joint
Task Force for Civil Support.
The task force should be headed by a senior National Guard general and
given
additional headquarters personnel, the report said. Furthermore, the
task
force should "contain several rapid reaction forces, composed largely of
rapidly mobilizable National Guard units" with adequate
command-and-control
capabilities for handling multiple emergencies, it said.
The report acknowledges the role strong nuclear and conventional forces
can
play in deterring attacks against the homeland, but it added that those
forces may not deter nonstate actors that wish to strike the United
States.
Taking into consideration the continuing proliferation of missile
technology, the commissioners argued that a ballistic missile defense
system
would be a valuable addition to defense capabilities and should be
developed
"to the extent technically feasible, fiscally prudent, and politically
sustainable."
The report called for defenses to protect the homeland from cruise
missile
attack.
Going to the Guard
The Hart-Rudman panel placed heavy emphasis on the role the National
Guard
can play in homeland security missions. Indeed, one of the Phase 3
report's
top recommendations called on the President and Secretary of Defense to
make
homeland security a primary mission of the Guard.
"The commission recommends that the National Guard be directed to
fulfill
its historic and constitutional mission of homeland security," it said.
Presently, the Guard is mainly structured to support overseas military
operations. The panel proposed that the Guard redistribute its resources
"to
provide greater support to civil authorities in preparing for and
responding
to disasters, especially emergencies involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction."
Subsequently, the Guard would take on missions such as initiating local,
state, and regional planning for responding to a WMD attack and training
first responders. Furthermore, the Guard should take advantage of
experience
it gains from crisis-response activities to develop an "overseas
capability
for international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief," the
report
said.
The redistribution of Guard resources should only come after "a detailed
assessment of force requirements" for Major Theater Wars and homeland
security operations. This assessment should be conducted by DOD with the
active participation of state governors and the NHSA director, the
report
said.
Two-War Concerns
As in the group's Phase 2 report, the commission's final study addresses
problems with DOD's force planning methods and takes aim at the
Pentagon's
present strategy of sizing forces to fight and win two overlapping Major
Theater Wars.
In its Phase 2 report, the commission expressed concern that the
two-Major
Theater War strategy inhibits DOD reform efforts and prevents the
military
from deploying the five kinds of forces-namely, strategic nuclear,
homeland
security, conventional, expeditionary, and humanitarian/constabulary
forces-needed in the post-Cold War world to deal with symmetrical and
asymmetrical threats.
The panel maintains that the possibility of two such conflicts erupting
in
the same time frame is "remote" and is not supported by "actual
intelligence
estimates nor by this commission's view of the likely future," the Phase
3
report said. "We believe it is more useful to plan and retain readiness
for
a major conflict, while also securing the homeland and responding to
small-
or medium-scale conflicts, international terrorism, peacekeeping,
humanitarian actions, and other commitments requiring US military
support."
With that in mind, the commission called for a new top-down planning
process
that would accelerate efforts to transform the military's capabilities
as
recommended, with the highest priority reserved for developing DOD
expeditionary forces.
Commissioners did not offer suggestions on the numbers and types of
divisions, wings, and naval battle groups to carry out alternatives to
the
two-MTW strategy. Instead, the group focused attention on how to alter
processes that for years have led defense officials to conclude that it
needs to shape its forces according to the two-MTW yardstick.
The Phase 3 report said, "The Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD
to
shift from the threat-based force sizing process to one which measures
requirements against recent operational activity trends, actual
intelligence
estimates of potential adversaries' capabilities, and national security
objectives as defined in the new Administration's national security
strategy"-once formulated.
As part of the Secretary's attempts to forge a mechanism for sizing
forces,
the Defense Secretary "should revise the current categories of Major
Force
Programs used in the defense program review to focus on providing a
different mix of military capabilities." Those categories should
correspond
to the five kinds of forces endorsed by the commission, the report said.
Emphasizing Space
In addition to policies that affect military force structure, the report
gives special attention to DOD space policy.
"There is no more critical dimension of defense policy than to guarantee
US
commercial and military access to outer space," the report said. "The US
economy and military are vitally dependent on communications that rely
on
space. The clear imperative for the new era is a comprehensive national
policy toward space and a coherent governmental machinery to carry it
out."
The commission called for establishing an Interagency Working Group on
Space
at the National Security Council to coordinate the nation's space
policy.
The working group would comprise representatives from the Commerce,
State,
and Defense departments, Intelligence Community, and NASA, among others.
Commission Members
Co-Chairmen
Gary Hart, former Senator (D-Colo.).
Warren Rudman, former Senator (R-N.H.).
Commissioners
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House (R-Ga.).
James R. Schlesinger, former defense secretary, energy secretary, and
director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Retired Adm. Harry D. Train II, former commander in chief, US Atlantic
Command.
Retired Army Gen. John R. Galvin, former Supreme Allied Commander
Europe.
Andrew Young, former US ambassador to the United Nations.
Anne Armstrong, former counselor to Presidents Nixon and Ford and former
US
ambassador to Britain.
Norman R. Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin.
John Dancy, former NBC News White House, Congressional, and diplomatic
correspondent.
Leslie H. Gelb, former State Department director of politico-military
affairs; president of Council on Foreign Relations.
Lee Hamilton, former chairman (D-Ind.) of the House Intelligence
Committee;
director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Lionel H. Olmer, former undersecretary of commerce for international
trade.
Donald B. Rice, former Secretary of the Air Force.
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrCn8.bUNmfr
Or send an email To: agendas-u...@topica.com
This email was sent to: ll...@A-ALBIONIC.COM
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
==^================================================================
davitn...@webtv.net
noway ever will they be war in united states afer all we even support
other country are government has so much mney that we dont print are
money we paty offshore bankers look at your money it says federal resve
note not united states notes since 1913 we pay offshore bankers two
print are money if we were going bankrupt then we would stop paying
the federal reseve and start printingare own money i amnot sure why we
dont stop payiung them why it coast blillons that could put end two
homeless i guess big brother is stupid 200 east 10 street box 1017
ny ny 10003