战略与国际研究中心-Counterproliferation,-Counterterrorism,-And-Homeland-Defense_134页_707kb

Summary of "Defending America: Redefining the Conceptual Borders of Homeland Defense"

Core Content

This document, authored by Anthony H. Cordesman and dated April 5, 2000, explores the evolving nature of threats to the American homeland in the context of asymmetric warfare, covert operations, and the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It emphasizes the need for a redefined and comprehensive approach to homeland defense, counterproliferation, and counterterrorism, while addressing the challenges of prioritization, coordination, and resource allocation.

Main Points and Key Information

1. The Nature of Modern Threats to the Homeland

• Indirect and Covert Attacks: The document highlights that the U.S. homeland is increasingly threatened by indirect, covert, and asymmetric attacks, which may involve state actors, proxies, or independent terrorist/extremist groups.
• Asymmetric Warfare: The U.S. is vulnerable to asymmetric warfare due to its global power and the fact that such attacks pose lower risk to the attacker and higher potential impact.
• WMDs as a Growing Threat: The use of WMDs, including chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, is a critical concern, with the potential for catastrophic consequences.
• Lack of Predictability: There is no clear pattern in past attacks to predict future threats, and the nature of these threats remains highly uncertain.

2. Threat Assessment and Prioritization

• State and Non-State Actors: Both state actors and non-state actors (including domestic and foreign terrorist groups) pose a wide range of threats.
• No Clear Definitions: The lack of a common definition of "terrorism" across federal agencies leads to inconsistencies in threat assessment and response.
• Resource Allocation Challenges: Federal, state, and local agencies often prioritize their own internal needs over a unified homeland defense strategy.
• Budget and Management Issues: Despite increased spending, there is no centralized management or coordinated development of homeland defense capabilities.

3. Types and Methods of Attack

• Conventional and WMD Attacks: The report outlines various types of attacks, including conventional explosives, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.
• Covert and Proxy Attacks: These are considered more dangerous due to their potential for greater impact and lower risk of retaliation.
• Need for Comprehensive Response: The response must include both offensive and defensive measures, as well as counterproliferation and law enforcement efforts.

4. Effective Action and Strategic Planning

• Broad-Based and Sub-Optimized Approach: Effective homeland defense requires a broad-based strategy that includes sub-optimization of efforts across different domains (defense, deterrence, denial, retaliation).
• Long-Term Planning: The report stresses the need for planning at least 25 years ahead, with a focus on developing flexible and modular defense capabilities.
• Central Oversight Required: A central point in the federal government is recommended to manage the budget, analyze threats, and assess the effectiveness of homeland defense programs.

5. Casualties vs. Incidents

• Low Casualties, High Risk: Despite a relatively low number of casualties, the potential for more lethal attacks using WMDs remains significant.
• Inconsistent Correlation: There is no clear correlation between the number of attacks and the severity of casualties, indicating that many attacks may have been prevented or failed due to lack of lethal means.

6. Data and Statistics

• Table 1: Highlights the decline in U.S. casualties from international terrorism, with most attacks targeting foreign citizens.
• Table 2: Shows the wide variation in casualties by region and year, underscoring the unpredictability of attacks.
• Examples of Attacks: The 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing are cited as major incidents with significant casualties.

7. Recommendations

• Centralized Management: A centralized federal agency is recommended to oversee homeland defense, counterproliferation, and counterterrorism efforts.
• Integrated Approach: Deterrence, counterproliferation, counterterrorism, and law enforcement must be integrated into a unified strategy.
• Investment in Allies: Strengthening allies may be more effective than investing solely in domestic counterterrorism programs.
• Transparency and Accountability: Congressional oversight and external review are essential to ensure effective and accountable homeland defense spending.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the U.S. must move beyond the emotional and often misleading definition of "terrorism" to address the full spectrum of threats, including those from state actors and the use of WMDs. It emphasizes the need for long-term, flexible planning, centralized management, and a balanced approach that integrates defense, deterrence, and law enforcement. The lack of coordination and clear definitions remains a significant challenge, and the U.S. must invest in both defensive and offensive capabilities to effectively counter future threats.