Ramblings

Allan C. Brownfeld

Allan C. Brownfeld covers Washington, D.C.

Despite Plans for a New Agency, the U.S. Remains as Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack as It Was Prior to September 11.

Despite proposals for a Department of Homeland Security and a variety of measures designed to improve the nation's defenses against terrorist attack, experts fear that the U.S. remains as vulnerable to such an assault as it was prior to Sept. 11.

The proposed new Department of Homeland Security would inherit most of its 170,000 employees and a budget of $37 billion from other agencies it would absorb, including the Secret Service, Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs Service. It would not include the three largest intelligence operations: the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the president's proposal "does not address the intelligence problems we have."

Whatever the merits of a new agency, the fact remains that, at the present time, the U.S. remains largely unprepared for the kinds of terrorist attacks that may now be in the planning stages.

In June, a team of the nation's leading scientists called for a comprehensive rethinking of anti-terrorism infrastructure, underscoring the need to quickly bring existing technologies into use, accelerate new research and create a Homeland Security Institute to evaluate counter-terrorism strategies.

The report by the National Research Council gave a long list of shortcomings in scientific preparedness, including lack of coordination in research on nuclear or "dirty bomb" threats and "enormous vulnerabilities" in the ability of the public health system to defend against biological warfare.

The report detailed challenges in developing vaccines for airborne pathogens, creating better sensors and filters for dangerous chemicals, building a system to conquer sabotage of the nation's food supply, finding better methods to fend off attacks on nuclear reactors, the electrical power grid and communications systems, and developing "defense in depth" for airport and other transportation security.

Throughout the report, the researchers lamented a lack of coordination among federal agencies and the absence of a "coherent overall strategy" to "harness" the strengths of the U.S. science and engineering communities, and direct them most appropriately toward critical goals, both short-term and long.

The National Research Council is the operating arm of three private, nonprofit organizations of the nation's most prominent scientists and engineers. The council developed the report, "Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism," using its own funds. Richard Klausner, co-chair of the committee that wrote the report, said the intent of the 120 scientists who participated was "not to criticize the government," but "to say that the current structure of government was not optimized to deal with terrorism."

Early in July, it was reported that checkpoint screeners at 32 of the largest U.S. airports failed to detect weapons-guns, dynamite or bombs-in almost a quarter of undercover tests by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in June.

The tests, the first since the security agency began overseeing checkpoint screening in February, were done by agents who were instructed to do little to try to conceal the items as they passed through screening checkpoints. Overall, screeners missed simulated weapons in 24 percent of the tests. At three major airports-in Cincinnati, Jacksonville and Las Vegas-screeners failed to detect potentially dangerous items in at least half the tests. At Los Angeles International Airport, the results were not much better. The failure rate there was 41 percent.

"A 41 percent failure rate is just pathetic," says Jack Plaxe, an aviation security consultant. "There has to be problems with the people or their training."

Nationwide, screeners often failed to find simulated weapons on agents after the metal-detector alarms sounded. In 178 tries, screeners failed to find potentially dangerous items on agents in a third of the tests.

The results raise questions about whether screening has improved since the TSA took responsibility for overseeing airport checkpoints.

Another growing concern relates the danger of cyber-attack by terrorists. Unsettling signs of al Qaeda's aims and skills in cyberspace have led some government experts to conclude that terrorists are at the threshold of using the Internet as a direct instrument of bloodshed. The threat is different from familiar disruptions by hackers responsible for viruses and worms. It comes instead at the meeting points of computers and the physical structures they control.

U.S. analysts believe that by disabling or taking command of the floodgates in a dam, or a substation handling 300,000 volts of electric power, an intruder could use virtual tools to destroy real-world lives and property. They surmise that al Qaeda may aim to employ those techniques together with "kinetic weapons" such as explosives.

Ronald Dick, director of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center said:

The event I fear most is a physical attack in conjunction with a successful cyber-attack on the responders' 911 system or on the power grid.

Dick said those additions to a conventional al Qaeda attack might mean that

. . . first responders couldn't get there . . . and water didn't flow, hospitals didn't have power. Is that an unreasonable scenario? Not in this world. And that keeps me awake at night.

