"Gov. Bush also prioritized the defense of our homeland, specifically "on the troubled frontiers of technology and terror," saying, "The protection of America itself will assume a high priority in a new century. Once a strategic afterthought, homeland defense has become an urgent duty."

     - GWB Website, Summer 1999

US President / Whitehouse Website

Whitehouse Office for Homeland Security

National Strategy for Homeland Security (July 2002)

US Senate 

Tom Daschle - A New Century of American Leadership (August 2001)

The Threat of Bioterrorism and the Spread of Infectuous Diseases (September 6th, 2001)

US Army Carlisle Barracks - Strategic Studies Institute (Master Catalog)

National Interest - From Abstraction to Strategy (May 1994)

Terrorism - National Security Policy and the Home Front (May 1995)

Strategic Horizons - The Military Implications of Alternate Futures (March 1997)

The Role of the Armed Forces in the Americas - Civil Military Relations for the 21st Century (April 1998)

Challenging the United States Symmetrically and Asymmetrically (July 1998)

Organizing for National Security (November 2000)

Transnational Threats - Blending Law Enforcement and Military Strategies (November 2000)

Asymmetry and US Military Strategy - Definition, Background and Strategic Concepts (January 2001)

The Army and Homeland Security - A strategic perspective (March 2001)

Jihadi Groups, Nuclear Pakistan and the New Great Game (August 2001)

The Hart-Rudman Commission and Homeland Defense (7 September 2001)

Preparing for Asymmetry - As seen through the lens of Joint Vision 2020 (September 2001)

US Air University, Maxwell Airforce Base

Homeland Security, are we there yet ? (April 2001)

Lessons learned from history - Implications for Homeland Defense (April 2001)

Commission on National Security in the 21st Century (aka Hart-Rudman Commission)

Commission Website

Phase I Report - New World Coming                   (July 1998-August 1999)
Phase II Report - Seeking a National Strategy     (August 1999-April 2000)
Phase III Report - Roadmap for National Security (April 2000-February 2001)

Anser Institute

Anser Institute News Links

Dark Winter WMD Exercise Page

Homeland Security 2005 - Charting the Path Ahead

Brookings Institution

Brookings Institution Project for Homeland Security

Preventive Defense - A New Security Strategy for America (1999)

Cato Institute

The Green Peril - Creating the Fundamentalist Islamic Threat (August 1992)

Protecting the Homeland - The Best Defense is to give no offence (May 1998)

The New Homeland Security Apparatus (June 2002)

Council for Foreign Relations / Foreign Policy Magazine (All from 2000)

Andrew Goodpaster - Advice for the Next President

Charles Lindsay - The New Apathy, How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign Policy

Condoleezza Rice - Life after the Cold War

Robert Zoellick - An Era of Change

Harvard University

Preventive Defense Project Website

Keeping the Edge - Managing Defense for the Future (2000)

Heritage Foundation

Defending the American Homeland (September 2001)

The New Agenda for Homeland Security (September 2001)

Hoover Institute for War

Hoover Digest - William Perry, Preventive Defense (1999)

Gilmore Commission

First Annual Report (December 1999)

Second Annual Report (December 2000)

Third Annual Report (December 2001)

Rand Corporation

The National Guard and Homeland Security (December 2001)

Preparing the US Army for Homeland Security (2002) 

Findlaw

Homeland Security Bill (June 2002)

Various Articles / Links

Catastrophic Terrorism - Imagining the Transforming Event (Ashton Carter, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 1998)
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) Page on Homeland Security

To meet these challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has initiated an 18-month study to improve our understanding of Homeland Defense and chart a course for improving policy in this area. The project will feature: a major, independent research effort conducted by Tony Cordesman, the project's Principal Investigator; a series of study group efforts on terrorism, missile defense, information security, and policy integration; and a report by the Senior Advisory Group. The terrorism study effort will be led by Frank Cilluffo; the information security task force by Arnaud de Borchgrave and Frank Cilluffo; the missile defense effort by Dan Goure; and the policy integration effort by Joseph Collins.

