Clinton Legacy Watch # 16: Will America Be Defended?

(Washington, D.C.): Suddenly, like the outbreak of a deadly flu, the threat posed by dangerous
germs is much in the news. Set aside reports of Hong Kong’s frightening bird virus, which has
begun felling humans, or the controversy surrounding the FDA decision to permit irradiation of
meat products to sanitize them. The real news is the growing attention being paid in some circles
to the prospect that lethal bacteria might be deliberately disseminated for military purposes or as
an instrument of terrorism — biological warfare (BW).

A Bill of Particulars

Consider a short sampler of the recent developments related to the BW threat:

• Iraq’s ominous biological warfare capability — which Saddam Hussein has successfully
  concealed for the past six years, despite the most intrusive inspection regime imaginable — was
  vividly illustrated last month by Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In the course of a
  national television appearance, he displayed a five-pound bag of Domino’s sugar that, if
  filled with the anthrax virus, would be sufficient to destroy half the population of
  Washington.
• On 1 December, the congressionally mandated National Defense Panel warned that, “The
  increasing…capability to fabricate and introduce biotoxins and chemical agents into the United
  States means that rogue nations or transnational actors may be able to threaten our
  homeland.“
• A new study, entitled “Assessment of the Impact of Chemical/Biological Weapons on Joint
  Operations in 2010″ prepared under contract for the Defense Department by a distinguished
  group of retired general officers and other experts, calls attention to the crippling effect on
  U.S. power projection capabilities that would arise if airfields and ports from which
  American forces would deploy were subjected to chemical or biological attack.
• According to press reports, a Defense Science Board analysis leaked this week “faults existing
  military capabilities to detect and respond to biological attack and says efforts to improve
  defenses have ‘stretched thin’ current personnel and capabilities.”
• Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Tuesday told a NATO meeting that the threat posed
  by biological and other weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Middle Eastern
  nations has to become a major focus for the Atlantic Alliance in the years ahead.
• Last, but not least, the Pentagon announced this week that all military personnel would
  be vaccinated against anthrax in what Secretary Cohen called a “force protection” measure.

What About America?

In light of all these developments, President Clinton was asked at his press conference on Tuesday
an eminently sensible question: “Should civilians be vaccinated against anthrax?” The
President responded, “I do not think that’s called for at this time. I couldn’t recommend
that.”

Why would the President decline to recommend a course of action deemed necessary for
everyone in uniform? Could it be simply a logistical issue? It takes eighteen months and six shots
to achieve significant protection against this virulent disease (with booster shots required
periodically thereafter). The Defense Department expects it will cost $130 million just to protect
its 2.4 million personnel.

Or could it be a function of the fact that an enemy who wishes to kill thousands, if not millions, of
Americans could easily end-run such a prophylactic action? That might be achieved should an
adversary substitute a genetically altered strain of anthrax, or some other infectious virus for
which no vaccine exists or has been administered. Of course, the same technique could be
employed to defeat the U.S. military’s newly announced BW preparations.

No, the real reason the President seems to be assuring the American people that there is no
need to act to protect themselves against biological agents at this time is that a more
realistic approach would knock his entire defense policy into a cocked hat.

‘Assured Vulnerability’

Specifically, Mr. Clinton opposes active defenses (i.e., weapons that counter attacking weapons)
and passive defenses (e.g., civil defense measures) for the U.S. homeland. After all, these run
counter to the present U.S. posture of “assured vulnerability.” Unbeknownst to most Americans
this bizarre policy was codified in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty — an accord that prohibits
the United States from having effective missile defenses and that the Clinton Administration
maintains constitutes “the cornerstone of strategic stability.”

Thus, while the United States’ military and allies might need defenses against missile attack, to the
American people Mr. Clinton keeps saying “For the first time in a generation, there are no missiles
pointed at our children.” Now, his Administration claims that our armed forces and NATO
partners should worry about biological warfare, but the public here at home has no need for the
sorts of expensive and systemic measures that might afford it some protection against BW attack.

What Clinton Hath Wrought

To the contrary, the Clinton Administration has just announced that it is eviscerating the strategic
doctrine that calls for a robust nuclear deterrent, in favor of a minimal deterrence posture.⁽¹⁾
Incredibly, it hopes that having a far smaller and more vulnerable nuclear arsenal will be sufficient,
not only to dissuade the sorts of strategic threats we used to face but also the emerging dangers of
biological and chemical attack on the United States. This will become an even more sporty
proposition if, as seems likely, the President announces in his State of the Union address that he is
going to “deposture” (read, dismantle or otherwise disarm) what remains of the U.S. deterrent
forces.

Oh yes, the Administration will point to an initiative to train “first responders” in the 120 largest
American cities so they won’t get wiped out in the initial wave of a biological or chemical attack.
Also the National Guard is supposed to play more of a role in dealing with such contingencies, as
are small Army and Marine units that have recently been established for this purpose.

And then there is arms control. The Administration maintains that the BW threat will become
more tractable if only we can improve the verification provisions of another hapless 1972 treaty —
the Biological Weapons Convention. Never mind that this treaty has been so universally violated
that the United States may be one of a handful of nations that is actually respecting its prohibition
on the production, stockpiling or use of biological weaponry.

The Bottom Line

Such whistling-past-the-graveyard is no basis for American security policy. Unless dramatic
changes are made over the adamant objections of the Clinton team, the people of the
United States are going to be condemned for the indefinite future to a state of vulnerability
that is morally reprehensible, strategically foolish and an invitation to attacks involving
biological or other weapons of mass destruction.

In calling for urgent action to defend the American homeland — the “principal task of
government” — the National Defense Panel correctly recommended that the United States
“develop integrated active and passive defense measures against the use of weapons of mass
destruction.” There is literally not a moment to lose. Bill Clinton must either become part of
the solution or get out of the way.

– 30 –

1. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled Clinton Legacy Watch # 14: A Doctrine for
Denuclearization (No. 97-D 190, 8 December 1997).