Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
An interview with one that has a clue, unlike most of us.
THE RANTING PROFESSORS
BUT WHAT WOULD A REAL EXPERT SAY?
THE RANTING PROFESSORS
i've mentioned before that I'm very lucky to have access here to a wonderful tri-university consortium of faculty interested in National Security and Security Studies issues. One of the great things about TISS is that it enables us to host a constant stream of conferences and seminars, and through those I've had the opportunity to meet some really wonderful people, many of whom I've stayed in touch with.
Well, one of the folks I met at a TISS event and stayed up with since is one of the nation's leading authority's on homeland security, Colonel Randall Larsen, USAF (Ret)
You may be familiar with the name. Colonel Larsen is a frequent guest on radio and television including: CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, BBC, Fox News Channel, and Larry King Live. Since March 2003 he has been the Homeland Security consultant to CBS News. His analysis and opinions have recently appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, NEWSWEEK, Time, and Business Week.
He was one of the first witnesses called before the 9/11 commission.
Since we've all been merrily blogging away about the alerts, the seriousness of the alert, the relevance of the age of the intelligence, and the way the press has handled the situation, I thought I'd ask him if he'd be willing to be interviewed about all of this via email, and he agreed.
He's the Founder and CEO of Homeland Security Associates, LLC, a private consulting firm that provides homeland security consulting to corporations, trade associations, and government agencies. Previously, he was the Founding Director of the Institute for Homeland Security and the Chairman of the Department of Military Strategy and Operations at the National War College.
Colonel Larsen is a frequent expert witness for the US Congress and has recently appeared before the: Senate Armed Services, Senate Judiciary, House Government Reform Committees, and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.
He has also provided private briefings and tutorials on a wide range of Homeland Security topics to numerous members of Congress, including Senators Kennedy, Warner, Kyl, Feinstein, Roberts, Cornyn, Graham, and members of the Bush Administration, including Vice President Cheney and Secretary Ridge.
Colonel, by the way, served for 32 years in both the Army and Air Force. Since street cred these days seems to depend in part upon service in Vietnam, I'll also point out that he flew 400 combat missions during that conflict, and that his decorations include the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, 17 awards of the Air Medal (3 with "V" Device for Valor), and the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.
The Interview:
My questions are in bold, and his answers are in plain text.
1. Just to establish a baseline, how serious do you think this alert is?
This is the most serious and credible threat indications we have seen
since July 2001. Believe me, not all of the information has been
released (or leaked).
2. How good a job do you think the national media has been doing, this
particular alert aside, of communicating the seriousness of the threat,
and educating people about it?
Two recent studies (one by the American Red Cross) state that the
American public is not psychologically prepared for the next attack.
Part of this responsibility belongs to the press, part to government
leaders and part to the American public. This fact should surprise no
one. We are in new territory. Leaders do not want to frighten the
public, particularly in an election year when it could make the
incumbents look incompetent, and the population would rather not think
the unthinkable.
This is a long term situation. The threat will not go away. Modern
technology allows small groups to threaten major nations. Fifty years
ago UBL would have been just another angry guy in the desert with an
AK-47. Today, he and others can bring large-scale attacks to our
homeland.
3. What did you think about the coverage of this alert, especially the
controversy over the "age" of the intelligence?
Many who are reporting on these matters do not understand intelligence
operations and analysis. I spent four years in the field as an
intelligence officer. When you acquire a valuable source, such as a
laptop computer, it isn't like a Tom Cruise movie. It takes a lot of
time to go through someone's hard drive -- particularly one that has files
written in different languages with parts encrypted. The initial scan
of some files showed incredibly detailed reports of several key
buildings. This information was combined with arrests made several days
earlier where one of the individuals said attacks will "happen soon in
Washington and New York."
I would have made the same decision as the
National Command Authority. As we began to peel the onion, it became
apparent that many of the photos were old. However, for those who have
taken the time to read the 9-11 Commission Report or for those who study
al Qaeda, they would know that al Qaeda often spends several years
preparing for a major attack. The discussion of "age" was primarily a
result of a lack of understanding by the press.
Furthermore, some of the photos were from 2004.
This is not to say, however, had the intelligence community has their
act together ... they don't. The recommendations of the 9-11 Commission
need to be implemented. Without them, our intelligent successes will be
hit and miss.
The intelligence community has had a good 10 days, but we need more than
just a few good days. As General Eisenhower said, "The right
organization will not guarantee success, but the wrong organization will
guarantee failure. On 9-11 we had the wrong organization. Since then
we have made some improvements, but without major organizational
changes, like those recommended by the 9-11 Commission, we will not see
significant improvements.
4. Would you change the strategy for public notification of threats?
aside from the color coding system? I wonder what you think about a
strategy for the conditions under which the public is notified, how
much information should be released, the way it's phrased, etc.
The color coded system is primarily for senior government leaders at the
Federal, state and local level, law enforcement personnel, and corporate
leaders in various industry sectors. Unfortunately, it has not been
"sold" as such. The Department of Homeland Security needs to do a
better job of selling this idea.
5. It seems as if they've all but abandoned the color coding system
without out and out saying so -- what would you do with that system?
See above. I would build an educational and marketing campaign to build
better understanding. What does Orange mean to Joe-six-pack. What does
it mean to a CEO in the chemical or transportation industries? What does
it mean to a mayor and police chief?
Another problem is that they try to communicate two things with one
level of alert or color. There are two issues at hand. Is there an
increased probability of attack? And ... are we talking about car bombs
or suitcase nukes? You can't address these two issues with one level of
alert.
6. between now and the election, every alert leaves the administration
open to the charge that what they're doing is politically motivated.
What advice would you give them for dealing with that, to us as news
consumers for interpreting alerts during this time, and to the media
for covering alerts responsibly?
I would keep John Ashcroft off of TV. Tom Ridge is not running for
office and he has already made it clear he is leaving after the
election. He has the highest credibility as a nonpartisan spokesman in
this Administration.
[Note: ellipses are in original. This is unedited.]
(And my thanks to the Colonel for taking the time to share his thoughts; it is very much appreciated.)
Posted on August 07, 2004 at 08:05 AM
