- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
February 12, 2009
Exclusive: The World at Risk Report – Will It Make a Difference? (Part Three of Three)
Click here for Part One and here for Part Two.
The World at Risk Commission Report – Implications for WMD Preparedness
SECTION THREE - Interview with Frances Townsend
Francis Townsend was one of the lead off speakers at the conference, providing her insights about the World at Risk report as well as discussing the security challenges the United States will continue to face, several of these were included in Part Two of this article.
FSM Contributing Editor Robin McFee had the opportunity for some ‘one on one’ time with Ms. Townsend after the conference. Ms. Townsend and Dr. McFee discussed several critical issues covering a range of domestic and international challenges. The following represents a few of the key questions and issues posed to Ms. Townsend and her responses, recommendations.
Bio
Before presenting the interview, and on a personal level, in my opinion Ms. Townsend embodies what is great in America – a nation of opportunity where anyone can grow up to become a senior advisor to the President, even President, regardless of socioeconomic background, race or gender.
And, although she needs no introduction to the FSM reader or preparedness community, Ms. Townsend is worthy of one never the less. She is a remarkable woman for many reasons.
Consider this – from a working class background (i.e. has not lost touch with the average citizen) she was the first in her family to graduate high school. Not born with a silver spoon, she worked her way through college.
Ms. Townsend graduated cum laude from the American University in 1982 where she received a B.A. in Political Science and a B.S. in Psychology. Ms. Townsend received her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1984. In 1986, she attended the Institute on International and Comparative Law in London, England. In 2001, she attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University where she participated in the Senior Managers in Government course. Ms. Townsend has taught trial advocacy at Harvard Law School and Pace University law School.
She has spent over 20 years in government service, including being Assistant Commandant for Intelligence at the United States Coast Guard, as well as several high level positions in the Office of Attorney General.
On May 28, 2004 Ms Townsend was appointed by President Bush to be Homeland Security Advisor. She chaired the Homeland Security Council as well as reported directly to the President on policy issues related to homeland security and counterterrorism. Prior to becoming Homeland Security Advisor, she served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.
INTERVIEW
Dr. Robin B. McFee: Securing nuclear materials and technology for the sake of global security not only rests on the US but China and Russia. Putin has pretty much sent a Sicilian message to us when he stated there were suitcase nuclear weapons unaccounted for from the Former Soviet Union and that he probably couldn’t guarantee control over all of them. I’m not suggesting he would necessarily allow them to go to the black market but he is sending a message that Putin will do what he chooses and use any form of leverage to meet his goals. While as experts we can all agree to disagree on the number and type of such weapons we know they exist, right? And clearly Russia has its own agenda that is not aligned with the US, and in fact their strategy is to support actions that undermine our influence?
Francis Townsend: Yes, that is true although I don’t think he would intentionally deliver such (nuclear weapons) materials to terrorists. Raising awareness internationally about the importance of securing nuclear materials in general as well as gaining greater cooperation from Russia about identifying and limiting their WMD capabilities must continue.
RBM: Am I overstating it that Russia is a potential danger to its neighbors, continues to have wide reaching industrial espionage activities going on in the United States, and that their advanced cyber technology including cyber crime capabilities is an important threat we and the world face?
FT: No, you are correct. And in terms of industrial espionage it is widespread. China is engaged as well.
RBM: OK, given Russia is outplaying us on the world stage in several arenas – energy, weapons sales to our adversaries, using Iran as a proxy, even aiding them in their nuclear programs, and providing advisors , clearly they are not acting as allies in limiting nuclear technology. Add to this their proxy Iran fomenting unrest in the Middle East – some could argue Russia benefits, if for no other reason than it distracts the U.S. Russia’s actions are clearly not aligned with ours; more likely intended to undermine us. And since we seem to care more about world opinion about our actions than Russia, can Putin et al, what can rein them in?
