Unprepared

John Mintz and Joby Warrick of The Washington Post present a dismaying and frightening summary of the threat of bioterrorism in their article "U.S. Unprepared Despite Progress."

It's not all that different from the nightmare-scenario articles I was reading two years ago* when I was researching a training manual for the private security company I worked for at the time. The big difference, though, is that two more years have passed and the U.S. is nearly as woefully unprepared to face such threats as it was before Sept. 11, 2001.

That's not good.

The semi-good news is that many of the most-feared and deadliest sorts of bioweapons remain difficult to produce or control and that al-Qaida is probably not capable of using such weapons.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of cheaper, dirtier methods available that al-Qaida would be capable of using. And we remain unprepared for these threats as well:

... terrorists need little expertise to mount a potentially devastating attack on livestock or crops, experts note.

"You don't need to manipulate genetics to spread foot-and-mouth disease in cattle," said David Franz, who headed the military's top biodefense research lab at Fort Detrick, Md. "You can see economic damage that adds up not to millions, but to tens of billions of dollars."

Articles like this one scare me, and for good reason. One of the stranger aspects of life in America these days is the way that public fear is generated, used, harnessed and manipulated, often around phantom menaces like the idea that Saddam Hussein might have bioterror drones with the range of an arctic tern. Yet on subjects like this one -- or subjects like the security of ports or chemical plants -- legitimate fears are played down lest the public demand the government actually do something to prepare against these frightening threats.

Mintz and Warrick make another grim observation, slightly off-topic and almost in passing:

Local and state health officials say their underfunded agencies ... have received inadequate federal funds and guidance on what the states should address in their bioterrorism master plans.

These underfunded agencies receiving inadequate federal funding are further strained by the need to prepare for the threat of biological terrorism. Something's got to give, and that something will inevitably be the part of their mission described in the phrase I replaced with an ellipsis above. Here's the entire sentence:

Local and state health officials say their underfunded agencies, which focus mostly on caring for the poor, have received inadequate federal funds and guidance on what the states should address in their bioterrorism master plans.

See what's coming? The same people who brought you false dichotomies like "jobs vs. the environment" are getting ready to introduce a new one: "security vs. health care for the poor."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* One of the best articles I found on the subject of preparedness against biological terrorism was by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Discussing the meaning of preparedness, Cordesman wrote:

We can speculate on scenarios, delivery methods and lethality, we can conduct studies and exercises, and we can write doctrine until hell freezes over, but our chances of really being much better than Buffy are simply not that great ...

Yes, he means that Buffy. Cordesman uses Joss Whedon's show as an organizing motif in his paper, "Biological Warfare and the 'Buffy Paradigm'" (warning: the link is to a .pdf file).

Comments

[Jake]

The "Buffy Paradigm" is unfortunatly pro-war, as every 'big bad' in buffy is destroyed by one big, impromptu descisive battle, after a number of more timid and well thought out attacks and counter attacks.

Now if it had talked of a 'wily Coyote/Roadrunner' paradigm, the Bush admin's reactionary policies to 9/11 would make some sense.
rural america votes him in to power, liberal america get's blown up (or vice a versa)...

[TEd]

Fred - I've been trying to get some support for anti-agroterorrism funding since 2001, when it was my high school policy debate case.

Spreading foot-and-mouth disease is incredibly easy - just swab a nose, swab another, and pretty soon you've brought the American beef industry down singlehandedly.

Yes, there's more reasons to live in fear. Gahhh...I wish I had religion to fall back on.

[cjmr]

I don't think you'd actually need a swab, either. Just one person carrying the virus around on his/her clothing going from farm to farm to ranch "visiting", touring and petting the cattle. Foot and mouth is pretty contagious.

[cjmr's husband]

"Where are we goin?"
"We're going to get shot."
"Say what?"
"I said we're going to get shot."
"Well what for?"
"Because we got Hoof & Mouth."
"Hoof & Mouth -- what's that?"
"See that foam around your mouth?"
"Yep."
"That's Hoof & Mouth."
"They gonna shoot us?"
"Yep"
"Anyway I can get out of it?"
"Yep"
"Well, what's that?"
"Wipe that foam from around your mouth..."

- Bill Cosby, "Hoof and Mouth"

[Terry Karney]

Having been trained in the Intel aspects of combatting terrorism (amazingly like law enforcement) you don't really want to know how many ways we are vulnerable to some very deadly (to people, crops and animals) attacks.

And worse, there isn't much one can do about it.

Niven's Law applies F x S = K Freedom x Security = a contant. You can be secure, or you can be free. Oddly enough, this sort of security (that is against this kind of terrorism) works best in a truly free society. It is the middling free who are most vulnerable (the totalitarian doesn't care, and so they are poor targets). So we can be free of terror if we get more free, or less free.

I know my preference.

TK

[drieux just drieux]

I'm with Terry, one of the things that annoyed me about the 09/11/2001 attack was the cost of running that sort of project rather than investing in two litres of almost any of the really fun basic binary agents. Yes, I understand the marketting value of the whole 'jerry bruckheimer' moment, but it is just not a cost effective method for doing 'state of the art terrorism'.

Amongst the real problems for americans will be discriminating between their own 'chemical contaminants' when a refinery is attacked with a conventional mistake - and the hazmat team is not able to contain it - our very own american Bhopal Moment. It will be interesting how that is resolved.

The trade off in a 'truly free society' has always been there. The question has always been whether americans want to know what is at stake. Do they want to care and be involved. Or are they going to keep their 'religious faith' in some new and improved set of super secret victory weapons and more security apparachniki...

So 'preparedness' is a great idea - why we could institute a system of national health checks - you know, to prevent terrorism. Then we could improve the quality of our air, water, and food, you know, to prevent terrorism.... Why with just the right type of 'patriotism' americans could turn america into a livable country, you know, to prevent terrorism.

the alternative is that they really consider 'greed is good'....

[Nancy Lebovitz]

If there aren't enough resources to vaccinate people if a bioterrorist attack is caught extremely early, there certainly aren't resources to take care of the sick if it isn't caught quite that early.

[Jake]

It's a good thing the secret services aren't being gutted and refilled with yes men and women then!