WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank founded four decades ago, was pursuing aggressive research and development projects on homeland defense and had recommended major restructuring of United States antiterrorism policies and activities years before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
CSIS analysts -- like other experts in the small circle of institutions devoted to studying national defense issues -- had warned for years that a catastrophic terrorist hit on U.S. soil was a clear and present danger. As a part of their daily routine, they recommended strategies and policies to prevent or respond to the assault when it came.
Just six days before the attacks, Frank Cilluffo, chairman of the Committee on Combating Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism for CSIS's Homeland Defense Initiative, warned in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations of both emerging threats and increasingly powerful conventional explosives in the hands of non-state actors which could cause enormous civilian casualties and then more easily evade retaliation than state-sponsored counterparts.
"Osama bin Laden has publicly pronounced that acquiring weapons of mass destruction ... is a religious duty," Cilluffo presciently explained in his Sept. 5 testimony. "Whereas traditionally terrorism was a political tactic, an attempt to get to the negotiating table, some of today's groups motivated by radial religious or nationalist beliefs no longer seek a seat at the table, but rather want to blow the table up altogether and build their own in its place."
His message to the Senate committee has been consistent: An effective anti- and counter-terrorism strategy would require comprehensive measures to "strengthen, streamline and synergize" current capabilities.
Among the CSIS recommendations he has put forward to prevent or respond to an attack: Build up a first-rate intelligence capability; institute arms-control measures; coordinate efforts already in progress among federal agencies, between congressional committees, and with state and local authorities, foreign governments and private entities; organize a national infrastructure from the ground up and train those likely to be first on the scene in a surprise attack -- police, firefighters and medics; integrate medical, public health and human service communities in the antiterrorism effort and have them stockpile pharmaceuticals, vaccines and antidotes; and create a national bioterrorism surveillance capability.
To accomplish these recommendations, Cilluffo urged appointing a leader at the cabinet level who could focus and coordinate homeland defense efforts as they cut across agencies, jurisdictions and political bodies.
Cilluffo led the terrorism study effort in an 18-month interdisciplinary and interdepartmental analysis of homeland defense conducted across CSIS. The analysis, most recently updated last March, focuses on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks by terrorists on domestic targets.
"The United States has made real progress in defending against asymmetric and terrorist attacks," the report said, "but it has a long way to go." The study found that "most civil departments and agencies focus far too narrowly on terrorism and the federal government as a whole has not yet properly addressed the threat posed by nuclear and biological weapons."
The greatest deficiency? "There is a lack of coordination, effective analysis of the budget and meaningful program planning. Federal efforts, and most current studies and commissions addressing the problem, worry far too much about 'who's in charge.' There needs to be more focus on what the federal government should be in charge of, and how it can best support state and local efforts," the report said. The report is on the CSIS Web site at csis.org.
To further assess U.S. ability to respond to a large scale biological or chemical terrorist attack, CSIS partnered with several other organizations to conduct a 13-day exercise dubbed "Dark Winter."
The exercise, which took place last June, attempted to simulate a National Security Council meeting in which discussions over tensions in Asia are interrupted by news that a smallpox outbreak in Oklahoma City has been confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control. Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, former Senator Sam Nunn, former CIA director R. James Woolsey and dozens of other public officials and journalists participated.
"The goal was to see how the mechanisms would operate," said Jay Farrar, a military analyst and vice president of external affairs at CSIS. "We found out that they don't operate very well."
During the game, the disease spread to 25 states and 15 other countries. "We reached a point where most of the participants realized we would need to declare martial law," Farrar said. "The ultimate result of this exercise showed that the government is woefully unprepared to deal with the impact of a chemical or biological attack on the United States."
In a recent interview, Cilluffo expressed appreciation for the numerous government entities that have consistently spoken out on deficiencies in U.S. national security policies, but frustration at the small ratio of progress to rhetoric and research.
"There has been intense focus on homeland defense in the administration and on the Hill and a number of initiatives were on the drawing board, but the sound-bite on this is that the whole is less than sum of its parts," Cilluffo said.
Farrar agreed. "The trouble is inertia. A lack of urgency. The people who said it was going to happen are seen to have been pretty far ahead. Many talked about terrorist threats, but as officials made these claims there was no sense of urgency behind them. People paid lip service, but not substance, to the issues that really matter. (Leaders) were consumed with economic prosperity at the expense of hard-nosed attention to the fundamental basics of civics and what will keep us viable as a country."
Cilluffo said he hopes President George W. Bush's appointment of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to the new post of Director of the Office of Homeland Security on Sept. 20 is a harbinger of other changes to come.
"This was a transforming event. ... What really matters is backing the president of the United States. More effective homeland defense isn't something that will be accomplished overnight. Moving from concept to capability will take time."
