Wisconsin unit ready to respond to natural disaster, WMD scenarios

By Tech. Sgt. Jon LaDue

Wisconsin National Guard

If there was one unit that could symbolize the Wisconsin National Guard's domestic operations role, an argument could be made for the 54th Civil Support Team, which held a change-of-command ceremony Wednesday (May 16) at the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Madison. 

The 54th CST is a joint unit - encompassing Wisconsin Soldiers and Airmen - that is a round-the-clock team postured for response to natural disasters, toxic industrial chemical incidents and terrorists situations with an emphasis on weapons of mass destruction.

The CST is also joint in the aspect that it frequently coordinates, trains and responds with local, state and federal organizations. The unit is often looked to for initial reports and analysis of unknown materials which could potentially pose a threat to the public's safety.

"Their ability to analyze materials and respond, both from their training standpoint and equipment standpoint, far exceeds what we have here locally," said FBI supervisory agent Christopher Cole. "So in an incident we're going to rely heavily upon them." 

The FBI and the CST share the domestic WMD mission and the partnership between the two agencies is extremely important, Cole said.

The 54th works with more than just the FBI, however, having trained and worked with more than 90 civil agencies. And according to Col. Paul Russell, commander of the Wisconsin Army National Guard's 64th Troop Command, the CST has responded 100 percent of the time they've been requested.

"On average you spend one-third of the fiscal year away from your friends and family. Remember the importance of what you do," Russell said. "We are counting on you, Wisconsin is counting on you - as are the citizens of our great nation."

Air Guard Lt. Col. David May assumed command of the 54th CST, from Army Guard Lt. Col. Timothy Covington during the formal ceremony. May becomes the first Air National Guard officer to lead the unit, which is part of the Department of Defense's program to assist local authorities in any WMD event.

"This is an incredibly exciting and humbling day for me," May said. "While I never could have foreseen a unique opportunity such as this one … I consider it a dream come true to be at this particular unit.

"Today starts a new chapter for us and it will be a chapter we will write together," May continued. "I can only come to the conclusion that as we build on the many successes of the past, this CST team is destined for continued greatness and a well deserved place in the top tier of CSTs across the nation."

Terrorism, Weapons Top Threat List, Gates Says

By Cheryl Pellerin

American Forces Press Service

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, March 21, 2011 – In a nation he spent much of his career studying and a city he last visited at the end of the Cold War, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates answered questions here today from Russian naval officers about the U.S. Defense Department, its problems and its future.

After delivering a speech at the new State Russian Naval Museum, Gates invited questions from his audience of mid-level officers from the Kuznetsov Naval Academy.

“The biggest threats we face are actually those where international cooperation is significantly required,” Gates said. “The first is terrorism, … and the other is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly proliferation in states that have threatened to destroy other states.”

Terrorism sent the United States into Afghanistan and into a difficult fight with al-Qaida, he added.

Nuclear proliferation in Iran brought “all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France -- together to try and bring pressure to bear” on that nation, he said.

“It is certainly my hope,” the secretary added, “that none of us ever have to use military force to deal with these proliferation problems, but rather that we can persuade these countries … to give up these weapons or weapons programs voluntarily.”

One of the biggest U.S. defense problems, Gates said, involves very expensive weapons systems ordered many years ago. Some have ended up costing much more than anticipated, and others “have proven not to be useful in the 21st century,” he told the Russian officers.

The secretary said he’s made progress on the problem, saving American taxpayers $300 billion or more as a result.

“But being able to be more selective about the weapons programs that we have,” he said, “making them relevant to [tomorrow’s] challenges and getting them delivered on time and as budgeted is a challenge that every military in the world faces in the 21st century.”

The world is not going to face the kinds of threats it experienced in the 20th century, the secretary said.

“We will face a range of potential conflicts that slides along a spectrum of lethality,” he explained. “We will confront nonstate actors that potentially have the capabilities of states, whether it’s in the cyber area or in the case of Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of rockets and missiles -- more than most governments in the world.”

Perhaps the biggest national security and strategic challenge, Gates told the group, is preparing militaries for diverse threats and security challenges under limited budgets and getting the maximum possible flexibility for using those capabilities technologically and in terms of training.

Gates said the way weapons are procured is a major structural change needed in the U.S. military. Most services still buy their own weapons, he added, “but in fact a number of those capabilities can be shared among all of the services.”

“As we have learned to fight jointly and are structured jointly,” he added, “we need to learn how to buy weapons jointly.”

The secretary cited remotely piloted vehicles as an example, noting that each service has its own program for buying them. “And we think we could save a lot of money if they went together in these programs,” he said.

In a discussion of training and education for U.S. service members, Gates acknowledged repeated rotations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cut into full-spectrum training for the whole range of missions that each service is supposed to perform.

Turning to U.S.-Russian cooperation, Gates said he would like to see more effort put into an exchange program for Russian and U.S. military officers and noncommissioned officers.

“We would more than welcome exchanging students between our professional military training and education organizations and Russia’s,” Gates said. The effort would benefit both countries, he said, and he promised to raise the issue with Russian Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov during a meeting tomorrow.

