home

"World at Risk" Terror Report Released

The World at Risk Terror Report was released today. You can read it here(pdf).

It predicts a biological, chemical or nuclear attack before 2013. From the executive summary:

The Commission believes that unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013. The Commission further believes that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon.

The Commission believes that the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bioterror attack.

Among the report's recommendations:[More...]

RECOMMENDATION 1: The United States should undertake a series of mutually reinforcing domestic measures to prevent bioterrorism: (1) conduct a comprehensive review of the domestic program to secure dangerous pathogens, (2) develop a national strategy for advancing bioforensic capabilities, (3) tighten government oversight of high-containment laboratories, (4) promote a culture of security awareness in the life sciences community, and (5) enhance the nation’s capabilities for rapid response to prevent biological attacks from inflicting mass casualties.

This is not the first time a report along this front has been issued. In 2003, former Sen. Gary Hart, Mark Rudman and others released a report (pdf) with similar warnings, calling for greater emphasis on first responders and saying America is unprepared for such attacks.

Today's report is very strong about Iran and North Korea:

RECOMMENDATION 5: As a top priority, the next administration must stop the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs. In the case of Iran, this requires the permanent cessation of all of Iran’s nuclear weapons–related efforts. In the case of North Korea, this requires the complete abandonment and dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.

If, as appears likely, the next administration seeks to stop these programs through direct diplomatic engagement with the Iranian and North Korean governments, it must do so from a position of strength, emphasizing both the benefits to them of abandoning their nuclear weapons programs and the enormous costs of failing to do so. Such engagement must be backed by the credible threat of direct action in the event that diplomacy fails.

From the Hart-Rudman report:

[A}ggressively pursuing America’s homeland security imperatives quickly and immediately may well be the most important thing we can do to sustain America’s cherished freedoms for future generations.

Preparedness at home plays a critical role in combating terrorism by reducing its appeal as an effective means of warfare. Acts of catastrophic terrorism produce not only deaths and physical destruction but also societal and economic disruption.Thus, as important as it is to try and attack terrorist organizations overseas and isolate those who support them, it is equally important to eliminate the incentive for undertaking these acts in the first place. If the disruptive effects of terrorism can be sharply reduced, if not eliminated, America’s adversaries may be deterred from taking their battles to the streets of the American homeland.

< More Lessons Of History: The Need For A Left Flank | Can Minimalism Be Transformative? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe it's just me, but (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:08:32 PM EST
    I don't understand why these people don't engage themselves in a serious effort to understand the source of discontent that creates movements such as Al Qaeda.

    One thing, mentioned by Gravel during the "debates" was our support of despots in the region. It's amazing that Iran was so sympathetic to us after 9/11 considering the support we had given to the Shaw of Iran - a tyrant.

    What I'm getting at is that I don't think that terrorists are people that decide one day that they would like to blow people up. Their cause, at least in their eyes, is to avenge what they see as a wrong.
    In the Muslim world, the fact that Palestinians were made to lose their lands for the sake of the creation of Israel is a festering sore.
    Ahmadinejad asked why Israel wasn't created by taking land from Germany instead of Palestine. I think it is a question that is worthy of an answer.

    In our world, we use horrific weaponry to kill people - military and civilian. They are just as dead as the ones killed by explosives strapped to a waist of a terrorist. And - talk about terror: What was "shock and awe" if not terror?

    As many have said, terror is a tactic - or the equivalent of a weapon. The solution would appear to me to be to get at the causes of injustice around the world - to talk to everyone -without preconditions - so that people are not wont to use these weapons. Somehow, we managed to cool out the former Soviet Union without blowing them up. We should be able to do it with Iran.

    It's kinda bleak. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    We are talking about sadistic human nature here. We all want pursue our own happiness and make sure other people are less happy than ourselves.

    A great deal of our material comfort in the west is based on exploiting our own poor and the poor of other nations. In turn a great of the spiritual comfort of  the participants of the Jihad experience is in inflicting bodily suffering on westerners (and westernized third world people.) Although I don't really think they care a great deal about their own poor.  They really are involved in religious conflict.

    Parent

    Interesting public radio interview (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:20:32 PM EST
    yesterday of a woman who is 103 years old.  She wrote a memoir recently:  "I'm Still Here."  In the interview she talked above poverty when she was growing up, stealing potatos from vegetable vendor (you think you've seen poverty?  I'll tell you about poverty.).  She also talked about technology since she was a kid, all the usual.  But, her most poignant point was that human nature hasn't improved; still lots of war, cruelty, crime.  She seemd to think human nature should with time.

    Parent
    Not so simple (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    Wish all this was something that the West could fix all by ourselves if we just did everything  differently from how we do it right now. Certain segments of populations will still end up being abused due to the construction of their existing culture and governments.  Thinking this is all about us and therefore we are to blame and we can fix all of this single handedly by only altering our behavior is grandiose.