FT: Agreed. That is the challenge – getting Russia to work with the U.S. and other countries will require greater effort from the international community. The force and swiftness with which Russia moved into Georgia was stunning. It may have cost them some credibility internationally.
RBM: Which makes the actions more worrisome in spite of some disapproval on the world stage –that consideration didn’t stop Russia from shutting off the heat to the Ukraine. That said, what do we have, or what can we do to encourage Russia to work in closer alignment with the international community, especially the United States and our efforts to limit global violence and the spread of WMD? Put another way, what do we have that Russia wants or needs that we can offer as common ground that would ease the way for Putin and the Kremlin to help us work together on the recommendations of the World at Risk commission? Is it Muslim extremism? Economic opportunities?
FT: Those are two important options. Russia is facing a serious challenge of Muslim extremism although underappreciated internationally. They have reached out in the past for assistance and this may be one area we can provide significant expertise, which they recognize. They are also facing a challenging economy in spite of their oil and gas resources. This is another area we could work closer together which may enhance greater cooperation.
RBM: Speaking of Muslim extremism, it is the elephant in the room. The radicalization of the West is a clear and present danger to the United States, especially given the number of cells operating in the country as well as extremist training camps that are here. Few want to talk about it in a meaningful way. Any discussion of religion can be contentious but the issue of Islam in America, the increase in extremism amidst a larger, peaceful Muslim community that for the most part neither supports nor engages in anti American rhetoric or activities often results in highly charged encounters. How do we address this – balancing the need for cooperation and the necessity of security?
FT: Yes, this is a critical issue. Radicalization of the West is a security concern, and you are right, we need to remember most Muslims are not extremists. One of the most important things we can do is increase the dialogue with the Muslim community. We cannot afford to ignore the issue and avoid talking. What President Obama recently has done in engaging them was very important. Whether everyone agrees with the message or not, it is important to have the dialogue. We also need to continue strengthening our human intelligence capabilities. But we cannot overlook the importance of getting our message across and communicating with these important communities.
RBM: Simply put, if you had one more chance to be Senior Advisor to the President, what would you tackle? Let’s say President Obama just called you and said “Fran, I’ve got this problem, called the economy that I have to deal with. But I know we can’t afford to ignore the other threats our nation faces. I need your help. With your experience and expertise on homeland security and terrorism, I’d like you to come back.” Further, President Obama will give you carte blanche on any issue or project you choose. That said, if you could tackle one thing….is there something you wish you had had more time to work on before you left the Administration, or a new threat you would address – what would you do, or what would you champion if President Obama made that phone call to you?
FT: As you know, preparedness is a process, not so much a “fix” or one time approach. We have to be consistent in our efforts. We face a variety of ongoing threats that require constant vigilance. President Bush did a great job increasing our human intelligence capability. I would like to see that continue. You cannot overestimate the value of human intelligence. Human intelligence played a key role in thwarting high profile plots against airliners and cities in the US. So I would say, working to make sure we stayed on course in furthering human intelligence and focus on that capability.
SUMMARY
First, Ms. Townsend reinforced the importance of four critical areas that the Obama Presidency must if support:
1. Human intelligence – spies. President Bush made great strides forward in rebuilding our human intelligence capabilities. In spite of trillion dollar bail outs, we cannot afford to cut back on the investment in our spy capability. To do so would severely compromise our national security and put us in a pre 9 11 state of (un)readiness. We need to continue rebuilding our boots on the ground capabilities. Technology – from surveillance to satellites – is great, but no substitute for well trained professionals.
2. Muslim extremism remains a threat within the U.S. We must engage the Muslim community with even greater intensity.
3. Russia remains a global threat; they are not our allies. But by engaging them on common ground, within the mindset of “trust and verify,” we may be able to attenuate some of their actions which undermine US activities, objectives and efforts worldwide.
