The new department has helped streamline the 22 federal agencies involved in terrorism prevention, said Major Gen. Bruce Lawlor, chief of staff at the department. He acknowledged, however, that much work remains.
Depending on the scope of the terrorist act, Lawlor said President Bush might need to turn to the U.S. military, at least until civilians are able to show a more effective response. He made the comments during a panel discussion Friday at George Washington University.
A former special assistant to Bush for homeland security was even more blunt in his assessment of the country's preparedness. Frank J. Cilluffo, who now serves as a senior policy adviser at George Washington University, said the department isn't yet able to handle a major attack.
"As [the department] builds its capacities and capabilities, it can handle the low- to mid-end side of consequence management," Cilluffo said. "But on the very high end of the threat spectrum, it's fair to say the Department of Defense is the only entity with the capacity to deal with saving potentially catastrophic numbers of lives."
It would ultimately be Bush's decision to call the military into action. Typically in emergencies, local fire or police units act as first responders. State governors also have the power to call National Guardsmen into service.
As Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's chief of staff, Lawlor said there has been some conflict bringing 22 agencies together under one roof. The result, he said, would be worthwhile, since the federal government's failure to coordinate in the past led to its failure to adequately respond.
Even though these federal agencies are beginning to function more efficiently, Lawlor cautioned that homeland security isn't a federal problem, but rather a national burden that must be shared by state governments, local communities and private citizens.
"There's a huge amount of money that's flowing out of Congress in Washington and into the states," he said, citing a figure of $8 million in anti-terrorism funds through the 2004 budget. "But the fact of the matter is that the federal government cannot bear the burden alone."
Getting citizens prepared for a terrorist activity has been a major undertaking of the department. Its Ready campaign, which includes advertising spots and the website Ready.gov, strives to give citizens the tools they need in the event of an attack.
Retired Army Col. L.Z. Johnson, who directs Alabama's Center for Domestic Preparedness, said many of the same issues facing the federal government also come into play at the state level. One of his biggest challenges is helping local communities prepare for emergencies - a feat he said is complicated because everyone strives for the same level of protection.
Preparing for a terrorist attack is one thing, Johnson said, but carrying out a successful response is another.
Cilluffo maintains that the United States hasn't reached the point where the Department of Homeland Security could adequately handle a major nuclear, biological or chemical attack.
"The president will go to where the capacity is," Cilluffo said. "And in this case, in the short term if there's a catastrophic event, I think the Department of Defense will play a key role.
"At the end of the day, you're there to save lives," he added, "and those who have the capacity to save lives will be saving those lives. The president has the authority to determine who that will be."
Retired Army Col. David McIntyre, deputy director of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, said it's never easy for the military to pick up and quickly shift its focus from one area to another.
For instance, he said each Army unit, whether it is in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, is like a small city. Deploying a National Guardsman, who might be a doctor, to a location in the United States leaves troops overseas short one physician. The military is very regimented in this manner, he said, which makes its domestic role even more complicated.
At the same time, however, civilians haven't proven they can respond to emergency crises as effectively as the military, he said.
"I am confident that I could call the 18th Airborne Corps this afternoon, and they could do a pretty good job, whatever the issue is," McIntyre said. "But I'm not confident that we have in place the civilian leadership to use that military in a way so at the end of the day, we have the type of country we'd like it to be when the catastrophe is over."
A lack of civilian knowledge about the military also troubled Col. Larry A. Porter, a National Guard liaison officer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of National Preparedness.
"With the declining amount of veterans in our elected population, we have less and less familiarity with what the military is, what it does, how it can do it, how you get to it and how it should be employed once it gets there," he said.
While concerns remain, Lawlor stressed that progress is being made. He cautioned, though, that it wouldn't be a mission completed overnight.
"We have created a society in the last 50 years that is incredibly complex," he said. "And we have not had to deal with the security implications of building it, and so we have not built security into any of our systems."
Copyright, CNSNews.com
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.