    Parent
    There are groups in this world who want (more) power, and they believe the only way they can get it is if they take it from those other groups who have more.

    Not surprisingly, those other groups don't want to give their power away...

    Parent

    Sorry to disagree, but that sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    trying to formulate a law policy based on rooting out the "causes" of crime.
    Sure, attacking root causes should be part of a sensible crime program, but regardless, a certain percentage of the population will be murderers, thiefs, rapists, anyway.  

    Parent
    Ya gotta do both... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    Definitely...but right now we seem to be focusing too much on catching and killing terrorists and not enough to address the root causes.

    There are reasons to have no love for the USA, we can certainly do better to get the number of people willing to kill down, and of course kill less ourselves..how many Iraqis have we killed again?

    Parent

    To be honest, right now the focus (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 05:27:24 PM EST
    is on LOOKING like we are catching and killing terrorists.

    Parent
    very well said. (none / 0) (#4)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    Good questions... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    I think the reason we don't get answers is because answers require we look in the mirror and acknowledge our wrongs...and nobody is willing to do that.  Us good/them bad is easier on the conscience.

    I'll say the unmentionable again...the creation of Israel was a mistake for which many have suffered and will continue to suffer, on all sides.  Ahmadenijad has a point...a slice of Germany would have been a more righteous location for a Jewish homeland.

    What to do it about it now?  I have no idea...things are f*cked, the hatred and use of violence runs deep all around.  I guess we can start by not making new enemies and extending some olive branches to our existing enemies...if the olive branches are rejected, at least we gave it an honest shot.  I don't think we can say we've given peace an honest shot since we became one of the big dogs after WWII.

    Parent

    The Us simply... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:51:14 PM EST
    ...stepped in where the UK stepped out.

    If you look at the major US bases in the world, they look strangely similar to maps of Royal Navy coaling stations in 1914. No joke.

    Parent

    I never got that... (none / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    Why Germans didn't have to give up their land for Jews. That would have been more fair.

    Parent
    lSomething about The Promised Land? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    Not too many allegedly historic Hebraic sites in Germany.  

    Parent
    I understand that (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    but what I don't understand (and I am a secular Jew) is why that took precendence over the fact that there were already people living on that land.

    For me, when it comes to land, possession is 9/10ths of the law...and ancient history be dammned.

    Anyhow, now the Jews possess that land, and there ain't no going back. So the Palestineans need to get past that original extreme unfairness and learn how to live in peace.

    Parent

    Exactamundo. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    Yes, I know. (none / 0) (#19)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    Simple, yet impossible in practice.

    Parent
    Yep... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:57:36 PM EST
    we can't go back because that would just be another wrong...kicking people off their land.

    It's only been 60 years since Israel was created out of thin air...hopefully Israel and Palestine will find a way eventually, but it looks like it will take more time to heal those wounds, especially when they are constantly being ripped open by aggression from both sides, and dictators and tyrants all to willing to exploit the wounds for their own ends.

    Parent

    I know. There is very little common ground (none / 0) (#30)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 05:26:28 PM EST
    at this point, it's very sad.

    Parent
    A Congressional Committee has just given (none / 0) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:59:22 PM EST
    the Political-military-industrial complex (PMIC) a 100 page permission slip to continue waging the 'war on terror', ad infinitum.

    In this scenario, there is no foreseeable end to warrantless wire-taping, perpetual 'preventive' detention, torture, 'enhanced interrogation', rendition and suspension of habeas corpus.

    Am I the only one who fears these unending, unlimited, so-called protective measures more than the threat of a "WMD attack somewhere in the world by 2013".

    Parent

    This is Apalling (none / 0) (#45)
    by 2178743 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:50:56 AM EST
    This posts shows a total lack of a grasp of reality. To equate the US with terrorists? Are you kidding me? This is how the term 'liberal' got a stigma and the adjective of loony.

    by Bryan

    Parent

    "equate the US with terrorists" (none / 0) (#49)
    by Andreas on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    The war on Iraq was a terrorist act like the war on Poland waged by Nazi-Germany and those responsible for terrorist acts by definition are terrorists. Yes, the main terrorist organisation today exists in the US - first of all in Washington DC.

