St. Croix Review - Ramblings

Ramblings

Allan C. Brownfeld

Allan C. Brownfeld is our correspondent covering Washington D.C.

Protecting Homeland Security: A Daunting Challenge After Years of Neglect

      The September 11 terrorist assaults have revealed just how vulnerable the U.S. is to terrorists and how difficult it will be to mount an effective homeland defense.
      More than forty agencies now share responsibility for preventing and coping with terrorist attacks. That is why President Bush is creating the cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security under the direction of Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
      The evidence of our weakness in this area is overwhelming. Consider the question of airport and airline security.
      For years government watchdogs and outside experts have warned that U.S. airport security is no match for an organized terrorist organization. Loose enforcement of tarmac rules, limited background screening and a poorly paid work force all increase the chances that a coordinated attack could succeed. Study after study showed that people with evil designs and the means to make trouble could board an aircraft or hide enough explosives to blow it from the sky. When the Department of Transportation investigators tried to breach security at eight airports three years ago, they succeeded sixty percent of the time. In July, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) said it would seek $99,000 in fines from American Airlines because of lax security. Terrorist hijacked two of the airline's planes on September 11. On a single day in June 2000, the FAA said American failed to perform a passenger identification check on two flights, hauled unaccompanied bags on five flights and failed to ask proper questions about baggage on two flights.
      "The domestic and international aviation system has serious vulnerabilities," Keith O. Fultz, assistant comptroller general in the General Accounting Office (GAO), told Congress in 1996. "Protecting civil aviation from a terrorist attack is an urgent national issue."
      Logan International Airport in Boston, where two of the flights in the September 11 attacks originated, was cited for 136 security violations from 1997 to 1999. The FAA fined the Massachusetts Port Authority $178,000 for the breaches after the airport failed to screen baggage properly or restrict access to secure areas and planes.
      Security at U.S. airports is provided by a variety of agencies and private security concerns. There is no centralized command. When it comes to monitoring passengers and their baggage, the airlines themselves are responsible.
      "It is very easy to have someone get on a plane and wreak havoc," said Harvey W. Kushner, a Long Island University professor and terrorism consultant to several federal agencies. "The security at airports is pathetic."

I feel nothing but frustration, because the issue of who should provide airport security has been raised time and time again. It is the only place in America where law enforcement has been delegated to private companies: the airlines.

He spoke of poorly trained and paid screeners who operate airport X-ray machines and metal detectors. "They catch the insane, they catch the sloppy and they catch the ignorant. But they aren't going to catch a sophisticated terrorist."
      A series of critical federal and congressional audits over the past decade condemning airport security systems were not enough to force changes. Now, the Treasury Department plans to resume putting sky marshals on flights, while members of Congress are proposing a federal takeover of airport baggage-screening measures and tightened background checks on airport employees.
      In his address to Congress, the president promised that Pennsylvania Governor Ridge, in the new position as head of the Office of Homeland Security, would "lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come."
      The idea of a centralized authority was the leading recommendation made earlier this year by the U.S. Commission on National Security, which conducted a three-year review of national defense strategy and was led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. The commission advocated an ambitious government reorganization that would move the Border Patrol, Coast Guard and Customs Service from three separate federal departments into a National Homeland Security Agency that would also incorporate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
      The challenge of just getting a better handle on U.S. border traffic remains daunting. Figures compiled by the Commission on National Security show that each day 340,000 vehicles cross U.S. borders, 58,000 cargo shipments enter the country and 1.3 million people come in. Yet less than two per cent of those cargo shipments and vehicles were being inspected by the Customs Service.
      Former national security adviser Anthony Lake warned that if Governor Ridge is to be effective, he will have to "take powers away from various different agencies that now have them. There is nothing harder in the federal government than doing that."
      Otherwise, Lake said, the job becomes "like the drug czar, which is essentially policy coordinating and trying to follow budgets-talking about budgets, but not being able to control them."

No homeland czar can possibly hope to coordinate the almost hopeless dispersal of authority that currently characterized the forty or fifty agencies or elements of agencies with some piece of responsibility for protecting our homeland.

