Richard A. Clarke is one of America's leading counterterrorism experts. After leaving his distinguished 30-year government service career in 2003, he provided sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March 2004. His first book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, 2004) asserted that the Bush Administration neglected terrorism well before 9/11, sparking an intense national debate about the war on terror and homeland security that continues to shape today's geopolitical landscape.
In this wide-ranging conversation, Clarke discusses the state of America's security at home and abroad. He reveals how national policies impact global public perception, as well as architecture, city planning, and urban design. His observations are insightful, thought provoking, and reflect a keen understanding of what the public and private sectors must do to achieve a more secure global society.
About Richard A. Clarke
Richard A. Clarke is an internationally recognized expert on security, including homeland security, national security, cyber security, and counterterrorism. He is currently an on-air consultant for ABC News. Clarke served the last three Presidents as a senior White House Advisor. Over the course of an unprecedented 11 consecutive years of White House service, he held the titles of Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs, National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, and Special Advisor to the President for Cyber Security.
Prior to his White House years, Clarke served for 19 years in the Pentagon, the Intelligence Community, and State Department. During the Reagan Administration, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. During the Bush (41) Administration, he was Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs and coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the subsequent security arrangements.
As Chairman of Good Harbor Consulting LLC, Clarke advises clients on a range of issues, including corporate security risk management, information security technology, dealing with the federal government on security and IT issues, and counterterrorism.
WAR ON TERROR AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Barbara A. Nadel, FAIA: How should the United States address homeland security?
Richard A. Clarke: We can deal with homeland security by reducing threats and vulnerabilities. We haven't done very well on reducing threats. There are now more people and terrorist organizations working against the United States than before Sept. 11. Some of this is because of the U.S. presence in Iraq.
We've done a good job on reducing vulnerabilities with passenger aircraft. Creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was a step forward, because it replaced rent-a-cops hired by the airlines. With the exception of TSA, we have not significantly reduced vulnerabilities. That includes chemical plants, nuclear plants, container shipping, and subways. We're just as vulnerable as we've ever been. The threat is bigger; the vulnerability is the same. On balance, the United States is worse off now than before 9/11.
What is the likelihood of reducing the U.S. military presence in Iraq before the November 2008 elections? Will there be opportunities for reprogramming funds to homeland security?
We don't know if President Bush will withdraw anyone from Iraq. He may wait for the next president to deal with this or he might decide to begin troop reductions to make it easier on the next Republican presidential nominee. However, we can expect large numbers of troops in Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009. Eventually, the new president will reduce them.
The government won't see a financial savings to reprogram for other uses because it's not spending money we have. The money doesn't exist; it's all debt. So, reprogramming the spending is not going to happen.
What about America's current place in the world?
We are probably less admired and supported around the world now than we've ever been. According to reliable polling data, taken with the same questions, in the same countries for many years, we are suffering a nadir in support around the world (especially in Europe), but to the greatest extent in the Middle East. The rest of the world believes we've been singularly preoccupied with the war on terror and don't care about other issues. Most of the world thinks we see the war on terror as a military issue and the only one issue that we focus on. Other countries would like us to focus on strengthening the United Nations, international organizations, trade agreements, equitable development of nations, strengthening international regimes, the Kyoto agreements, and climate change.
Should we be concerned about future attacks or is this fear mongering? Are we playing into the terrorists' hands by focusing on protecting assets or questioning public policies?
The government has engaged in fear mongering, especially around election time. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a threat, and it's not always Al Qaeda. Some days, it's a student with a gun at Virginia Tech or Americans at Oklahoma City.
Americans should always question the government; that's not playing into the terrorists' hands. We should reduce our vulnerabilities to terrorism, but do so by remaining consistent in our beliefs and civil liberties. People are concerned with the enormous databases containing a lot of private information. There is a concern about the surveillance state we're creating. There are ways to improve security and surveillance while protecting our privacy rights and civil liberties.
Which terrorist threats concern you most?
Our chief concern should be events that could create large numbers of casualties. It's hard to protect every facility against every threat when there is the potential for thousands of deaths. We need to reduce vulnerabilities at chemical plants and other facilities that would victimize or kill thousands of people.
What's your assessment of homeland security preparedness across the United States?
Homeland security preparedness varies enormously by city. New York City's Police Department (NYPD) has a high level of expenditures and organization. San Francisco is a city of about 40 square miles with a population of under 700,000. The result is an emergency response and police infrastructure much less than in New York City. Bigger city governments are more likely to have effective police and emergency response teams. Boston and San Francisco have small police departments. NYPD has more people assigned to counterterrorism than Boston's total police force.
Las Vegas is a fascinating example. They're a one-industry town, dependent on tourism. They don't want to make it difficult to get in or out of a casino. There are no inspections or magnetometers because they don't want to scare people or deter people from coming. The Nevada Gaming Commission hasn't required these security elements. There are many surveillance cameras aimed at gaming tables, not at people entering or leaving the casinos. Casinos are likely targets for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, who see them as heathen places.
Would you consider returning to government in the next administration?
No. Thirty years of national security federal service was enough.
If you were advising the next homeland security director, what priorities would you propose? How would you approach allocating federal resources?
We need to decide on the minimum essential capabilities we want to have in every major metropolitan area and lay out a 5-year plan to reach those capabilities. Currently, we have cities and states spending money any way they want to. The minimal essential capabilities, in several categories, should have to be met first. For example:
Medical mass trauma. Some places say they can accommodate 300 to 1,000 casualties, but we need to be able to deal with thousands at a time, whether from chemical biological contamination or bird flu. The Spanish flu in 1919 was the last major pandemic, and we couldn't handle that today.
Communications. Most metropolitan areas have two dozen separate fire and police agencies, and federal agencies. They must be able to communicate with each other reliably and securely in a crisis; that can't happen in most cities today. There are inadequate radio frequencies; television stations use many of them for high-definition television (HDTV). The federal government and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulate the airwaves and assign frequencies, but this coordination isn't happening.
Intelligence. NYPD does a good job with its intelligence capabilities. Officers are familiar with the community and collect information. NYPD has infiltrated radical groups, talked to stores that sell bomb components, and checked self-storage facilities where bomb materials may be stored: They have an awareness of what's going on that other cities don't.
UILDING SECURITY AND URBAN DESIGN
Share your thoughts on balancing security, openness, and design. How can we create safe, vibrant, livable communities?
Balancing security and openness can be achieved through creative planning and design. Buildings and facilities can be attractive, open, and secure. That doesn't mean we won't be inconvenienced.
We can no longer drive up to the Capitol or the White House in Washington D.C. But, almost any citizen can walk up to the front steps of the Capitol. Several years ago, many thought that, if we closed Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, we'd deny citizens and tourists access. Initially, it was ugly, with concrete Jersey barriers and paved with macadam. Now, there are attractively designed guardhouses, planters serving as barriers, and paving stones. Overall, the current landscape design is more attractive than when we had an open street for cars and trucks. In this case, we didn't deny access; people can still get close to the White House and it's a more attractive streetscape.
People want safe cities. There are many ways to increase security in urban areas. Baltimore's mayor installed closed-circuit television (CCTV) in certain neighborhoods and crime dropped. Nearby neighborhoods soon requested similar surveillance to reduce crime.
We want to enjoy large public spaces. Plainclothes and uniformed police, horseback patrols, and visible cameras are common techniques. People feel safer and petty crime drops. For vibrant outdoor public areas, overt security is likely to ensure that people will enjoy the space. This doesn't have to be heavy handed.
comments powered by