    Parent
    except, of course, it isn't true. (none / 0) (#46)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:17:32 AM EST
    In the Muslim world, the fact that Palestinians were made to lose their lands for the sake of the creation of Israel is a festering sore.

    the lands in question were historically the home of the jewish people, the palestinians were the late comers. this pre-dates the british mandate by 2,000 years, the palestinian propaganda notwithstanding.

    having said that, i am not without sympathy for the palestinians, i think they've gotten kind of a raw deal (though it was their choice to leave israel in 1948, they weren't kicked out) all around.

    their leadership has been dreadful, and the rest of the arab states have just used them against israel, caring not two nanny goat sh*ts about them otherwise. israel manages to occupy the only piece of desert that doesn't have oil underneath it, so that isn't the issue.

    the arab states could easily eliminate the "islamist" terrorists, if they so desired, they don't. they use them to carry on a proxy war with israel, and then feign innocence.

    as long as we are dependent on their oil, they'll continue to do this, with no real pressure applied to stop it. it gives the marginal among their young something to keep them occupied, and away from the governments that employ them.

    Parent

    U.S. says it it o.k. for India to have (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    nuclear weapons, but not Iran or Korea.  Why?

    I'll go one further... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    US says we can have them, and Iran/N. Korea can't...wtf?  Makes no sense.


    Parent
    Of all attacks (none / 0) (#12)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    a nuclear attack would easily be the most devastating.

    OTOH - nuclear technology is expensive and highly advanced.  It's relatively easy to detect and track anything highly radioactive.  Plus, it's likely that any country selling the technology and weapons grade material would be found out.

    So while a nuclear attack is the probably the worst case scenario terrorist attack, I find it unlikely.  Too, too risky in multiple ways.

    Terrorists are big on symbolism.  You can do plenty of damage to national or religious symbols with nothing more than guns, explosives or planes.

    Biological attacks I find unlikely.  Like nuclear attacks, the technology is difficult.  Anthrax forms inert spores, but most other microbes need to be kept alive.

    Chemical attacks are much easier, especially due to the highly lethal nature of nerve gas agents.  All you need is a contained space and a delivery system.

    I expect the most common terrorist attacks will use the standard guns and bombs and people.  

    And remember - a middling natural disaster takes more lives and destroys more infrastructure than all but the largest terrorist attacks.  Detection and prevention are important, but we should always be ready to deal with the aftermath of any disaster.

    Parent

    I'll go one nuke further... (none / 0) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:33:58 PM EST
    As the ONLY nation to have ever used nuclear weapons, shouldn't the US be the FIRST nation to rid itself of said weapons.

    Parent
    Because the US has the power? (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    ummmm cuz we see reflections of (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:59:30 PM EST
    ourselves in India that we want to see and we would never use a nuclear weapon irresponsibly okay?

    Parent
    I'm pretty busy (or I'm supposed to be)... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:17:44 PM EST
    ... so this'll be a quick comment.

    Please, everyone, read this analysis of the report from someone who knows his stuff.

    He makes some very good points.

    Be back later...

    Thanks - that's a good article. (none / 0) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    And it provides much needed perspective on this report.

    Parent
    He's King Nerd of Nuke Mountain (none / 0) (#32)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 06:05:26 PM EST
    Or something like that.  "Wonk" is an understatement.  It's a fantastic blog. The other folks who post there are great, too.

    I don't always agree with them, but it's one of the first places I go for analysis.

    Parent

    Shouldn't that be entitled: (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    FIRST World at Risk??

    SInce the rest of the world is always at risk.

    C'mon (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by bocajeff on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    Most of you are better than this.

    The root cause of terrorism for one group of people might be undone, but that usually creates other problems (look at WWI and the Treaty of Versailles and then WWII and Israel, etc...)

    There are many more terrorist groups with concerns other than the Israel. Remember Lebanon, Anwar Sadat?

    And it's not just our support for tyrants. In most countries it usually comes down to a choice between two tyrants - the one we like and the one we don't like.

    The U.S. has home grown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph (sp)...

    It's easy to look and point fingers, but it is also naive to do so.

    Terrorism is just war being fought by those with no country, few people, and few weapons against larger institutions.

    Anwar Sadat (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:41:43 AM EST
    was most certainly about Israel!

    Parent
    What comments do you find problematic? (none / 0) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    anything (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by bocajeff on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    anything that leaves out the notion that there will always be humans who will be bent on destroying others for their own gain (whether we deem them good or bad is irrelevant in this context).

    Parent
    That phrase, the (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by eric on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    "American homeland" makes me sick.  Does anyone remember that nobody uttered such a term before 2001?  And you know why?   Because it sounds pretty damn Nazi.

    I wonder how long until we integrate "anschluss" and "lebensraum" into our Federal governmental policy.

    Seriously, the United States is a country of people, not land.  That is why we don't talk about the fatherland, the homeland, or the motherland.

    It's not quite an invocation... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    ...of the Fatherland.  It's like the Heimat, which is more neutral. Everything always sounds a bit more evil in German of course.

    Government people used to say Mainland (as opposed to Hawaii and Pearl Harbor).  

