America’s inherent vulnerabilities and the overall complexity of the problem. Some
steps have been taken in recent years to reduce these vulnerabilities. However, these
steps were primarily at the operational and tactical levels. And, the few strategic level
changes that have been made do not address the threat in a comprehensive fashion. This
may be due to concerns over involvement of the military in domestic matters. Or, it
could reflect the military’s general aversion to rapid change. DoD, it seems, often takes
small steps instead of bold, giant leaps into new mission areas. One could argue that
standing up the JTF-CS was one small step at the strategic level. While this step is
undoubtedly in the right direction, it fails to be bold enough to meet the total
requirements of strategic, operational, and tactical WMD integration in all areas.
1President George W. Bush, “Bush Addresses NATO, U.S. Military Transformation,” www.defenselink.mil, 13 February 2001.
2Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University and The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc., Final Report on Strategic Responsiveness, Early and Continuous Joint Effectiveness--Across the Spectrum, April 2000, Panel 6, 35.
3Joshua Sinai, “Narco-Terror, Bio-Terror Nightmares and Taliban,” Washington Times, 10 December, 2000. B6, as drawn from Michael T. Osterholm and John Schwartz, Living Terrors: What America Needs to Survive the Coming Bioterrorist Catastrophe, Delacorte.
4Anthony Cordesman, “Defending America, Redefining the Conceptual Borders of Homeland Defense,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3 November 2000. 7.
5Gary Hart and Warren Rudman et al., “Road Map of National Security: Imperative for Change,” Phase III Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, 31 January 2001, 47.