Snipers expose security gaps

The handling of the Washington sniper case has illustrated what two new studies are arguing--that the United States remains, more than a year after Sept. 11, dangerously vulnerable to another terrorist attack and its aftermath.

The three-week rampage did not reveal a breakdown in communications among federal, state and local officials--the people who would have to cope first with an attack--so much as show that no formal communications network has been set up to meet such an emergency, the studies indicated.

One of the studies was led by former Sens. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) for the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Their report, a follow-up to their earlier assessment that warned of a terrorist attack eight months before Sept. 11, said, "America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil."

The new Hart-Rudman report implies that much of the anti-terrorism work of the past year has been misguided, even counterproductive, with most resources going to previous targets: airports and airlines. Meanwhile, the likeliest future targets, such as ports and energy systems, are hurting for funds and attention, and the need to build an anti-terrorist communications grid has been nearly ignored.

There is no evidence that John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo, the accused snipers, are linked to Al Qaeda or any other international terrorist ring. But to people who worry about terrorism, the spree tested the anti-terrorist system and found it filled with holes.

"On the threat side, the sniper case highlighted how much disruption you can get with a small investment," said Stephen Flynn, project director for the anti-terrorism report issued by the council. "On the response side, it highlights the importance of coordination and the challenges of multi-state jurisdictions."

Mixed assessments

"We found a threat vulnerability," agreed Phil Anderson, who coordinated a recent study that included a simulation of a terrorist threat to the U.S. energy system for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is a need for coordination between government at all levels, as well as with the private sector."

FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted last week that cooperation among federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies was "truly remarkable" in the sniper case.

But the investigation also "pointed out the fault lines between state, local and federal authorities," Anderson said.

The original Hart-Rudman report, issued in January 2001, warned that the "relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack" was about to end with "a direct attack on American citizens on American soil. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures."

Among other things, the evaluation urged the immediate creation of a national homeland security agency.

The report was almost totally ignored by the government and news media. But eight months later, its importance became obvious, and two months after the attacks, President Bush set up an Office of Homeland Security.

The follow-up Hart-Rudman assessment was eagerly awaited.

It found ample cause for alarm, concluding:

- A war on Iraq is being planned before the nation is ready to counter any terrorism it might ignite.

"We have to make more progress at home before we do something that provokes others," Hart said, in criticizing the Bush administration's rush to war.

- State and local police across the country "operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watch lists provided by the Department of State to immigration and consular officials."

Better communications "would solve a lot of problems, and that's not budget-intensive," Hart said.