    Parent

    Actually I think that the phrase (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST
    was "National Security" - not "Homeland" or "Candyland" or "Disney Land" security - you see what I'm saying - no emotional tug at the heart strings in the original phrasing - it was just a fairly straight descriptive term.

    The phrase "Homeland Security" has always given me the creeps.

    Parent

    Exactly, at a minimum (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by eric on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM EST
    we just don't talk like that.  We don't go live in France for a few years and then say, "I must return to my homeland".

    Furthermore, the concept of American homeland is flawed.  American's live here because (most of us) descend from people who came here in the last 300 years or so.  If you want to start talking about American homeland, perhaps you should talk to some the the Native Americans.  It's a lot more their "homeland" than mine.

    But without getting into all of that, it is pretty clear that the term just doesn't fit.  It doesn't sound right.  It was created, probably, as a response to the vigorous, rabid nationalism that followed 9/11.  People really get their goose-stepping grove on when they hear "homeland".  It's a very good us v. them word.

    Parent

    Best defense: top notch health care ....globally (none / 0) (#2)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:14:44 PM EST
    The Commission further believes that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon.


    Prep for the next 9/11 false flag operation (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    Most so-called terror attacks are state sponsored.
    Study just the available evidence and facts about 9/11 that are known and it's extremely unlikely that after doing so the Official 9/11 story will be even the least bit credible.

    Well, duh..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:43:02 PM EST
    Whenever these reports come out, that's usually the first thing that comes to mind for me.  Common-sense gussied up as a something fantastic and unreachable, while simultaneously ignorning simple solutions like eliminating nuclear weapons from everyone's (including the US') arsenal.  Tax-payer money used to produce a report that 10 people will read but nonetheless will be used to push a "be very afraid" message via the evening news on all of us.  

    - feh

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki (none / 0) (#40)
    by Andreas on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:12:57 PM EST
    The world will net forget that the US so far was the first and only country which used nuclear weapons.

    And Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that she is prepared to "anihilate" Iran.


    Maybe you should look up the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:18:45 PM EST
    entire quote.

    Parent
    Doesn't this kind of make you think (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 05:16:10 AM EST
    of the Mayan prediction that the world will end on December 23, 2012? I'm just saying, it's kind of a creepy coinkydink.

    I think of the Mayan calendar's expiration date... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    everyday when I read the (usually) bad news.

    It does feel like the sh*t is coming to a culminating head.

    Parent

    Appeasement Can Not be Our Policy (none / 0) (#44)
    by 2178743 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:45:48 AM EST
    Nothing has historically been a continuing mistake as appeasement. There will always be groups and countries in the world that despise the rich and powerful. Just look at the left wing Democrats; you look at the rich as the problem with this country. You call them greedy and evil. You want to take their wealth and distribute among the less fortunate. However, you don't consider that greed? Does the end justify the means? Taking money you did not earn is stealing, even if it's through legislation.

    The US is rich and powerful, therefore hated by those who are not. I am appalled that one commenter seemed to think the US is terrorists and equivalent to cowards who strap bombs to children and kill innocent people. We are the single best force of good in the world. We are not perfect, nor will we ever be.

    Turning attention back to the report on the biological threat; the report specifically stated a real threat of force must exist in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Clinton tried working with the North Korean madman. That madman took our money and Uranium and immediately began making nuclear weapons. FDR attempted to stay out of a World War that was instigated by another madman.  Britain, despite Winston Churchill's warnings, sought to appease Germany. The result, a "surprise" attack that decimated the US navy and brave soldiers and a British government caught unprepared for a war. Let's work with those who genuinely want it, but let's destroy those governments and leaders who do not. This failure of appeasement is recent. We can live in peace, but only when those who wish to destroy the US understand that the US will annihilate any government that attempts it.

    by Bryan


    Taking money you did not earn? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    This is my view and only mine but voters and middle class have allowed the politicians to sell them out to the corporations and that responsibility rests on our shoulders (the middle class).  The flip though is that it is the rich in this country who own all this stuff that needs transported on our roads (my roads by the way, I paid for them too) and it weighs a ton and tears them up, and they have most of the seriously expensive crap that must protected from theft by law enforcement and must saved from fire if we can manage it.  The wealthy in this country want to consume and consume and consume and not have to pay the taxes that employ the people and buy the goods needed to maintain their crap.  Pay the taxes, shut up, you are not special just because you are rich.....pay your way, we didn't tell you to buy all this stuff that the democracy now must protect!  What a free ride rip off they get in this country right now on the backs of the little people!  Can't wait for another bridge to fall down around here, can't drive any 18 wheelers over that though!  P.S. if you aren't rich they are only using you to better their lives at you expense. If you are rich, pay up and pay your share.

    Parent