For over four months since 9-11, the Disaster Center presented information on our main page with respect to information helpful to individuals directly affected by the events of 9-11.

Prior to and after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States had no anti-terrorism policy or strategy based upon risk assessment. Each department and agency developed its own approach. There was little or no effort to develop a coordinated threat/risk assessment policy.

What we have is called a Concept of Operations Plan; appropriately named:  CONPLAN.
Download [PDF] from FBI Site or from FEMA

Under CONPLAN the FBI is responsible for Crisis Management after the terrorists successfully attack, and FEMA is responsible for Consequence Management after the terrorists successfully attack.

Under CONPLAN the FBI has control of the response scene, after any terrorist act, so that they can secure evidence, before responders may enter the area.

The FBI is the lead federal agency in the fight against terrorism in the U.S.  In carrying out this responsibility, the Domestic Terrorism Program investigates threats involving atomic energy, weapons of mass destruction, sabotage, hostage-taking, and civil unrest.  When the FBI is told about a threat it investigates that report.

The terrorism budget pays for such things as Federal buildings security, and for response equipment that could be used for responding to an industrial, government or terrorist release of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological (NBC) substances.

A great part of the terrorism budget involves spending for the purchase of equipment and training needed to respond to such an NBC release. Yet, the probability of a catastrophic release of NBC's by terrorists is low. The costs, technical expertise, specialized equipment, transportation problems, manpower problems, the command and control requirements, the problem of keeping such a large scale project secret, and the danger of these substances to the terrorists themselves, make the likelihood of any terrorist organization effectively distributing NBC's low.  There is, however, a high probability that there will be a catastrophic release of NBC's from industry or government. All we need to do to confirm that probability is to look at the annual death and injury statistics compiled by various government agencies. The largest single item in the terrorist budget is for equipment and training more likely to be needed to protect responders from government and industrial releases of NBC's, than from terrorists.

When we look at the anthrax release that occurred after 9-11, we can see that this prediction was correct. For the US Army created and distributed the anthrax to the terrorist who used it to kill Americans.

If we had engaged in threat/risk assessment, prior to 9-11, there is a good chance that someone would have identified the risk of distributing this anthrax in so lax a manner; so that months after its use, we still have not tracked down the individual or organization that distributed the toxin. We are now left with the consideration, that the individual or organization that was given assess to these materials, is probably profiting from their activity, as a consultant to the government.

I know of only one agency in the Federal Government that questioned the US anti-terrorism policies; prior to 9-11: the General Accounting Office (GAO).  Since 1997 the GAO has been issuing reports questioning an approach to the threat of terrorism, that focused on a low probability threat. The GAO properly pointed out that a sound approach requires the use of risk/threat assessments.

See GAO: Special Collections - Terrorism
 http://www.gao.gov/terrorism.html

The United States has not developed an approach that evaluates the risk/threat of terrorism (so as to cost effectively mitigate both risk and threat); but, cultivated an approach that emphasized a single worst case scenario based on a successful release of NBC's by terrorists.

What we did do was to develop plans involving crisis and consequence management, to respond to a successful release of NBC's by terrorists; but did nothing to systematically evaluate what terrorists could actually accomplish.

These plans provided the basis for the response mechanism that was used, to respond to the terrorist attacks of 9-11, but did nothing to lesson the risk of what the terrorists could actually do.

I have criticized this approach for years. To me it seemed as if the US developed an anti-terrorism policy, so as justify the provision of equipment and training to responders, to enable them to survive an event that was more likely to be caused by the government and industry, than by terrorists.

After the initial shock of witnessing the events of Sept. 11, 2001, I knew that, the reason that these terrorists could undertake such an action was because they were not in any way constrained by the failure of the United States to adopt policies to mitigate the threat/risks of terrorism.

At the present time there is a debate going on with respect to which agency should be responsible for coordinating the Federal anti-terrorism efforts. It appears to me, that the Department of Justice and specifically the FBI, will be assigned the lead role. I feel that this role should be headed by FEMA, for it has the experience in playing the leading Federal role in preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery.  In addition, FEMA and the Emergency Management community can more effectively fill the critical role of bringing the people into the effort to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.  I believe, that the EM community can more effectively reach our greatest asset to fight terrorism, which is we the people.

Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and Long-Term National Needs. GAO-02-160T November 7, 2001.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02160t.pdf

Emergency management organizations will be called upon to handle the initial response to any act of terrorism, or government and industrial release involving toxic substances. The great task, that is now before us, involves an assessment of risk/threat.  To me, it makes perfect sense,  FEMA and the local emergency managers, who will be called upon to make the critical decisions, should be assigned the task; and to lead the process of devising the strategies to mitigate risk/threats.

Emergency Management organizations, within every community, should play the lead role.

Christopher Effgen

US Anti-terrorism Threat/Risk Policy
Mitigating Risk/Threat of Terrorism and Other Risks
The risk/threat of bioterrorism -- Small Pox as a Weapon of Mass Destruction
The Disaster Center

Christopher Effgen
host@disastercenter.com
January 21, 2002