      To succeed, Ridge must also have the power to oversee a disaster once it strikes, to adjudicate among competing priorities and bailiwicks, Lake said. FEMA, for instance, cares about victims, the FBI is focused on the crime scene. If a smallpox epidemic breaks out in a biological attack, how does the government allocate scarce vaccines? Healthcare workers? The military? An "objective third party needs to take control," Lake said. "If Ridge has those capacities, it is a great step forward."
      While some lawmakers were championing far-reaching changes, like those accomplished by President Harry S. Truman in 1947 when he created the Department of Defense, the administration decided against creating a federal department, choosing instead to put a homeland agency within the White House. The roadblocks to putting that concept into a plan are formidable. The Constitution has prohibitions against the American military operating on American soil. Any military employment has to be under civilian authority, which could be Mr. Ridge.
      Washington bureaucracies are loath to give up resources or authority. Indeed, Vice President Cheney was tapped last spring to come up with a plan for homeland defense by this fall. He was briefed by Governor James Gilmore of Virginia, who led another panel that recommended counter-terrorist or homeland defense agency. But administration officials said that study barely got off the ground-it was more a review of existing reports-rendered moot by the September 11 terrorist attack.
      This comes in the midst of the largest mobilization in the nation's history to protect against terrorism on U.S. soil, including Navy and Coast Guard patrols off both coasts, Air Force patrols of the sky, National Guard units deployed around the country and heightened security at power plants, airports, government buildings and other possible targets.
      Several politicians and terrorism experts suggest that the government has been preparing for the wrong kind of attack. Political and media attention has tended to focus on the acquisition by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction, such as a crude nuclear bomb or a biological weapon. This came on top of a focus on conventional terrorist attacks such has car bombs and airline hijackings. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert for the Rand Corporation said:

We focused on the low end-the car bomb and the truck bomb-and the more exotic high-end threats like biological warfare but we neglected the middle. He said the government's success in protecting public buildings from car bombs may have encouraged terrorist to devise new and even more destructive methods for attacking high-profile targets.
      The Bush administration is seeking immediate expansion of powers to fight terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft is sending Congress proposed legislation to expand federal agencies' use of wiretaps and money-laundering statutes to keep tabs on suspected terrorists and to increase penalties for those who harbor of finance them. And while concerns have been raised about civil liberties and how to define terrorism, members of both parties are eager to act.
      Of particular concern is the potential of bio-terrorism. Experts say it would be a lot easier to conduct and is more likely to occur in the next few years than a replay of the September 11 hijackings. A small cloud of bacteria or viruses could easily and silently infect tens of thousands of people, triggering fatal outbreaks of anthrax, smallpox, plague or any of a dozen other diseases.
      Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Said:

The events in New York and Washington were tragedies beyond what anybody had previously imagined, but the potential of biological terrorism is far greater in terms of loss of life and disruption. . . . It would be less graphic-no flames and explosions-but much more insidious. Anyone with a cough would be a weapon.       In many ways, the U.S. is less prepared for bio-terrorism than for conventional forms of terrorism. An October 1999 General Accounting Office report documented major gaps in the nation's system for protecting itself against biological attacks. Inspectors found shortages of vaccines and medicines, stockrooms filled with expired drugs and lax security measures where crucial drugs were stored.
      A January 2001 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta concluded that the nation's public health infrastructure is "not adequate to detect and respond to a bio-terrorist event." And a March 2001 report noted that twenty percent of the nation's pharmaceutical and medical supplies held by the federal Office of Emergency Preparedness for bio-terrorist attack were stored in a vault where the temperature was ninety-five degrees and that had no air conditioning. The medicines' potency could be assured only if kept cooler than eighty-six degrees.
      Norman Cantor, an emeritus professor at New York University and a plague scholar, says that the U.S. is largely unprepared to fight major outbreaks of deadly diseases like plague. "It would be some improvement over the Middle Ages, but not that great an improvement," he said.
      Federal authorities also fear an attack on the nation's computer network system. The U.S. needs to prepare for "an electronic Pearl Harbor," warns Marv Langston, former deputy chief information officer at the Defense Department. An assault on computer and communications systems could cripple the U.S. as badly as a physical attack, according to several Pentagon studies in the 1990s. The attack could disrupt power plans, airports, water and other systems dependent on computerized systems in vulnerable locations.
      Security consultant Donn Parkers says: "Terrorists attacked our financial and political centers September 11. The logical next step is to attack our computer infrastructure and hamper e-commerce and communication. That would shake Americans' daily lives."
      Those responsible for our safety have, it seems, left us largely undefended from the threat of international terrorism on American soil. Building such defenses quickly will be no easy task.