4. Russia’s WMD capabilities, especially their biological weapon program remain closely shrouded in secrecy; the international community must consistently raise this issue, express concerns and expect greater cooperation by the Kremlin. This of course may be especially difficult given their permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Never the less, global influence has some value and should be focused greater on Russia. So far media fawning on Putin and the relative lack of consequences the West has imposed (by intent or lack of capability) have left Russia a relatively free hand.
Second, if I was President Obama, I’d make the phone call and invite Ms. Townsend back into the arena. Transition periods are potentially dangerous times. Inviting folks with experience – regardless of which side of the aisle they have worked is critical to complement the new team.
The World at Risk Report – Will it make a difference? Can it make a difference? How it instructs and what is missing.
CONCLUSION
“In personal preparedness, each individual can make a huge difference. It is really an area where you can empower the individual.” – Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary of Homeland Security
The Framers never envisioned weapons of such epic proportion and yet there are those that exist, which could literally kill or maim if deployed properly – every man, woman and child from the Lincoln and Washington Monuments to the Capital Building. However, the use of deadly chemicals, biological weapons and mass murder at the hands of terrorists is not a new phenomenon, especially to ‘the era of Hal.’ What should have ushered in a century defined by images of 2001 A Space Odyssey with thoughts of greater exploration has been redefined by increasing numbers of global pockets of bloodshed, exacted by people who continue to seek deadlier weapons, including unconventional ones – what are often referred to as “WMD” agents or weapons of mass destruction. In response to the increased risk such weapons pose, President Bush, the 9/11 Commission and Congress have underscored the need for and mandated the work of The Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism.
One of the challenges with preparedness – and there are many – is where do you put the emphasis? Prevention? Interdiction? Response? Mitigation? Prevention is important – locking up the bad stuff so bad people can’t get it, is a great idea and certainly worth the effort. But we’ve seen how effective that is with drugs and weapons to know that isn’t the only answer. Interdiction – catching the bad guy with his hand in the cookie jar before he can steal it, poison it or deploy it – another great approach. But what happens if the bad guy gets the stuff, and uses it? Response comes in. And we’ve seen the variable quality of response nationwide in the anthrax events of 2001, in the industrial (could have easily been terrorist) chlorine gas railroad accidents over the last few years from Texas to South Carolina. There is a great disparity in the level and quality of preparedness nationwide towards chemicals, biologicals, and radiological weapons.
The Commission, through their World at Risk Report has provided us with an important reminder that as our scientific advances continue, there are those who would use such technologies as weapons. Their exhortation that preparedness is a process, not an event, that we must remain dedicated to the cause of limiting proliferation of these materials, while enhancing our security, intelligence and response capabilities must be listened to and taken seriously.
Some of the most insightful recommendations from Ms. Townsend and other members of the panel are worth repeating:
1. Continue building our human intelligence capability
2. Engage the public in preparedness
a. Increase public resilience through information not fear
3. Develop a culture of security, not paranoia but security
4. Continue putting pressure on terrorist groups here and abroad, including the nations that harbor or support them
5. Inculcate the notion that it is our duty to protect dangerous materials that we work with
6. Technology is important but not the sole answer
7. We cannot afford to overlook the full realm of preparedness – prevention to response are all critical
8. Russia needs to be more forthcoming about its biological weapon capabilities – and that will involve greater international efforts
9. We must engage Russia on issues of common importance if any likelihood of their assisting in reducing WMD proliferation is to be expected
10. We must engage Muslim nations and increase our dialogue
11. Pakistan is one of the most critical vulnerabilities – possessing nuclear weapons that could fall into terrorist hands if greater political/military instability occurs
George Santayana said it best: “those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.” WMD have been used – chemical, radiological and biological. Al Qaeda, cults, terrorist organizations and nations previously referred to as “rogue states” continue to seek out advanced weapons. They only have to be lucky once while we need to be lucky all the time. Chance truly favors the prepared. Now is not the time to drop our guard. But the only way we continue to work on preparedness is to enlist the support of the public; it will be their funds – at a time when money is tight across the government continuum from local municipalities to the federal government. Unless we decide right now that the public must be part of the solution – inviting them to the table and providing a reason for their continued support – even the best recommendations of the Commission will ultimately become relegated to the back shelf of the library. Making the public aware that preparedness and reenergizing the economy are not a zero sum game; we cannot afford to do one thing at a time or wait until we can readily afford preparedness. Some things just have to be paid for by sweat equity, a sense of duty and because it is the right thing to do.
