Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Friend

And in the final, most courageous moments of his duty-filled life...

Brother to all Humanity

Ray, we salute you; we know that you are still with us in spirit. With a renewed

sense of profound commitment, we pledge on our honor that you and all the other victims

of the attacks will not be forgotten and that the loss we have all suffered will not have been in vain.

Our Continuing Mission

Chairmen and Members, our mission remains urgent and clear, we must continue

to bolster our capability to thwart terrorists wherever and whoever they are. Our collective call is to continue the momentum to secure our homeland and protect our citizens. While there is much more work to be done, I am confident that we will be successful. America's strength is in its people, our leaders, and our collective commitment, especially during times of crisis.

General Observations on Intelligence and Information Sharing

In the course of our deliberations, the Advisory Panel has been guided by several basic observations and assumptions that have helped to inform our conclusions and policy recommendations for improving our preparedness to combat terrorism.

First, all terrorism is "local," or at least will start locally. That fact has a lot to do, in our view, with the emphasis, the priorities, and the allocation of resources to address requirements. September 11 was further proof of that basic assumption.

Second, a major attack anywhere inside our borders will likely be beyond the response capabilities of a local jurisdiction, and will, therefore, require outside help

perhaps from other local jurisdictions, from that jurisdiction's state government or multiple state resources, perhaps from the Federal government, if the attack is significant enough to exhaust other resources. That principle was likewise validated last year.

Given those two factors, our approach to combating terrorism should be from the “bottom up”—with the requirements of State and local response entities foremost in mind.

Based on a significant amount of analysis and discussion, we have been of the view that few major structural or legal changes are required to improve our collective efforts; and that the “first order” challenges are policy and better organization—not simply more money or new technology.

Those principles have guided the panel's deliberations on policy

recommendations throughout its tenure. And they are nowhere more clear than in matters of intelligence and information sharing.

The chart attached to this testimony is an attempt to depict graphically the magnitude of the problem and the necessary interrelationships that must exist among entities at the local, State, and Federal levels. It shows that integration must exist both vertically and horizontally among various functions and the agencies that have responsibilities for executing those functions. That interrelationship clearly identifies just how important intelligence and information sharing really is to the entire process, across all functions, and at all levels. It also emphasizes our view that simplistic categories such as "crisis management” and “consequence management” do not adequately describe the full spectrum of functions or responsibilities. We are pleased that the new National Strategy for Homeland Security has eliminated the use of those terms.

Moreover, the Panel has further refined its discussion to include the critical need for elements of the private sector to be involved in the sharing of information, especially

where their roles have significant national security implications. Those interrelationships are not included in the attached chart.

Our Reports

In our first three reports, the advisory panel has, through its assessments and recommendations, laid a firm foundation for actions that must be taken across a broad

spectrum of threats in a number of strategic and functional contexts to address this

problem more effectively.

First Report-Assessing the Threat

The Advisory Panel produced a comprehensive assessment in its first report of the terrorist threat inside our borders, with a focus on chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. The very thorough analysis in that report can be summarized: The Panel concludes that the Nation must be prepared for the entire spectrum of potential terrorist threats - both the unprecedented higher-consequence attack, as well as the historically more frequent, lesser-consequence terrorist attack, which the Panel believes is more likely in the near term. Conventional explosives, traditionally a favorite tool of the terrorist, will likely remain the terrorist weapon of choice in the near term as well. Whether smaller-scale CBRN or conventional, any such lower-consequence event—at least in terms of casualties or destruction—could, nevertheless, accomplish one or more terrorist objectives: exhausting response capabilities, instilling fear, undermining government credibility, or provoking an overreaction by the government. With that in mind, the Panel's report urges a more balanced approach, so that not only higher-consequence scenarios will be considered, but that increasing attention must now also be paid to the historically more frequent, more probable, lesser-consequence attack, especially in terms of policy implications for budget priorities or the allocation of other resources, to optimize local response capabilities. A singular focus on preparing for an event potentially affecting thousands or tens of thousands may result in a smaller, but nevertheless lethal attack involving dozens failing to receive an appropriate response in the first critical minutes and hours.

While noting that the technology currently exists that would allow terrorists to produce one of several lethal CBRN weapons, the report also describes the current difficulties in acquiring or developing and in maintaining, handling, testing, transporting, and delivering a device that truly has the capability to cause "mass casualties.”

We suggest that that analysis is still fully valid today.

Second Report-Toward a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

By the second year, the Advisory Panel shifted its emphasis to specific policy recommendations for the Executive and the Congress and a broad programmatic assessment and functional recommendations for consideration in developing an effective national strategy.

The capstone recommendation in the second report was the need for a

comprehensive, coherent, functional national strategy: The President should develop and present to the Congress a national strategy for combating terrorism within one year of assuming office. As part of that recommendation, the panel identified the essential characteristics for a national strategy:

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

It must be comprehensive, encompassing the full spectrum of deterrence,
prevention, preparedness, and response against domestic and international
threats.

For domestic programs, it must be responsive to requirements from and fully
coordinated with state and local officials as partners throughout the development
and implementation process.

It should be built on existing emergency response systems.

It must include all key functional domains—intelligence, law enforcement, fire

services, emergency medical services, public health, medical care providers, emergency management, and the military.

It must be fully resourced and based on measurable performance.

Of course, the Panel recognizes that in light of September 11, 2001 this objective has

been difficult to achieve. However, the principles contained within this strategy and their

requirements remain the same.

The Second Annual Report included a discussion of more effective Federal structures to address the national efforts to combat terrorism. We determined that the solutions offered by others who have studied the problem provided only partial answers. The Advisory Panel attempted to craft recommendations to address the full spectrum of issues. Therefore, we submitted the following recommendation: The President should establish a senior level coordination entity in the Executive Office of the President. The characteristics of the office identified in that recommendation included:

· Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, at "cabinet-level" rank

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Located in the Executive Office of the President

Authority to exercise certain program and budget controls over those agencies with responsibilities for combating terrorism

Responsibility for intelligence coordination and analysis

· Tasking for strategy formulation and implementation

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Responsibility for reviewing State and local plans and to serve as an information
clearinghouse

An interdisciplinary Advisory Board to assist in strategy development
Multidisciplinary staff (including Federal, State, and local expertise)
No operational control

We included a thorough explanation of each characteristic in our Second Annual Report. For instance, we determined that this office should have the authority to direct the creation, modification, or cessation of programs within the Federal Interagency, and that it have authority to direct modifications to agency budgets and the application of resources. We also recommended that the new entity have authority to review State and geographical area strategic plans and, at the request of State entities, to review local plans or programs for combating terrorism for consistency with the national strategy.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »