Defending U.S.

avier Stewart would seem an unlikely soldier. The former college professor is certified in forensic medicine, holds a Ph.D. in public health, and until recently, owned and operated a medical equipment business in Delaware. It's an unusual background for a lieutenant colonel, but then Stewart's position, commander of the 3d Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, is hardly a traditional military job. He leads one of 10 elite teams nationwide formed to help state and local authorities manage the consequences of a terrorist attack or an unintentional accident involving chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

On an unseasonably warm day in March, Stewart scanned the checklist fixed to his clipboard as he prepared his 22-member team to walk through their response to a mock attack. His troops were scattered across an empty parking lot at Fort Indiantown Gap, a 19,000-acre National Guard installation in the hills of central Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of Washington. Standing by were half a dozen military observers from Fort Meade, Md. At the end of the day, they would give Stewart a run-down of the team's strengths and weaknesses.

If the rural setting, perfect weather, and mannequins posing as victims made the scenario seem unreal-a radiation bomb was to have been detonated-the troops, focused on their equipment and the training objectives, didn't seem to notice. "The sense of urgency here is very real," Stewart says. That's a sentiment members of Congress and Pentagon planners would be happy to hear. The Pennsylvania team and nine others like it across the country are the result of a Defense Department effort to bridge the gap between state and local capabilities and federal resources, which many fear would come too late after an incident involving weapons of mass destruction.

The 10 civil support teams are dedicated resources, on call around the clock. And though they are federally funded, federally trained and operate according to military doctrine, they are not federal troops. They are National Guard troops in state status. Unless called to federal service by the President, Guard units are under the command of their state governors, which makes them uniquely poised for the civil support mission.

"It's widely believed that federal assets would arrive on the scene too late," says Charles Cragin, assistant secretary of Defense for reserve affairs. "A federal asset in this environment is a slower response. The only way to get there fast was to make these teams a state asset."

Increased Federal Role

Defense Secretary William Cohen has long expressed concern about the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and the country's vulnerability to an attack on its own soil. In 1997, he ordered a report detailing the reserve component role in the Defense Department's response to the threat posed by the proliferation of such weapons, which he has said is "the greatest threat that any of us will face in the coming years." Later in 1997, he brought that concern home to millions of Americans when he appeared on national television holding a bag of sugar. Properly deployed, the same amount of anthrax as was contained in the bag would be enough to kill half the population of Washington, he said.

A year earlier, Congress passed the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, which designated DoD as the lead agency for responding to an attack by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the law, known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act, the Defense Department created the Domestic Preparedness Program to train local and state officials most likely to be first responders in the event of such an attack. DoD scheduled training for 120 cities, planned annual exercises involving federal, state and local responders, and formed rapid response teams composed of assets from all the military services.

Also in 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which authorized the attorney general to provide training and equipment for improving the capabilities of metropolitan fire and emergency service departments to respond to terrorist attacks. As a result of that law, the Justice Department created the Metropolitan Firefighters and Emergency Medical Services Program.

The two laws increased the federal role in ensuring state and local preparedness. But state and local officials remain confused about that role, resulting in fragmented and redundant training efforts. An 18-member advisory panel to Congress, chaired by Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, reported last December that the "seeming inability to develop and implement a clear, comprehensive and truly integrated national preparedness strategy means that we may still remain fundamentally incapable of responding effectively to a serious terrorist attack." As if on cue, the report was released the day after federal agents in Washington state arrested an Algerian man, Ahmed Ressam, and charged him with smuggling military-grade explosives into the United States from Canada.

In response to the criticism, federal agencies have begun to consolidate training and clarify agency roles. At the Defense Department, officials plan to transfer much of the Domestic Preparedness Program to the Justice Department later this year. In addition, last year Cohen set up two new offices to manage the department's civil support role: The position of assistant to the secretary of Defense for civil support was created to provide civilian oversight for policy and serve as the Defense point of contact in interagency discussions, and the Joint Task Force-Civil Support was created to plan and integrate Defense support at the operational level during incidents.

Establishing the two offices was a significant step in strengthening DoD's overall capability for responding to an incident involving weapons of mass destruction, says Adm. Harold Gehman, commander of the Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va.

"We have to be very careful about what [the military] can do within the United States," Gehman told members of a Senate Armed Services subcommittee in March. "The boundaries and responsibilities have to be very well thought out."

Semantics of Support

The role of the Defense Department in civil support is a touchy issue. By law the military is prohibited from participating in domestic law enforcement. Yet by virtue of its role in national security, the Pentagon, with its vast weapons handling and detection capabilities, medical and mortuary assets and force protection mission, is the agency with the resources most likely to be needed in a major incident involving chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

"As we have come to grips with defining what DoD's role ought to be, we have found a sort of odd marriage between civil libertarians and militia groups over concern about the federal role," says Pamela Berkowsky, Cohen's new assistant for civil support. "By planning and preparing for an incident, we ensure we will be sensitive to those concerns," she says. "We are never in charge. In the event of an incident, we have to look at whether we can legally provide assets, not just whether we can physically provide assets."

The civil support program is the latest incarnation of what was formerly known as the homeland defense program. Before the National Guard civil support teams were named as such, they were known as Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection detachments-or RAID teams, in military parlance. Between the homeland defense program and the RAID teams, Defense officials soon realized they had chosen some unfortunate terms.

"There was concern that the choice of words was sending the wrong message, that this was a departure from our previous role. 'Civil support' sends the message that civilian authorities are in charge, that we're here to help. 'Homeland defense' implied we would take over," says Maj. Gen. Raymond Rees, vice chief of the National Guard Bureau.