These teams will report out by the end of the year 2000.

Following the reports by the four study groups, the Senior Advisory Group --- comprised of four state governors, four senators, four representatives, and a numerous former government officials and business leaders --- will compose its own consensus report. This report will be available to the new President and his cabinet by April 2001 in time to inform the new Administration's initial strategic reviews.

As these reports and other materials become available, they will be posted on this web site. Questions of substance on Homeland Defense should be addressed to Joseph Collins, the Project Director. Administrative questions should be addressed to Gabrielle Bowdoin, the lead administrator.

HOMELAND DEFENSE
Reports

 

DEFENDING AMERICA:
REDEFINING THE CONCEPTUAL BORDERS OF HOMELAND DEFENSE

Reports by the Principal Investigator: Anthony H. Cordesman

Overviews, Briefings, and Summary Recommendations

Report on Homeland Defense: Overview of the Conclusions of the Principal Investigator on NMD, CBRN Defense, and Defense Against Cyberwarfare : Provides an executive summary of the analyses and recommendations made in the detailed studies and reports of the Principal Investigator. Raises major questions about the recommendations made in many other reports.

• Executive Summary (New 12/12/00)

Asymmetric Warfare versus Counterterrorism: Rethinking CBRN and CIP Defense and Response: Provides a detailed briefing on the current problems in the US government, and most outside analysis, of the CBRN threat that leads to the decoupling of most planning and analysis from serious consideration of state sponsored asymmetric CBRN attacks, or those by state-supported terrorist movements. Examines the difference between defense and response for large-scale asymmetric attacks and those by terrorists.

• Introduction (Updated 12/08/00)

Taking Advantage of Delay: A Success-Driven Approach to NMD: Summary briefing on a "success driven approach" to making major revisions in the current US NMD program.

• Introduction (Updated 12/06/00)

Redefining the Conceptual Boundaries of Homeland Defense: Challenges the belief that Homeland defense should focus on terrorism to the near exclusion of the threat of asymmetric attacks by states and their proxies, and that the threat estimates used for planning should be based on past patterns of terrorism or the probable capacity and intentions of current terrorist groups. States that the US must make coherent plans that link NMD, CBRN defense, and CIP defense, and make hard trade-offs as part of a coherent national defense program.

• Introduction
• Overview (Updated 9/8/00)
• Full Report

 

 

Main Reports on Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyberwarfare, Asymmetric Warfare and Terrorist CBRN Attacks, and National Missile Defense, and Executive Summaries

Critical Infrastructure Protection And Information Warfare: Provides a detailed analysis of current threats, current federal programs, the interface between cyberwar and cyber defense, the need for offensive cyber capabilities, the need to create secure and isolated critical systems, the problems in improving government and private sector activity, and detailed recommendations for action.

• Executive Summary (New 12/12/00)
• Full Report (New 12/12/00)

Homeland Defense: Coping With The Threat of Indirect, Covert, Terrorist, and Extremist Attacks with Weapons of Mass Destruction: Provides a detailed analysis of the emerging CBRN threat from states, their proxies, and foreign and domestic terrorists and extremists. Examines the different impacts of various types of chemical, radiological, missile, and nuclear attacks and the major uncertainties in lethality estimates affecting defense and response programs. Examine current federal efforts in detail, and the lack of linkage to offensive/retaliatory efforts. Examines current federal efforts and budgets and problems in management, planning, and programming. Raises serious issues about the failure to adequately consider asymmetric warfare versus low to moderate level terrorism. Provides detailed recommendations.

• Executive Summary (Updated 02/14/01)
• Full Report (Updated 02/14/01)

Report on Homeland Defense and National Missile Defenses: Provides an analysis of the evolving threat, the interface between NMD and other forms of CBRN threats, the interaction between NMD and arms control, Russian and Chinese security issues affecting NMD, a history of NMD program, a detailed analysis of technical issues and test and evaluation efforts, cost analysis of past and projected federal efforts, analysis of international cooperation, and proposals for a new "success-driven" approach to NMD deployment.