Is It Time for a Thaw in U.S. Relations with Iran?

      There is evidence that a new era of improved relations between the U.S. and Iran may be in the process of emerging.
      Many in Washington are encouraged by Mohammad Khatami's overwhelming reelection as Iran's president in June, which is consistent with the fact that reformers have been large electoral winners at every level of Iranian government in recent years. The fact that the constitution left in place by the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution keeps decisive power in the hands of the unelected clerical establishment, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of Iranians clearly support further democracy, reform, and better relations with the West.
      A number of prominent political figures have called for a more positive U.S. approach to Iran. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Presidents Ford and Bush, says that while the dominant political power in Iran now rests with a conservative group of Muslim clerics who are repressive at home and support terrorism abroad, something important has changed:

This is the attitude of the people themselves. Over the past four years, the Iranian electorate has three times (in presidential, parliamentary and local elections) voted, by majorities of as much as two to one in favor of liberal change. Sixty per cent of the Iranian people are younger than twenty-five, having no direct knowledge of the Iranian revolution and the difficulties with the U.S. that followed. What is at stake for the U.S. is no less than the outcome of the struggle between the people of Iran and their harsh masters.

In Scowcroft's view, the U.S. challenge is how to assist the Iranian people in having their desires reflected in the policies of their government. He states that

A signal from the U.S. showing the desire for a better bilateral relationship might provide encouragement and impetus to reformers. . . . The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act . . . has been almost completely ineffective. . . . A study by the Atlantic council of the U.S. recommends that the Sanctions Act not be renewed. That is wise counsel.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Indiana), who was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 1993 to 1995, and James Schlesinger, energy secretary and defense secretary under Jimmy Carter, call for turning a friendlier U.S. face to Iran:

Beyond this, Hamilton and Schlesinger point out,

Our current policy also has substantial economic costs. American companies are missing opportunities to invest in Iran and develop its vast oil and gas resources. At a time when we need to ensure more diverse and reliable sources of energy, Iran's natural resources could be of great benefit to the U.S. and the world. . . . It would be a strategic blunder to ignore the Iranian people's clear call for reform by simply maintaining and renewing existing unilateral sanctions.

      The Bush administration has, thus far, been far more cautions. Early in July, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the impetus for improving relations with Iran must come from Tehran, not Washington. He said that the U.S. would measure its policies in light of the policies coming from Iran. Of President Khatami, Powell said: "We will watch what he does with this victory."
      Washington severed ties with Iran after Islamic militant students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 during the Islamic revolution and seized 52 American hostages, holding them for 444 days. Since then, U.S. concerns about Iranian support for terrorism, acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and attempts to sabotage the Middle East peace process have fueled American antipathy for Tehran.
      Reformers in Iran have "not yet produced a situation where it would be appropriate not to go forward with the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA)," Powell said, referring to the law enacted in 1986 to discourage European and other foreign firms from investing in Iran and Libya. It gives the U.S. President the authority to bar or reduce imports of goods from countries that invest in Iran and Libya.
      The law is set to expire, but its renewal has overwhelming support in Congress. But the Bush administration has decided that it won't punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries.
      Many in the administration are skeptical of the usefulness of unilateral sanctions, especially when they antagonize countries whose support is needed to crack down on terrorism or reduce the proliferation of military technology. Vice President Cheney, in particular, gave frequent speeches criticizing U.S. sanctions on Iran when he was chief executive of oil-services company Halliburton Co.
      Seeking to gain leeway for a possible modification of U.S. sanctions policy, the Bush administration has pushed congress for a two-year extension of ILSA instead of the five years favored by the majority in both the House and Senate. But the administration has shifted away from trying to scrap the act, which many officials in the State Department had advocated earlier this year. Congress is expected to approve a five-year extension.
      The recent wave of investment in Iran by foreign companies is stirring anger among U.S. oil companies, who are barred by presidential order of U.S. laws from investing in Iran and Libya. "We are watching on the sidelines as our competitors flood into those countries," said Gary Marfin, manager of government affairs for Conoco Inc., which has a history both in Iran and Libya. Mr. Marfin says that if U.S. oil companies are kept out of Iran for another year or more, "it would be difficult for them to pursue their interests," because European companies would have too strong a foothold.
      Puneet Talwar, who served on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff from 1999 to 2001 and is now on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expresses the view that,