“It would do both of our militaries good to learn from one another and have the experience of spending time together,” he added, noting that the U.S. military services “would be very interested in this at every level, not just the most-senior officers but mid-grade officers and even noncommissioned officers.”

Agency Chief Outlines Threat Reduction Strategy

By Karen Parrish

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2011 – The Defense Threat Reduction Agency is at work around the clock to protect American forces and citizens from nuclear, chemical and biological threats, the agency’s director said today.

Speaking to the Defense Writers Group, Kenneth A. Myers III, who also is director of the U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, said the “lines of defense” strategy aims to detect, interdict and defend against weapons of mass destruction.

“How do we make it harder, how do we create more lines of defense between the threats and the American people?” he asked.

The value and effectiveness of countering any threat from weapons of mass destruction is much greater at the source, Myers said.

“The first line of defense is at the source. The second line is detection [and] interdiction of these threats before they reach the American people,” he said. “But the other major part of the DTRA responsibility is that last line of defense, here at home, and that’s consequence management.”

In the nuclear arena, one task his agency performs is nuclear inspections. With the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty now in force, Myers said, his people are trained and ready to take on the inspection duties it authorizes.

Carrying out nuclear weapons inspections in Russia is a verification mission, Myers explained, adding that his agency’s teams also will escort Russian teams on their inspections in the United States.

“It’s a mission that we’ve had for a number of years,” he said. “It is one that we’re constantly trained for.”

In recent months that training has intensified, Myers said, as inspectors prepare to verify stockpiles of Russian nuclear weapons.

“We’ve been involved with this treaty for quite some time,” Myers said. “We’ve understood from the beginning of the process what would be required, … [and] we’re ready to go.”

New START provides for fewer inspections than the previous START treaty, he said, in part because the new treaty combines some types of inspections, and also because “we’re talking about fewer weapons. The numbers are coming down.”

Judgments on treaty compliance are not part of his agency’s mission, the director said. “We are the inspectors -- we don’t make verification judgments,” he said. “We report the facts. Judgments on compliance are made by other members.”

His agency’s inspectors, Myers said, are the best in the world. “I’m confident we’ll get all the information we need,” he added.

While the first inspections have not been scheduled, he said, teams are “waiting for the call.”

In contrast to the verification mission his agency will perform under the new START, much of the threat reduction effort focuses on finding and countering risks involving weapons of mass destruction, Myers said. His agency is responsible for much of the science and technology development in countering chemical and biological weapons, he explained, and also is the banker for chemical and biological defense funds.

The threat is diverse, and countermeasure development is spread across a range of efforts, Myers said.

He explained that whether a threat involves samples of harmful viruses or stockpiles of fissionable materials, his agency aims to build as many walls as possible between that threat and American citizens and service members.

For example, in countering biological weapons, the agency works both to contain the possible spread of disease agents, and also to develop vaccines against those diseases, he said, adding that the Ebola and Marburg viruses are an area in which the agency has seen “first-level success.”

It may take 15 to 20 years for the pharmaceutical industry to develop an effective drug to mitigate a threat, he said. “Our No. 1 goal is to shorten these timeframes -- that is, to try to get solutions to the warfighter … and the American people, should we face these types of threats,” he said.

The potential for biological or nuclear weapons to be used against U.S. citizens spurs his agency to move quickly in putting defenses in place, Myers said.

“Our strategy is to cut the timelines, to move faster,” he said. “At the end of the day, you have a threat, and you have a solution. Trying to match them up as quickly as possible is the challenge.”

The Ebola virus, which occurs naturally in sub-Saharan Africa, may be as great a threat as a manmade weapon elsewhere, Myers pointed out.

“It’s hard for me to tell you that a biological weapon or a virulent disease is not a threat,” he said. “They’re all threats. A lot of the [relative risk involves] the likelihood of finding them in nature, and the ease or complex nature of manipulating them.”

Many health facilities in Africa store samples of diseases that occur naturally in the region, he said, noting such facilities often are close to areas that may be terrorist recruiting or operating grounds.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency develops tools for the services to use in countering weapons of mass destruction, Myers said, citing the “massive ordnance penetrator,” a weapon the agency funded, tested, found effective, then handed off to the Air Force. The weapon is designed to attack hardened concrete bunkers and tunnels, where weapons of mass destruction components may be stored, he explained.

“The goal is to hold deeply buried targets and other potential threats … at risk. … I think we’ve proven we can hold deeply buried targets at risk,” Myers said. “We want to work to change the behavior, change the efforts by some to use facilities to develop weapons of mass destruction.”

The fact that the United States has not suffered a serious biological or nuclear attack is significant, though the threat remains real, Myers said.

“I go to work every day with 2,000 people whose job is to stop that from happening,” he said.

Agency programs focus on developing tools and strategies to detect, interdict and counter weapons of mass destruction, he said, in line with the president’s focus on defending against nuclear and biological threats.