The Guard civil support teams represent an extension of the Guard's traditional state role, says Rees. "We're working under the assumption that we will support civil authorities and not take charge of a situation." What the teams bring to bear, in addition to specialized skills and equipment, is an understanding of federal assets that local authorities may not have, and the ability to help funnel those assets most effectively.

Initially, some in the Guard feared the new mission might be the result of Army efforts to marginalize the Guard and transform its federal mission from that of supplying combat troops during war to something more nebulous. But most of the skeptics have come around. "We think this is really a bedrock mission, in terms of supporting local authorities," says John Goheen, spokesman for the National Guard Association, a powerful group that has traditionally lobbied for maintaining a strong Guard combat role. "These [team members] are specialists, and in some cases they may be the only specialists in the area."

Unique Role

The civil support team members are extensively trained in chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons and their effects; threat analysis; communications;medical assessment; logistics; and security issues. They operate in each of the 10 regions designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and are designed to be on site within four hours of being called. They bring to the scene sophisticated equipment unavailable in all but the largest cities-a mobile analytical laboratory system that enables technicians to identify chemical, biological and radiological agents, and a unified command suite that can link incompatible communications systems. For example, it would allow a local official responsible for dealing with hazardous materials-a likely incident commander in the event of a chemical release-to talk directly with federal chemical experts over secured lines. In the event of a medical emergency, video links could be established between on-site emergency responders and medical experts at distant facilities to assist in handling casualties.

The teams are not intended to replace any existing state and local assets, but to add a key element missing from most jurisdictions-a coordinating authority that can facilitate communication between authorities at the scene and officials elsewhere, provide on-site technical expertise, and facilitate follow-on support from state and federal agencies, including the military. "When we looked at the Oklahoma City bombing, what we saw were a lot of assets and capabilities, but no coordinating element," says Lt. Col. William Baisden, a Guard planner.

There has been some confusion about the role of the teams, Cragin admits. "They will deploy quickly to assist a local incident commander," he says. "They will help assess the situation, determine the nature of the attack or incident, offer technical advice and help identify and support follow-on state and federal responders. The teams are not involved in counterterrorism or reconnaissance activities."

Lt. Col. Robert Domenici, commander of a civil support team based in upstate New York, says initially state and local officials weren't too keen about the new approach. "In the beginning, I think some of the firefighters were concerned we were going to try to take over the [hazardous materials management] role. But since we've been working with them, they see what kind of equipment and skills we have, they understand that we're here to support them, we're not interested in taking over their jobs."

For the teams to become effective, they have to work with state and local responders on a regular basis, Domenici says. "You need to develop those relationships. You've got to have trust and understanding for what everyone's capabilities are."

Who's in Charge?

It's no accident the role of the civil support teams fell to the National Guard. The Guard is uniquely poised to bridge the gap between state capabilities and federal military assets. Unless they are called to federal service by the President, Guard units are under the command and control of their respective state governors. They can be deployed quickly and have more latitude operating in their state capacity than they would have if federalized. As long as they are in state status, Guard units are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from performing law enforcement duties.

"Because we don't know exactly what the situation we get into will look like, there may be a very good reason not to federalize the National Guard," says Gehman. "We've exercised this and we've analyzed this and we just don't know. It's going to be on a case-by-case basis."

While leaving the Guard in state status means troops can be used for riot control and other law enforcement activities, it also complicates command-and-control issues.

"In the case where you do not federalize the National Guard, you have the problem of having two military chains of command, one reporting to the governor, and one reporting to the Department of Defense. Obviously, that's a problem, and we don't like that," Gehman says. The next issue to be addressed, he says, is the relationship between the federal and the states' command-and-control structures. "Since these [civil support teams] are state assets, we must ensure that assistance from the federal government, when requested, does not interfere or duplicate the state effort. On the other hand, this is an information issue, so we must ensure we have a proper process to exchange information. But the larger issue concerns who is in charge of what forces."

The National Guard Bureau has appointed a committee of state adjutants general to work with the Joint Task Force-Civil Support to work out a plan to coordinate command and control in the event at least some Guard units are operating in state status, perhaps alongside federalized Guard troops and active duty military.

"We're plowing new ground," says Rees. "The Guard has years of expertise supporting local authorities, but we're in a situation where we have to develop expertise and stay on the cutting edge."

It is likely that at least some troops would be federalized in the event of an incident involving weapons of mass destruction. Many of DoD's critical assets most likely to be required-units dealing with medical response and deployable hospitals, chemical detection and decontamination, and water purification-are in the reserve component. "These civil support teams are merely the tip of the spear," Cragin says.

Race Against Time

The distance the Defense Department has traveled with regard to civil support over the last few years is exceptional, Cragin says. It typically takes the department about four years to bring a new unit into operation. The process for planning, staffing, training, developing doctrine, and testing and fielding new equipment is labor-intensive and time-consuming. But DoD managed to conceive, develop and field the 10 civil support teams in less than 18 months. "If you looked back five years, this issue was not even being discussed. This is really remarkable," Cragin says.

Much of the credit goes to the Army's Consequence Management Program Integration Office, which was established to integrate reserve component assets across the services into the Defense Department's civil support mission. Maj. Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's director of current operations, oversees the office and the program.

"These are extremely smart, motivated and dedicated young troops. Going into what we call a hot zone requires courage as well as a lot of competence," Cody says.

The civil support teams have been so well received, Defense Secretary Cohen announced earlier this year the Defense Department would create an additional 17 teams, to be brought online next spring. The pace of fielding the new units is extraordinary by military standards, but critical, Cody says. "It's not a question of if we are going to face an incident, but a question of when. We're racing against the clock."