". . . to Insure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense . . ."

“. to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence . .” PAPERS FROM THE CONFERENCE ON HOMELAND PROTECTION Edited by Max G. Manwaring October 2000 ***** The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. ***** Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications and Production Office by calling commercial (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or via the Internet at [email protected] ***** Most 1993, 1994, and all later Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI’s Homepage address is: http://carlisle-www.army. mil/usassi/welcome.htm ***** The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know by e-mail at [email protected] or by calling (717) 245-3133. ISBN 1-58487-036-2 ii CONTENTS Foreword ........................ v Overview Max G. Manwaring ............... 1 1. A Strategic Perspective on U. S. Homeland Defense: Problem and Response John J. Hamre ................. 11 2. The Army of the Constitution: The Historical Context Gregory J.W. Urwin .............. 27 3. The Public’s Expectations of National Security Peter D. Feaver ................. 63 4. Security Expectations for Transnational Corporations George K. Campbell ............... 75 5. Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threats Steven A. Cambone ............... 85 6. Chemical and Biological Terrorism: Political Hype or Bona Fide Post-Cold War Threat? Russell Howard ................. 99 7. Infrastructure Warriors: A Threat to the U.S. Homeland by Organized Crime Thomas A. Johnson .............. 161 iii 8. Threat of Civil Unrest and Insurrection William A. Navas, Jr. ............. 171 9. Missile Defense John Costello ................. 181 10. Evolving Roles and Missions for the Reserve Components in Responding to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction Ellen Embrey ................. 191 11. In Support of the Civil Authorities Donald A. Haus ................ 199 12. Where Domestic Security and Civil Liberties Collide Charles J. Dunlap, Jr . ............ 209 13. A Strategic View of Where the Army Is: Homeland Defense and Issues of Civil- Military Relations Don M. Snider John A. Nagl Tony Pfaff ................... 229 14. Toward a National Security Policy and Strategy for Now and the 21st Century Edwin G. Corr Max G. Manwaring ............. 261 About the Contributors ............... 273 iv FOREWORD On April 11-13, 2000, the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute sponsored a major conference that examined what the Department of Defense must do “to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence . .,” given the increasing contemporary threats to the U.S. homeland. The conference drew on the creative thinking of over 200 U.S. and foreign academic, business, civilian, governmental, and military leaders. The discussions generated an exceptionally rich exchange of information and ideas concerning problems and solutions to U.S. national security for now and into the 21st century. In general, the conference discussions revolved around four salient and interrelated issues: the historical context for dealing with threats to the American homeland; the complex threat situation; the evolving strategy and structure for homeland defense; and some critical considerations and recommendations. This book highlights the issues and themes that ran through the conference. As such, it is not a comprehensive record of the proceedings. It is organized as an anthology of the best of a series of outstanding conference presentations, revised in light of the discussions that took place there. Finally, the anthology is complemented by an overview and four specific recommendations. Those recommendations look to the future and place emphasis on the transformation strategy that conference participants considered essential to safeguard the American homeland now and into the future. We have not attempted to provide all the answers. Rather, our intention is to stimulate and facilitate a wider and more profound debate on U.S. defense priorities, and the need for a paradigm shift to meet the compound complex challenges of the contemporary national and global security environment. Such a debate will be critical in building the necessary support of the Congress, the Defense Commu- v nity, and the American people for the extensive changes that must be undertaken. We hope that the insights, concerns, and recommendations found in this anthology will help build a strong consensus for regenerating national security thinking, policy, strategy, and structure to meet the needs and threats of the next century. If we achieve that, we will have fulfilled our mission and commitment to you (the reader), the Department of Defense, and the American people. DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR. Director Strategic Studies Institute vi OVERVIEW Max G. Manwaring Protecting the territory and interests of the United States and its citizens from “all enemies both foreign and domestic . .,” and “to insure domestic Tranquility . .” are the principal tasks of government. The primary reason to emphasize homeland defense is the change in the type, degree, and number of threats to the United States. Now, in addition to traditional regional security issues, an array of “nontraditional” threats—including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation; a hundred different varieties of terrorism; ethnic and religious conflict; organized crime; drug trafficking; and criminal anarchy—challenges U.S. well-being. These threats to U.S. national security are exacerbated by “nonmilitary” threats and menaces that have heretofore been ignored or wished away. They include trade war, financial war, new terror war (e.g., the improving sophistication of using nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction [WMD]), and cyber war. All these threats challenge the United States at home and abroad, and blur the conventional dividing lines between military, political, economic, and informational security affairs. The combined effect of new, evolving, and increasing threats to U.S. national security is profound. It demands a new approach to both threat and response in terms of homeland defense. It suggests that, without significant changes in our national security thinking, structures, and processes, we face the grave risk that we will not be adequately prepared to deter and defend against traditional, nontraditional, and nonmilitary threats—and to minimize and contain the harm they might cause. The primary focus of our considerations and recommendations regarding these contemporary and future challenges is outlined below. 1 The Historical Context for Dealing with Threats to the American Homeland . A responsible, feasible, and achievable national security policy and strategy for the defense of the United States must begin with the values that we as a nation prize. In 1987, in observing the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution, Americans celebrated these values with a sense of rededication—values such as human dignity, personal freedom, individual rights, ethical conduct, and the pursuit of happiness, peace, and prosperity. These are the values that lead us to seek a global order that encourages human rights, self-determination, the rule of law, legitimate institutions, economic prosperity, peaceful settlement of disputes, and the elimination of injustice. The ultimate purpose of U.S. national security policy and strategy is to protect and advance those values. The Founding Fathers acknowledged that a viable government required a military establishment formidable enough to defend its citizens from outside threats, and any lawless elements that might develop in their midst. Nevertheless, they were extremely concerned about the possible abuse of power and the related threat to freedom represented by a standing army. As a result, the Founding Fathers relied heavily on the state militias, and tolerated a substantial standing military establishment only under the most extreme circumstances. Moreover, both the militias and the regular military forces of the United States were carefully circumscribed by the separation of powers and checks and balances enumerated in the United States Constitution. At the same time, there was no constitutional requirement for the regular armed forces to provide support to civil authority. It is under the Common Law concept of “Necessity” that regular military support to civil authority has been allowed. In this context, military involvement in domestic affairs has been minimal, and the emphasis has been on the fact that the regular armed forces are always in 2 support of another federal, state, or local authority. Thus, the American military establishment has been on a short tether, and generally mandated to look outward—not inward. Americans want

Load more