“I believe that the policies [and] the programs that we have in place are making a big difference,” Myers said. “I think the people [and] the skill sets that we have focused on this problem are making a big difference.”

One thing that makes the agency effective, the director said, is that it has both a research and development arm and a full operations side.

“You walk down the hallway and you have a nuclear physicist, a microbiologist, and a former Special Forces operator sitting there talking together, trying to solve problems,” he said. “It really is a very unique institution.”

His agency’s partners in defending against weapons of mass destruction include the military services, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and embassies around the world, Myers said.

“To protect the American people, we need to develop as many lines of defense as possible,” he said.

National Defense Authorization Act Empowers National Guard

By Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill, USA
Special to American Forces Press Service

Feb. 1, 2008 - The position of the chief of the National Guard Bureau has been elevated to a four-star billet 100 years after the bureau came into existence. The chief of the National Guard Bureau also became a principal advisor to the secretary of defense through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a result of a Jan. 28 stroke of the president's pen that triggered the most sweeping changes for the National Guard in 100 years.

The Division of Militia Affairs, the precursor of the modern National Guard Bureau, came into existence in February 1908, according to Michael Doubler, a retired colonel who is one of the Guard's preeminent historians.

The first chief was Col. Erasmus Weaver, who served from 1908-11. The stature of the chief's office has been progressively increased during the century since.

On Jan. 28, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2008, which includes provisions that:

-- A bipartisan council of governors advises the secretary of defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and others on National Guard matters.

-- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff determines the feasibility of increasing the number of U.S. Northern Command reserve-component members.

-- Up to 15 reserve-component general officers serve at combatant commands, an increase from 10.

-- The National Guard Bureau becomes a joint activity of the Department of Defense. Previously, it was a joint bureau of the Army and the Air Force.

-- The bureau's chief becomes a principal advisor to the secretary of defense through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

-- The grade of the position of the chief of the National Guard Bureau increases to a four-star general.

A driving force behind many of the changes in the NDAA is the transformation of the National Guard from a Cold War strategic reserve to today's operational reserve.

The vast bulk of the major reforms of the National Guard included in the bill were derived from the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007.

The provisions of the NDAA that affect the National Guard are among many others that affect the nation's armed forces.

The NDAA also:

-- Gives servicemembers a 3.5 percent pay raise;

-- Includes the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act to improve support for wounded troops and their families, including providing increased treatment closer to home rather than at the base from which the servicemember deployed; and

-- Lowers the eligibility age for retirement by three months for each 90 days a Guard member serves on certain types of active duty. The active duty must be served after the NDAA was enacted, and eligibility cannot be reduced below 50 years of age.

The act includes $650 million authorized for miscellaneous equipment for the Army National Guard and $150 million for Air National Guard. Previously, National Guard and reserve equipment appropriation money has been appropriated without authorization.

It also includes end strengths of 351,300 for the Army National Guard and 106,700 for the Air National Guard. The Army National Guard end strength increased from 350,000, while the Air Guard level is essentially unchanged. The secretary of defense can authorize the Guard to exceed end strength by up to 3 percent.

The NDAA does not authorize any additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams but instead refers the issue to an advisory panel to study.

(Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill is assigned to the National Guard Bureau. The Day newspaper in New London, Conn., the National Guard Bureau's Office of Legislative Liaison, and other sources contributed to this report.)

Biological Attack Investigator’s Handbook

“Criminal and Epidemiological Investigation Handbook, Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the USDepartment of Justice, and the US Army Soldier Biological ChemicalCommand. 2006.”

Available At:
http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/CrimEpiHandbook2006.pdf

Book Excerpt:
“Current information indicates that, regardless of location, American assets and citizens will continue to be targets of terrorist activities. Terrorists have demonstrated their willingness to employ non-traditional weapons to achieve their ends. One such class of non-traditional weapons is biological agents. Biological agents pose new challenges to both law enforcement and public health officials in their efforts to minimize the effects of a biological attack and apprehend those responsible for the attack. In the past, it was not uncommon for law enforcement and public health officials to conduct separate and independent investigations. However, a biological attack requires a high level of cooperation between these two disciplines to achieve their respective objectives of identifying the biological agent, preventing the spread of the disease, preventing public panic, and apprehending those responsible. The lack of mutual awareness and understanding, as well as the absence of established communication procedures, could hinder the effectiveness of law enforcement’s and public health's separate, but often overlapping, investigations. Due to the continued likelihood of biological attacks, the effective use of all resources during a biological incident will be critical to ensure an efficient and appropriate response.

The purpose of this handbook is as follows:

To provide an introduction to epidemiological and criminal terrorist investigations so public health and law enforcement personnel have a better understanding of each other's information requirements and investigative procedures.

To identify potential conflicts law enforcement and public health personnel will encounter during their respective biological incident investigations and to provide potential solutions that can be adapted to meet the needs of the various jurisdictions and agencies throughout the United States.

To enhance the appreciation and understanding of each discipline's expertise by all parties.”

Article sponsored by Criminal Justice online leadership as well as police and military personnel who have authored books.