WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 (UPI) -- In the three months since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, think-tank analysts have sought to put them into strategic context. They have often focused on specific issues, such as homeland security, civil liberties, or the military response against the al Qaeda network. But the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies has just released one of the first "big picture" strategies for the United States campaign against terror.
The report, "To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism," is audacious not only in its scope, but also in the extent of its recommendations, many of which deal with fundamentally restructuring the federal government to function in the post-Sept. 11 world.
About 30 CSIS scholars under the leadership of Kurt Campbell and Michèle Flournoy collaborated on the report, "To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism," which was published in connection with the Naval Institute Press.
Few think-tank analysts outside CSIS have read the report, which was published last week. Some agreed, however, to comment to United Press International on some of the report's findings.
The report's authors have no illusions that even their comprehensive, practical recommendations would represent only the beginning of the United States' efforts to establish a reliable defense against terrorism.
"Our goal was really not to be the last word," said co-author Campbell, who is also director of the International Security Program at CSIS. "But we think we're either among the first word, or among the first words, talking about the comprehensive nature of the problems ahead. What we decided was that we needed an integrated holistic approach about how this was going to affect American lives, American purposes, not just in the short term, but many years to come."
The book opens by examining life in United States on Sept. 10, exploring the cultural and governmental mindsets that kept Americans from seeing the full danger posed by Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.
"In retrospect, some of it looks so obvious," Campbell said. "But it needed Sept. 11 to catalyze."
One of the report's most ambitious recommendations is that the United States must launch a concentrated public-private initiative to protect against bioterrorism, similar to the Manhattan Project that crash-developed the atomic bomb during World War II. Its military initiatives include adding a military commander-in-chief for homeland defense to the Department of Defense, as well as making homeland defense the main mission of the National Guard.
CSIS also recommends creating a "homeland security service corps," along the lines of the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, which would cover areas such as the public health service and airport security. On the diplomatic side, the report calls for strong U.S. action to help "failed states," in the form of a revised foreign-aid strategy.
One of the most creative and intriguing recommendations is that the president and his top advisers should take part in regular war-gaming sessions. Greg Treverton, a senior analyst in the RAND Corp.'s national security research division, believes this is a good idea, but considers it "pretty rare" when it happens. The benefit, he said, is in building teamwork within the administration.
"It's good to have new forms of relations between people who normally talk to each other," says Treverton, such as the second- and third-level officials of agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
It is crucially important, he said, to have U.S. officials play a "Red Team" -- that is, the terrorist side. Too often, he said, war-gaming produces limited results because we tend to make caricatures of our opponents.
Retired Col. Dan Smith, the associate director of operations at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, agreed with the idea of the president and staff participating in regular war-gaming, but called it a difficult plan to implement. "They'd be tied up in day-to-day functions of running the government," he said.
It would also be difficult to form a Red Team to play the terrorists, Smith said. "Ideally you'd get people who were raised in another culture with the proper security clearance. It could be difficult to get people with proper security clearance and experience in high government positions."
Campbell says that over the short term, Congress's most important action should be an overhaul of the various committees that oversee homeland security. About 14 committees share jurisdiction over the issue.
"Reorganizing the committees is absolutely vital," he says. "There's too much oversight or the oversight is too widely dispersed." He called for synchronicity, which the report defines as an integrated network or "system of systems."
"There is a sort of congressional propensity to want to do too much" over the short term, Campbell said, and added that the executive branch and Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge needed an opportunity to see what works. "We've got to let the executive branch build up some experience."
Smith and Treverton agree with the need to reorganize Congress, as did Mike Scardaville, a homeland-defense policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"Committee structures are power," Scardaville said, and legislators don't want to give up that power. "That's also tied to the issue of whether you're going to reorganize the federal government (in general). It's part of a larger debate."
The outside analysts also looked tentatively at the CSIS proposals to reorganize both homeland security and the National Guard's role in it. Treverton said he was in favor of reorganizing the National Guard to focus on homeland defense. But the guard itself, he said, was generally opposed to such a move.
"It looks like being relegated to the JV (junior varsity)," he said, rather than standing by to serve with the regular forces on combat missions. Governors don't like the idea, either, he said, because it lessens their power over the guard.
Smith said the issue was a matter of definition, because the National Guard already carries out many "homeland defense" missions such as disaster relief.
"Their historic function is protection of the citizenry," he said. Smith did think, however, that the CSIS report's recommendations might help to integrate the guard's work more closely with that of civilian agencies.
Scardaville also notes that the guard already focuses on homeland security. "I think that's a big part of the National Guard's mission," he says. "We should stop sending them to Bosnia to walk children to school and pick up garbage."
Scardaville opposes the creation of a commander in chief for homeland defense, saying that it would simply be one more military position fighting for a budget and equipment. He believes, however, that it might help to create a civilian position at the Defense Department to oversee homeland security issues.
The CSIS report's recommendation that the federal government establish a homeland-security volunteer corps also met with mixed responses. Treverton, who has a daughter in the AmeriCorps, was in favor of the idea, saying it would be good to gain the support of qualified volunteers. Smith saw it as a form of universal service, an alternative to military service. Scardaville, however, doubted a federal program was necessary.
"Civic groups are probably going to be more effective than a national program administered in Washington," he said.
All three men expressed concern that the volunteers might be called to perform jobs for which they were not qualified, such as airport security. They also disagreed to some extent with CSIS's call for rescuing "failed states," such as war-ravaged Afghanistan, which can become havens for terrorists. To Scardaville, this sounded like Clinton-era "nation building," which he said hadn't worked in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Though not opposed in principle to the concept of nation building, Treverton said the United States is not particularly good at this form of diplomacy. "As we have established norms," however, "we have made progress."
Asked how the CSIS report might resonate with average citizens, Campbell pointed out that Americans' lives have fundamentally changed and said: "What we've seen on Sept. 11, and consequently, is that you can be called into service any time."