In a meeting with President Bush in February, Richard A. Clarke, the White House cyber-security adviser, and Howard A. Schmidt, vice-chairman of the critical infrastructure board, reported that researches in Finland had identified a serious security hole in the Internet's standard language for routing data through switches. A government threat team found implications-for air traffic control and civilian and military phone links, among others-that were even more serious.

President Bush ordered the Pentagon and key federal agencies to patch their systems. But most of the vulnerable networks were not government owned. Since February 12, "those who have the fix in their power are in the private sector," Schmidt said. Asked about progress, he replies: "I don't know that we'd ever get to 100 percent.

Disappointed at the pace of repairs, Clarke traveled to San Jose, California on February 19 and accused industry leaders of spending more on coffee than on information security. "You will be hacked," he told them. "What's more, you deserve to be hacked."

Tritak, at the Commerce Department, appealed to patriotism. Speaking of al Qaeda, he said:

When you've got people who are saying "We're coming after your economy," everyone has a responsibility to do their bit to safeguard against it.

While new public-private partnerships are helping, the government's job is far from easy. Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute in Maryland, said not even banks and brokerages, considered the most security-conscious businesses, tell the government when their systems are attacked. Experts said public companies worry about the loss of customer confidence and the legal liability to shareholder or security vendors when they report flaws.

The FBI also has problems with its "key asset initiative," an attempt to identify the most dangerous points of vulnerability in 5,700 companies deemed essential to national security. The FBI's Ronald Dick notes that

What we really want to drill down to, eventually, is not the companies but the actual things themselves, the actual switches . . . that are vital to a firm's continued operations.

He acknowledged a rocky start:

For them to tell us where their crown jewels are is not reasonable until you've built up trust.

There is a growing feeling that the U.S. has yet to confront the real costs of making the nation secure from terrorism. "I'm awfully concerned about what we see here in terms of business as usual," said Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee). He said:

I think the jury is still out on whether or not we have the political will to do many of the things that we're going to need to do.

Thompson worries that Bush is trying to "scrimp" on homeland defense and fight terrorism "on the cheap." Others agree. Rep. J. C. Watts (R-Oklahoma), chairman of the House Republican Conference, states:

I don't know if the American people understand how massive this undertaking is, what the cost is going to be, and unfortunately we haven't thought about this.

After Pearl Harbor, Congress declared war and the U.S. mobilized fully to fight it. This time it's different. Robert D. Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute said,

The United States was able to invent, build and blow up the first atomic bomb faster than we have been able to create a foreign student visa tracking system.

Critics argue that the Bush White House believes a new homeland security department can be created at no increase in spending, and with tax cuts, as well. Yet, they point out, only half the 2,000 explosive detection systems needed at the nation's 429 airports can be built by year's end, according to the new Transportation Security Administration. "Contrast this with World War II," said historian Kenneth Rendell, when "Ford produced an airplane every hour, Kaiser a ship every 80 hours."

Many experts advocate making ordinary state-issued drivers' licenses more foolproof by implanting them with computer chips bearing an encrypted version of the driver's thumbprint. Security scanners at checkpoints then can easily verify the identity of air travelers or people seeking access to sensitive areas. But motor vehicle commissioners in every state are resisting the proposal, complains Rep. James Moran (D-Virginia), a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Moran said:

There's comfort in the status quo; they don't want to extend their responsibilities to any greater extent than they have to.

Pollsters find Americans no longer focused on the war on terrorism. Republican pollster William McInturff reports that,

An overwhelming 79 percent . . . say that national issues like taxes, health care and education will be more important in deciding how they will vote for Congress than . . . issues like the war on terrorism . . .

As September 11 recedes, the public rage and urgency over the attacks may dissipate as the public becomes distracted, experts warn.

"The longer the time between an attack and subsequent attacks, the greater will be the human memory-lapse and denial," the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine said in a report issued June 25. "Our society is too complex and interconnected to defend against all possible threats," declared the report.

Thus far, the U.S. seems not to have faced up to the reality of the many threats to be confronted. Senator Thompson says:

I think this will be a tremendously expensive proposition forever. We have yet to come to terms with that. Congress underestimates the willingness of the American people to sacrifice if they are convinced it's necessary, and it's our job to convince them.

In the meantime, the U.S. remains highly vulnerable to its enemies, who make it clear that they intend to continue their anti-American crusade.