American policy toward Iran should proceed very carefully. . . . It is time for the Bush administration to abandon the containment strategy it inherited and embark on a new policy of moderate engagement. By slowly helping Tehran reintegrate into the world community through various multilateral engagements, Washington can encourage and strengthen positive forces within Iran. This tactic could eventually lead to a rapprochement between the two long-time enemies. . . . Iran is slowly changing, and although the advances remain uncertain, it is time that U.S. policy followed suit.       What is keeping the U.S. from a more positive engagement with Iran is the fact that while most Iranians seem to want democratic reform and closer relations with the West, their governmental structure does not yet reflect that fact.
      In the last year, President Khatami's moderates have been thrown on the defensive by a hard-line backlash by conservatives who still control Iran's courts, the Revolutionary Guards, the office of the Supreme Leader, and powerful bodies such as the Council of Guardians, which can veto legislation deemed to conflict with the Iranian constitution or Islamic principles. Under Iran's constitution, ultimate authority is vested in the supreme leader, who is appointed by a conservative-dominated council, establishes guidelines for Iran's domestic and foreign policies and controls the state media, the judiciary, the Revolutionary Guards, the armed forces and other key power centers. The president appoints a cabinet with the approval of parliament but occupies a secondary position, managing the day-to-day affairs of government within the parameters set by the Supreme Leader. The hardliners have managed to harass and drive from office close associates of Khatami.
      Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that should be wiped off the face of the earth, is sending arms to south Lebanon in pursuit of his goal, according to Israeli officials. Iran's regime has sent Hezbollah guerrillas in south Lebanon as many as 8,000 Katyusha rockets that could easily strike most of the northern third of Israel, the officials say. In May, the State Department accused Iran of being "the most active" among state sponsors of terrorism in 2000. There is also growing evidence of Iran's involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996. In announcing the indictment of thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese in the Khobar bombing, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen and injured about 500, Attorney General John Ashcroft charged that Iranian officials "inspired, supported and supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah" in the attack.
      Within Iran, repression continues. Many proponents of reform have lost faith in President Khatami. Fundamental change is not in his power, despite his solid electoral mandate. The "real" hard-line government continues to run Iran. Recently, for example, Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji was sent back to prison for six years. According to the International Press Institute, Ganji was accused of "propagating against the regime" and hanged upside down and kicked in the face and stomach. His latest prosecution occurred at Iran's pro-reform newspapers were being shut down.
      Despite the wishes of most Iranians and many in Washington, U.S. relations with Iran are unlikely to change dramatically-except at the edges-until Iran's government and policies reflect the pro-democracy feelings of the Iranian people. As long as the regime embraces repression at home and terror abroad, advocates of a more liberal approach toward Tehran will quite properly have a difficult political task in altering U.S. policy.

We would like to thank the following people for their generous contributions to the publication of this journal: Beverly H. Adams, H. Wayne Agnew, William D. Andrews, Nancy M. Banick, Harry S. Barrows, Charles A. Bauer, Dean A. Benjamin, Priscilla L. Buckley, Irma Irene Clark, John Alder Clark, Leo J. Corazza, Gary W. Croudis, Gary Culver, Jerome C. Fritz, Gary D. Gillespie, Joyce H. Griffin, Weston S. Hammel, Thomas E. Heatley, Arthur Hills, John A. Howard, Marjorie J. Ihle, David A. Jones, Thomas F. Kordonowy, Joseph L. Laughlin, Herbert London, Bruno J. Mauer, Leonard C. McGuire, Rena J. Middough, David P. Mitchel, King Odell Jr., R. L. Oshsenhirt, Betty Alice Pugh, Michael J. Ryan, Richard P. Schonland, Harry R. Schumacher, Richard R. Shank, Norm H. Slade, David L. Smith, Norman Stewart, George Swanlund, Julian Tonning, Daniel J. Torrance, Jack E. Turner, Gaylord T. Willett, Max C. Williamson, Lowell M. Winthrop, Chris Yunker.