• Executive Summary (Updated 12/12/00)
• Full Report (Updated 12/12/00)

 

Reports on Current Federal Programs and Budget Expenditures for Homeland Defense

US Government Efforts To Create A Homeland Defense Capability : Program Budget And Overview - Overview Of Federal Spending On National Missile Defense, Defense Against Asymmetric And Terrorist Attacks, And Attacks On Information Systems And Critical Infrastructure: A detailed 270 page analysis of the total cost of the federal NMD, CBRN/counterterrorist, and CIP effort based on OMB and Department of Defense reporting that has not had wide public circulation. Detailed recommendations are made about improving the content, justification, planning, and programming of current efforts.

• Report (New 12/11/00)

Where the Money Goes in "Homeland Defense": Spending on National Missile Defense and Counter-Terrorism: A Graphic and Tabular Analysis: Summary graphs and charts based on OMB and Department of Defense data.

• Report (Updated 12/11/00)

US Government Efforts to Create a Homeland Defense Capability: A program and budget overview of federal spending on CounterTerrorism and WMD: Updates a past analysis of Federal CBRN counterterrorism efforts

• Introduction (Updated 12/11/00)

Department Of Defense Programs: Countering Asymmetric, Indirect, Covert, Terrorist, And Extremist Attacks With Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Provides a detailed briefing on the current problems in the US government, and most outside analysis, of the CBRN threat that leads to the decoupling of most planning and analysis from serious consideration of state sponsored asymmetric CBRN attacks, or those by state-supported terrorist movements. Examines the difference between defense and response for large-scale asymmetric attacks and those by terrorists.

• Introduction (Updated 12/11/00)

Detailed Briefings on Critical Issues and Analytic Problems in Homeland Defense

Biotechnology, Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare And Biological Weapons: Describes the threat and effect of asymmetric and terrorist attacks using biological weapons. Raises major technical issues about the validity of current estimates of lethality and methods of attack which challenge current defense and response plans.

• Full Report (Updated 02/12/01)

 

Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare And Nuclear Weapons: Describes the threat and effect of asymmetric and terrorist attacks using nuclear weapons. Raises major technical issues about the validity of current estimates of lethality and methods of attack which challenge current defense and response plans.

• Full Report (New 02/14/01)

Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare And Chemical Weapons: Describes the threat and effect of asymmetric and terrorist attacks using chemical weapons. Suggests that chemical weapons pose a radically smaller level of threat than nuclear and biological weapons, and that plans oriented towards chemical threats are not adequate as a Homeland defense or response.

• Full Report (Updated 02/14/01)

 

The Risks and Effects of Indirect, Covert, Terrorist, and Extremist Attacks with Weapons of Mass Destruction: Summary of the risk and effects of different types of CBRN weapons and methods of attack

• Full Report (Updated 02/14/01)

 

Homeland Defense: The Current and Future Terrorist Threat: Provides an overview of the threat posed by states, their proxies, and major terrorist groups.

• Full Report (New 09/01/00)

Missile Threats: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Proliferation and US National Missile Defenses: Provides an updated analysis of the threat posed by key proliferator, and the extent to which these countries really do pose a near to mid-term threat to the US.

• Report (Updated 01/21/01)

China and the US: National Missile Defenses and Chinese Nuclear Modernization - A Background Paper: Describes the Chinese reaction to US NMD proposals, the reasons for Chinese opposition, and the risks of a major US-Chinese confrontation over NMD.

• Report (Updated 01/21/01)

Russia and the US: National Missile Defenses, START, the ABM Treaty, and Nuclear Modernization: A Background Paper: Describes the Russian reaction to US NMD proposals, the reasons for Russian opposition, the history of US-Russian negotiations, risks for arms control and possible US-Russian bargains over NMD.