If the public is to encourage our leaders – Congress and the White House to follow the recommendations of the Commission, greater communication is required. The government needs to focus on a unified, honest message, identifying where we are, where we want to go, and HOW the average citizen as well as the critical organizations tasked with preparedness, can achieve greater security.
The economy remains the number one issue of concern to the American public based upon most national polls, with Iraq and security issues a distant second. Perhaps the greatest threat we face is 9/11 amnesia. The new administration, in an effort to distance itself from what it perceived as an over emphasis on the war on terror, may make its first and most critical mistake by doing so. President Obama is a great communicator – as leader of the free world and defender of the nation, now is the time to have a serious conversation with the American public that while the economy is a critical issue – both for national benefit but from a security perspective, we cannot afford to address one threat at the exclusion or diminution of others. The war on terror is far from over.
President Obama reaching out to the Arab and Muslim world is an important step to engage the nations of the Middle East. But Mr. Obama take heed: your efforts may make much of the Middle East, even the greater Muslim world like the U.S. more; but that bonhomie alone will not prevent extremists from targeting us. We need all the friends we can get and they can be a source of critical early warnings. But at the end of the day, our threat reduction strategy must continue to be multipronged – and that starts with engaging the American people, reminding them the threat isn’t gone and we will not abandon our efforts. For that message to be effective and supported by the citizenry, President Obama must convey he is as committed as our adversaries. In all things competitive, especially war – the most committed usually win.
If terrorism is one of the defining issues of the early 21st century, then Weapons of Mass Destruction remain one of the demons inherited from the 20th century. Whether biological weapons, chemicals or nuclear, numerous nations are engaged in developing or possess old stockpiles of these agents. Russia remains a leading biological weapons nation; but their program remains in a black box and closely guarded. Few details are known except what defectors share.
Biological weapons are not overly difficult to develop; many exist in nature. Plague, anthrax, tularemia continue to cause illness worldwide. Adapting natural pathogens to more aggressive weapons versions can be done with the right resources. And biological agents are clearly not so tough to deploy as the anthrax events of 2001 demonstrated. Simple envelopes in the mail were effective.
While the WaR Report deemphasized chemical weapons, they remain weapons of convenience, with most neighborhoods in proximity to at least on potentially toxic industrial chemical. Whether organophosphate insecticides, which are poor mans nerve agents, or chlorine or other agents, these are all ubiquitous and easy to divert for malevolent objectives. The rationale of the Commission to exclude chemicals due to their assessment that biologicals and nuclear can cause a greater magnitude of deaths may hold in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but in the big picture ignores the likelihood of deaths, societal disruption and injuries that chemicals can cause. Consider the Bhopal accident or Tokyo sarin events. What is more worrisome is the implication – if it isn’t included in the report, then it may be deemphasized. A potentially fatal error!
Nevertheless, the World at War report does a laudable job raising awareness of threats that the world cannot continue to ignore. These affect all of us, and will not go away by wish or even fiat. We must make a concerted effort to identify where these weapons are, requiring that all elusive ‘global cooperation’ and as importantly the cells, cults, entities and nations that would deploy such agents.
The WMD Commission has reminded us of the threats. But their efforts are only the beginning. The greatest risk would be to think the job is done. The toughest part will be implementing the recommendations.
It is a daunting task to protect the nation. But the good news – we’re all stakeholders. And the American people remain a force for good, are decent and still strong. A good renewal point to enhance preparedness and a cure for 9/11 amnesia is to read the World at Risk Report.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
