Graham and Talent Get an "F" on their Assessment

This should not come as an unexpected surprise, but former senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jim Talent (R-MO) have decided that the government has not done enough to prepare itself for the threat of bioterrorism, amongst other homeland security issues. They released a "report card" based on the recommendations of their 2008 report, "World at Risk." From CNN:

"Nearly a decade after September 11, 2001, one year after our original report, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats, especially bioterrorism," said former Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the commission.

"Each of the last three administrations has been slow to recognize and respond to the biothreat. But we no longer have the luxury of a slow learning curve, when we know al Qaeda is interested in bioweapons," Graham said.

"The assessment is not a good one, particularly in the area of biological threats," the report by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism said.

"While the government has made progress on preventing such attacks, it is simply not paying consistent and urgent attention to the means of responding quickly and effectively so that they no longer constitute a threat of mass destruction," the report said.

Now I just have to tell you what a load of horseshit that this assessment represents, but first I'm going to have to mock the two former statesmen. It's not only that they are over exaggerating the threat of CBRN terrorism; it's that they just don't seem to know that much when they are talking candidly about the topic, especially when they're talking to a journalist who doesn't know the issues. Take this report from NPR just this past Sunday:

RAZ: Let me start with you, Senator Graham. Your prediction about the possibility of a chemical or biological weapon being unleashed by a terror group before 2013, do you believe that threat has diminished somewhat?

Mr. GRAHAM: No. We found in 2008 that the threat had been growing over the preceding years, and I believe it has grown further in 2009. Factors like the increasing sophistication of the organization of al-Qaida, the increasing access to the materials necessary for a nuclear but particularly a biological weapon, access to those persons with the skill level to convert pathogens into a weapon, have all grown in the past 12 months.

RAZ: How do we know that these organizations could easily obtain and weaponize biological agents and maybe even possibly release them inside the United States?

Mr. GRAHAM: Well, we got our source of information as to capabilities largely from our intelligence agencies who have found a pattern of laboratories and scientists under the control of terrorist organizations who are working towards achieving what has been a long stated objective of those organizations, which is to have a weapon of mass destruction.
-------------
RAZ: What would be the one thing that the government could do fairly quickly and easily immediately to begin to address some of your concerns, Senator Talent?

Mr. TALENT: I'd love to see the president set a goal of being completely prepared for the likely bioweapons within a reasonable period of time, you know, three to five years. If you could do that in the top 25 cities, you could take bioweapons really off the list of weapons of mass destruction, and I think it's fully doable.

Okay, first of all, Mr. Graham, I would directly challenge you to show how the threat of a nuclear or biological threat has grown over the last 12 months due to increased access to weapon-grade material. I strongly doubt that there are any intel agencies who will agree on the record that there is "a pattern of laboratories and scientists under the control of terrorist organizations." That's just insane gibberish, unfounded and unsupported. No legitimate analyst in the community would state that as a fact. The usual statement is that, given the increase in technology and availability of information about how to make nuclear and biological weapons, there could be an increased risk that a terrorist group might develop such a capability. But to suggest that somehow things have gotten worse in the last year? Ridiculous.

And Mr. Talent, here's a news bulletin. Since 2004, more than 30 cities have had BioWatch sensors emplaced to provide early warning of biological warfare agents. And while I'm no fan of BioWatch, that seems to be more than 25 cities. DHS won't tell us which cities, but I'm guessing that the 30+ cities include the 25 most populated. And let's not forget the national stockpile and the national laboratory network from by DHHS and CDC. The lack of H1N1 vaccine stockpiles is NOT an indication of the nation's ability to respond to a bioterrorist incident, Mr. Talent, since we were using the vaccine as it was coming off the line. We're much better off than the condition that these Cassandras are describing.

As shameful as the Graham-Talent comedy act is, the Faux News Channel gets the Razzie award for worst news coverage of this topic by stating that the G-T report card is an assessment of the Obama administration's efforts. Even though Mr. Graham clearly stated that he was judging the past three administrations' efforts, Judy "I See WMDs" Miller decided that this was all on Obama's watch. Just really disingenuous, but should we expect any less from Ms. Miller and Faux News?

To review my assessment of the G-T report card, read below the jump.

Okay, I'm going to quickly summarize the G-T report card and make a few comments. You can read their report if you want all the details.

Biological Risks

• Enhance nation's capabilities for rapid response to prevent mass casualties. They say "F," I say "C" at worst.Our state and local response is a lot better than it used to be, at least at the awareness point. Project BioWatch has environmental monitors in more than 30 cities, and Project BioShield offers an avenue to developing medical CBR countermeasures. The Strategic National Stockpile is in place, and while it doesn't cover all BW agents, it's a viable capability for anthrax and smallpox. While we're not at an optimal spot, it's not a failing grade by any means.
• Tighten govt oversight of high-containment labs. They say "D+", I say "C." It's not clear that the feds ought to have this oversight. It's a state jurisdiction, although federal guidelines probably could be tighter. If DHS and DHHS stopped throwing funds at every drug development proposal, it might lessen the oversight burden. 
• Review the federal effort to secure dangerous pathogens. They say "A", I agree. This was an easy plug. The Select Agent and Toxins list has been around for a while, no one disagrees with the CDC process to review and oversee the transport and use of these agents. But it wasn't improved because of their report.
• Strengthen domestic and global disease surveillance networks. They say "B+", I agree. Again, not a huge hurdle, this has been an evolving system and it's not bad. Not perfect though, as we've recently seen. Again, not better a result of the G-T report.
• Propose a new action plan to increase adherence to the BWC. They say "B+", I say "D." The recent effort by Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher to go to Geneva and tell the international community that the USG was basically going to continue the Bush practice of not pushing for a verification regime is a big failure. But I raise it from an "F" because at least she showed up to the conference.
• Develop a national strategy to advance bioforensics capability. They say "A", I say "C-". While we have a "national bioforensics center" at Fort Detrick that represents an interagency effort, they don't have the capability to diagnose samples from across the globe yet. They have staff and resources but little data on bio samples. That's a problem. 