• Report (Updated 01/21/01)

OTHER REPORTS

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEPTEMBER 12TH SENIOR ADVISORY GROUP MEETING AND PARTICIPANTS LIST (October 2000)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE JULY 11TH SENIOR ADVISORY GROUP MEETING AND PARTICIPANTS LIST (October 2000)

The U.S. Military: Still the Best?
Published in Boston Globe, August 29, 2000
by Dr. Joseph J. Collins, CSIS Project Director (September 2000)

Training America's Emergency Responders:
A Report on the Dept. of Justice's Center for Domestic
Preparedness and The U.S. Public Health Service's
Noble Training Center, Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama
by Dr. Joseph J. Collins, CSIS Project Director (July 2000)

Tests and Cost and Technical Risk in the U.S. National Missile Defense Program (Updated 9/5/00) [pdf]

Charting a Path for U.S. Missile Defenses Technical and Policy Issues
(June 2000) [pdf]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE APRIL 5TH SENIOR ADVISORY GROUP MEETING AND PARTICIPANTS LIST (May 2000)

Posse Comitatus - Has the Posse outlived its purpose? [pdf]
by: Craig T. Trebilcock ( April 2000)

Defending the US Homeland: Strategic and Legal Issues for DOD and the Armed Services (January 1999) [pdf]

Homeland Defense Before 2001

From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

Homeland Defense Before 2001 . . . . Also see Homeland Defense 2001.

Margie Burns, author of "The strange career of Homeland Security", wrote on June 29, 2002, that the phrase homeland security was "little seen" before September 11, 2001.[1]

It would appear that only the American public was oblivious to these terms. However, since the events of 9/11, government leaders and the experts and pundits almost incessantly mouth these phrases at every turn. The list of examples of the pre-9/11 use continues to grow.

• One source might have been a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) briefing given by James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider: "America's 21st Century Defense." Based on December 1995 PPI recommendations, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and Dan R. Coats (R-IN) co-sponsored legislation to establish a National Defense Panel. In December 1997, a nine-member panel released the report "Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century." Either could have been the source for the term homeland defense.[3]

• Another source might have been the Domestic Preparedness Program (DP) that was initiated in Fiscal Year 1997 as a result of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (also known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Amendment) to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY97.

• A third possibility might be another yet-unidentified document referred to as Rethinking Defense -- Revision to 2 MRC Doctrine dating from 1997. This document clearly identifies Homeland Defense among its objectives, including an itemized list of tasks.[4]

• Lacombe and Keyes refer to a final report issued more than a decade before, in February 1986 during the Ronald Reagan Adminiistration, called the Public Report on the Vice President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism. The report noted then "that key industry and government assets presented attractive targets to terrorists. The report also grasped how vulnerability resulted from openness inherent in our society and its highly sophisticated infrastructure: the intricate, interrelated networks supporting transportation, energy, communications, finance, industry, medicine, defense, diplomacy, and government."

• PDD-62 stated "Because of our military strength, future enemies, whether nations, groups or individuals, may seek to harm us in non-traditional ways including attacks within the United States. Because our economy is increasingly reliant upon interdependent and cyber-supported infrastructures, non-traditional attacks on our infrastructure and information systems may be capable of significantly harming both our military power and our economy."

• PDD-63 called for "a National Coordinator whose scope will include not only critical infrastructure but also foreign terrorism and threats of domestic mass destruction (including biological weapons) because attacks on the US may not come labeled in neat jurisdictional boxes."

• "Since 1995, President Clinton and the Republican-led Congress ... boosted spending on these programs by billions of dollars. ...[and] Mr. Clinton has announced he will add billions more for counterterrorism and national missile defense (NMD) in the fiscal 2000 budget he sends next month to Congress. Lawmakers are expected to embrace his plans, and perhaps inject more money than he seeks ... These efforts have come to be known as homeland defense." It is, asserts Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre, "the defense mission of the next century."[6]

• "Prepare America for other critical future challenges. The President's framework will reserve 11 percent of the projected surpluses for military readiness and pressing national domestic priorities, such as education, research, and the security of Americans at home and abroad."

