29 November 1997

    Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:14:28 -0500
    To: TERRORISM@mediccom.org
    From: "Malcolm R.Innerarity" <m.innera@pcps.edu>
    Subject: BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM

    Defense experts say Pentagon needs to change focus

    Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
    Copyright (C) 1997 The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (November 28, 1997 3:47 p.m. EST) -- After decades
    of gearing defense planning toward the threat of large-scale
    war abroad, the Pentagon should focus more on the risk of
    biological or other unconventional attacks on America
    itself, a congressionally chartered panel has concluded.

    Using the phrase "defense of the homeland" to capture its
    idea, the National Defense Panel will recommend to Defense
    Secretary William Cohen and Congress that greater attention
    be paid to emerging threats such as a hit-and-run attack on
    an American city with toxins.

    That mission is going to become more important as more
    nations hostile to U.S. interests acquire weapons of mass
    destruction and the means to deliver them, a panel member
    said Friday, speaking on condition he not be identified.

    The panel's report, which has been in the works since Cohen
    appointed the members last February, will be made public on
    Monday. Cohen already has seen a final draft of the report,
    officials said.

    Among the report's other conclusions:

    --The Defense Department needs a "transformation strategy" for
    the 21st century -- a blueprint for further adapting U.S. forces
    from the Cold War era to the security threats that are likely
    to face America and its allies 20 years from now.

    --It should devote $5 billion to $10 billion a year to
    developing that strategy through experimentation with new
    weapons and warfighting concepts. This would provide the
    nation with a "hedge" against unforeseen changes in global
    security.

    --The Army National Guard's role should be refocused. One
    possibility would be to develop an expertise in responding
    to domestic crises such as limited attacks with chemical
    or biological weapons. This implies reducing the size of
    the Guard, a move favored by the Pentagon but strongly
    opposed by many in Congress.

    --Cohen was right in calling earlier this month for two
    additional rounds of military base closings. But instead
    of making those closure decisions in 2001 and 2005, as
    recommended by Cohen, they should be accelerated. Also,
    the military services should find ways to share the use
    of bases.

    --For the moment the Pentagon is right to structure its
    forces for the possibility of having to fight two major
    regional wars at the same time -- most likely in the
    Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. But the panel
    describes this as a "low-probability scenario" which soon
    will be outdated. Scrapping the two-war scenario would
    imply reducing the overall size of the U.S. military,
    although the panel does not recommend any specific
    troop-cut number.

    The National Defense Panel was created by Congress last
    year at the same time it instructed the Pentagon to make
    a top-to-bottom review of defense programs through 2005.
    The panel was designed to provide an alternative view of
    the Pentagon's internal study -- and to take a
    longer-range look at defense needs.

    Four of the panel's nine members are retired generals and
    admirals; the five others are civilian defense experts. The
    chairman is Philip A. Odeen, president and chief executive
    officer of the defense consulting firm BDM International.

    As part of its emphasis on "homeland defense," the panel
    said the Clinton administration was right to put off for
    now a decision on when and whether to deploy a national
    missile defense system capable of shooting down ballistic
    missiles.

    The panel concluded that the Pentagon should put itself
    in position to deploy an anti-missile defense over the
    United States "once we get a better idea what the threats
    are," a panel member said Friday.

    The panel did not predict any specific attacks on the United
    States but stressed that limited attacks by smaller nations
    or transnational groups are likely to be a growing threat in
    the 21st century. This is an example of what the panel calls
    "asymmetric warfare" -- attacks using unconventional means
    by foes who target U.S. vulnerabilities rather than try to
    match up against its strengths.

    By ROBERT BURNS, The Associated Press