President in transition must be on alert for terrorism

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

With voters concerned about a faltering economy and the war in Iraq, the possibility of a terrorist attack on American soil has not been at the top of the presidential campaign agenda.

And until either Barack Obama or John McCain takes the White House, no one knows whether homeland security and concerns about a domestic attack will be a priority or will fall by the wayside in the face of other issues.

“We don’t know an attack is inevitable, but we know the risk is high,” said Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way, a politically moderate think tank. “And we know if the response is not smooth, we risk tremendous damage to the U.S. in every possible respect, from increased loss of life to lack of faith in leadership of the new president.”

Mr. Bennett is part of a group of policy analysts that has spent the past 10 months researching scenarios of a terrorist attack in the first year of a presidency.

The Homeland Security Presidential Transition Initiative, a joint project of Third Way and the Center for American Progress, plans to publish a security manual that will be distributed to the candidates before Nov. 4.

The manual draws from discussions with a range of security analysts, including John Podesta, who was a chief of staff for President Clinton, and Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under Mr. Clinton. They think that, once in office, the next American president must quickly devise an extensive preparedness plan to establish a governmental chain of command, communicate with the public and coordinate mobilization efforts.

Based on the content of each candidate’s Web site, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have preliminarily pinpointed their top postelection homeland security priorities. Both men outline plans that include supporting first responders, improving border security and protecting infrastructure.

“The question is: To what extent are the campaigns already planning for the transition and planning their leadership teams?” said P.J. Crowley, senior fellow at liberal think tank Center for American Progress. “On the one hand, it sounds presumptuous, but on the other hand, it’s really important.”

The analysts have been working with history as their guide, claiming terrorists are inclined to strike during leaders’ first terms. This happened in 2001 with Sept. 11, less than eight months after George W. Bush took office. Mr. Clinton was inaugurated a mere month before the bombing of the World Trade Center garage in 1993; George H.W. Bush was only weeks away from his inauguration when the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 happened in 1988; and three days after Gordon Brown became British prime minister in 2007, two terrorists loaded a vehicle with propane canisters and drove it into Glasgow International Airport.

So, what would be the strategy behind a first-term strike?

In its first year, an administration is still in transition and vulnerable to disruptions. The new president is responsible for nominating a slew of candidates for crucial positions, including members of his Cabinet, such as the secretary and undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Without these appointments, lines of authority in a conflict would not be clear and the disorganization could hamstring an administration trying to manage a crisis.

“Really the question is: How can you accelerate this process?” Mr. Crowley said. “How can the next president and his administration get its arms around this thing called homeland security as rapidly and effectively as possible?”

Mr. Crowley and his colleague at the center, senior policy adviser Michael Signer, are adamant that the next president should retool the way security threats in the United States are assessed.

In the analysts’ opinions, the Bush administration has bungled efforts to communicate with the public on homeland security, from recommendations to stock up on duct tape to the confusing color-coded threat system. The Department of Homeland Security’s credibility is waning, they say, and people are tired of messages from the government that raise fears but don’t equip them in the event of an attack.

Story Continues →