• Thus far, the term homeland defense had not been specifically used by the White House or the Clinton Administration, although Presidential Decision Directive-62 (PDD-62), issued by President Clinton on May 22, 1998, did make reference to protecting the homeland: "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland".

Page iii of the Executive Summary states:

• "There is a wide spectrum of potential threats to the American homeland that do not involve the threat of overt attacks by states using long-range missiles or conventional military forces. Such threats include covert attacks by state actors, state use of proxies, independent terrorist and extremist attacks by foreign groups or individuals, and independent terrorist and extremist attacks by residents of the US. These threats are currently limited in scope and frequency. No pattern of actual attacks on US territory has yet emerged that provides a clear basis for predicting how serious any given form of attack will be in the future, what means of attack will be used, or how lethal new forms of attack will be if they are successful."

• David and Larsen pose the question "What is homeland defense?" and then answer it by saying that "The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) states, 'Homeland defense is the core of military service. Yet the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not define or even mention the term." If, they say, you should "Ask foreign military officers what the mission of their nations’ armed forces is and most will say, 'To defend our homeland.'" But, they add, "That is not the answer one would hear from most American military officers." In fact, they admit that "there is a raging debate among and within federal agencies whether this mission should be called homeland defense, domestic security, or civil support."[10]

• "The United States is among the world’s leaders in homeland defense; our efforts to strengthen our security continue unabated every day. However, as we continue to bolster our defenses, we need to continue to monitor and counter the changing threat of international terrorism, which is forcing us to expand the scope of our homeland defense. With the rapid changes occurring in the domestic and international environment, we must develop an active defense outside the United States to guard against threats emanating from overseas and to protect American citizens and assets abroad. Without this expansion in scope, even the best domestic homeland defense—a Fortress America—leaves the United States and its citizens vulnerable."

• "While American infrastructure still enjoys some geographic protection from physical attack, new threats, particularly cyber-threats, bypass traditional security methods. They are undeterred by geography and travel undetected by current national defense mechanisms until the damage has already mounted."

• "The 1998 Twentieth Century Fox film The Siege starring the quintessential action men, Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington, went very far in bringing the idea of domestic terrorism back into the minds of the American people at a time when they had just bandaged their hearts after the horrific bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The movie begins with images of the bombing of the Beirut Marine Corps barracks in 1983 and quickly takes the viewer to New York City where FBI agents are tasked with discovering the perpetrators of a string of increasingly devastating bombings within the city’s perimeters. What unfolds is a chaotic scenario of terrorist activity that places the FBI, the CIA, Presidential advisors, and the U.S. Army in a position where each distrusts the others. The situation is further aggravated by the presence of the Army General that everybody loves to hate played by Bruce Willis. In a scene where all of the designated senators and key players from the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Executive Branch are gathered, the question of who should really be in charge is asked and reference is made to the Posse Comitatus Act.

• "As sensational as this movie is, it is not really too much of a stretch of the imagination when one considers the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, and the incident in the Tokyo subway. In spite of restrictions on the use of military force within America’s borders, current literature shows that the U.S. Armed Forces are better equipped than local civilian authorities to identify and respond to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

• "Contrary to the feelings of the upper echelon personnel in the film, the National Guard is currently making exceptional progress in the training of rapid response teams. Even with this down-to-business, get-prepared position of the National Guard, military leaders and policy makers are afraid that we are not sufficiently prepared for the possibility of chemical or biological attack on home soil. Last but not least, if the idea of WMD attack at home is not unsettling enough; the changing global weather patterns can almost certainly be counted upon to create disasters like the 1998 ice storm that crippled parts of Canada, Northern New England, and upper New York State.

• "With all of this in mind, the term Homeland Defense has evolved in the literature to describe the policies and preparations designed to protect Americans here in the Continental United States against catastrophic attack."

• A few items stand out from the Naval War College Library's listing:

"An Argument for Homeland Defense" by Fred C. Ikle published in the Spring 1998 issue of the The Washington Quarterly.