Nuclear Risks

• Implement a comprehensive policy toward Pakistan. They say "incomplete," I say a solid "C". There's been a lot more cooperation between our two countries in this area than the former senators describe. While it's not where the USG would like it to be, the idea that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are at risk is a gross over exaggeration. It's not something to let stand idle, though.
• Work with Russia to reduce the dangers of WMD. They say "C", I say "A". I'm very shocked by this grade in particular. Nunn-Lugar, anyone? Lots of progress here. Yes, Putin and Medvedev storm and rant occasionally, but their reps come to the table for every arms control issue associated with nukes. And even if START II is late, it's a solid effort between the two superpowers. 
• Strengthen the nonproliferation regime. They say "B", I agree. Eh... people always want to meet and talk. It's not a big deal. Again, not improved a result of the G-T report, though. 
• Review the cooperative nuclear security program. They say "B+", I say "A". Now they're just being stingy. Obama's made clear efforts to revitalize this program area and he's head and shoulders above the previous administration's lackluster efforts.

I'm not going to quibble with the grades given for "government reform" - which got two "Fs", a "C", and two "As." We all know that Congress lags in this area and that the federal government writ large has a poor ability to groom and develop people educated in WMD policy and strategy. Big surprise. Not gonna get better. I am not going to quibble about the grades given for "citizen and community preparedness" either, other than to say that the "C" for how the feds work with the state and locals is probably undeserved. The state and local emergency managers have a responsibility here, and I think they've actually stepped up pretty well. The DHS/FEMA side could do better, but frankly Congress pushes its agenda onto DHS and I don't blame DHS, at least, for the "C." 

Now here's the real conspiracy theory. Did the Washington Post print the stories about the CNS 2009 report on Monday and the Mowatt-Larssen report on Tuesday (foreword by Graham Allison, previously of the G-T "World at Risk" commission) to set up the former senators' report for a favorable reception? (and in fact, here is Mr. Warrick's next article on that topic). Is it time for another media ethics board of review?

Comments

[Cheryl Rofer]

It's like I said: Our shadowy overlords decided we need a new dose of fear to make sure health care reform doesn't pass.

It's that jar of spoiled mayonnaise in the ressy that will do it. I just knew...

[Cheryl Rofer]

Huh. Didn't get the post URL in there. Here it is: http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2010/01/sometimes-i-almost-agree-with.html

[James]

I think you've covered fairly well the difficulties faced by the erstwhile bioterrorist: the need for a lab costing tens of millions of dollars, the need to find someone sufficiently talented to make the bioweapon and willing to pass up a lucrative career working in a lavishly funded government lab, the practical difficulties involved in actually weaponizing a suitable pathogen. Which was never accomplished by any state organization, by the way, despite the billions of dollars invested in various programs worldwide that had access to the brightest minds and most modern facilities.

But let's look beyond the seemingly harmless scare-mongering, transparent rent-seeking, and the otherwise innocent desire to dip into the taxpayer's increasingly slim wallet: what does the obsession with such an unlikely threat REALLY cost us?

About a half-million children die of measles worldwide each year, which could be prevented with a few tens of millions spent on vaccinations. In 2006 it was estimated that 1.7 million children worldwide were dying each year of diarrhoeal diseases, 94 percent of which could be prevented by improving the environmental conditions in populated areas. Forty percent of the world's million or so malaria deaths could be prevented with relatively inexpensive, low-tech engineering efforts around affected communities.
Acute respiratory infections killed 1.5 million people each year and are linked to air pollution and, of course, inadequate treatment.

What never seems to penetrate the minds of reporters is this: resources are limited. That's it. That's the big secret about human affairs, public policy, government, everything. There's only so much you can do and focusing on the most trendy and exotic threat leaves you empty-handed when it comes to addressing the most likely ones. No one is going to die in a bioterrorist attack this year, but a half-million little kids will die of measles. Is this math problem really too hard?

[Ray]

I had a look around- and I had to search in depth-for comments from government sources, that bioterrorism is an imminent threat to the UK. Now, your own President correctly stated that the UK is in more danger from terrorism, of all kinds,
than the United States. Well, we've had our share of bombings as you all well know.
However, can find no source worth mentioning to indicate that we here are deeply worried about this, mainly because most British I suppose suffer from under-active thyroids, or something. More probably the majority are concerned about their trains to London and other would-be targets are running late.
I cannot know if there is any real threat until there is one. It's likely that some threats are knocked on the head before they can reach the ever hungry newspapers here. One can be sure that the ubiquitous BBC (who have very close connections to SIS) or Channel 4 Television News (also excellent)are well aware of terrorist threats and bioterrorism aspects, and would quickly seize upon news of that kind and subsequently would be at the government's throat for action. This is not to say that such a threat will not arise (Ah! I hear some say, so you must agree that we should set up programmes for possible response!) No. I just say you can't dress for a formal dinner unless you know wherte you're going.