John J. Stanton's "White House Plans Cyber Homeland Defense Effort" published in National Defense, September 1998.

The 1999 United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Joint and Army Directorate, Supporting Homeland Defense from the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

The December 1999 article "Deputy Secretary of Defense Dr. John J. Hamre Challenges Standing Committee to Lead Debate on Homeland Defense" by William E. Conner published in The Officer.

• Larsen said that the term homeland defense was "Nearly synonymous with the 20th century term national security. There are however," he said, "two primary differences."

"Nation-states, large and small, and some non-state actors have the capability to bring a new type of warfare to the American homeland."

"New types of weapons, such as cyber and biological, are immune to our superpower status and traditional defenses."

• Larsen continued in his presentation to say that "Homeland Defense requires a national strategy and a new security partnership."

The threat of a major asymmetric attack on our Homeland is real. The Federal Government will play the lead role in deterrence, prevention, preemption, attribution, and retaliation. State assets, including the NG and local governments, will play the lead role in first response and consequence management. The private sector will play a critical operational role. There is a requirement for an integrated warning/information/coordination system.

• Larsen, on behalf of ANSER, took the position that "the time is now," and quotes then Secretary of Defense William Sebastian Cohen: "The debate on homeland defense is yet to begin" (October 2, 2000).

• The media presentation ended with slides of ANSER's Institute of Homeland Security web site.

Homeland Defense 2001

From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

Homeland Defense 2001 . . . . Also see Homeland Defense Before 2001.

Margie Burns, author of "The strange career of Homeland Security", wrote on June 29, 2002, that the phrase homeland security was "little seen" before September 11, 2001.[1]

It would appear that only the American public was oblivious to these terms. However, since the events of 9/11, government leaders and the experts and pundits almost incessantly mouth these phrases at every turn. The list of examples of the pre-9/11 use continues to grow.

• "There is little agreement," he wrote, "on how homeland defense is defined. The White House has defined the term broadly to include national missile defense, counterintelligence, domestic preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection. Secretary William Sebastian Cohen and Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre have limited homeland defense to only military support for civilian authorities. In the absence of high-level guidance the services have come out with their own definitions that support their existing missions. The general consensus is that homeland security includes national missile defense, counterterrorism, WMD preparedness, consequence management of WMD events and protection against cyber attacks."

• The Bill stated that: "The security of the United States homeland from nontraditional and emerging threats must be a primary national security mission ... Despite the serious threat to homeland security, the United States Government has not yet adopted homeland security as a primary national security mission."

• As of October 18, 2001, the Bill was reported to be still in the Committee on Government Reform.[6]

• Homeland security was defined in the bill as: "the protection of the territory, critical infrastructures, and citizens of the United States by Federal, State, and local government entities from the threat or use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, cyber, or conventional weapons by military or other means."

• According to the memorandum, the purpose of the hearing was "to examine three legislative proposals, H.R. 525, Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism Act of 2001, H.R. 1158, National Homeland Security Agency Act, and H.R. 1292, Homeland Security Strategy Act of 2001. Each bill proposed to reorganize the federal counterterrorism structure."

• Homeland Security: The prevention, deterrence, and preemption of, and defense against, aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, population, and infrastructure as well as the management of the consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies.
• Homeland Defense: The prevention, preemption, and deterrence of, and defense against, direct attacks aimed at U.S. territory, population, and infrastructure.

• Larsen related that, "Several years later, while serving as the Chairman, Department of Military Strategy and Operations, at the National War College," he "developed a strategic framework for the study of homeland security." Larsen was assisted in this endeavor, he said, by Colonel Dave McIntyre who was then the Dean of Academics at the National War College and who is now Larsen's deputy at ANSER. "This strategic framework," he said, "is the intellectual foundation of the Institute for Homeland Security. It contains seven elements: deterrence, prevention, preemption, crisis management, consequence management, attribution, and response."[10]