Study: U.S. Unprepared For Homeland Attack

Equipment Shortages Stateside, Insufficient Training Mark "An Appalling Gap" For Military

(AP)  The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report, "Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a 21st-Century Operational Force," concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in - you're either ready or you're not."

In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.

"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.

Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.

"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.

He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.

Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.

Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.

Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.

In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.

Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops - to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met.


For more information and to view or download the report, visit the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve's Web site at www.cngr.gov.

[erasmus6]

"The trouble is people like YOU have lived with this war krap for so long in the daily media its ALL you think about 24/7, you wake up turn on the tube and watch the reports of the latest chit in Iraq while heating coffee up, you open the paper at work and read more there, at night you turn on the tube for another Iraq war installment, browse the net for more and cap it off with the 11 o''''clock news summing up the day''''s WAR and latests bombs in Iraq.
When this fiasco FINALLY ends, yall arent even going to know what to DO with your sorry azz all day without the war 24/7 on your mind." posted by newster1


Do you always make things up as you go along? You have no idea what I do everyday. The fact that you came up with all this is pathetic. I don''t read the newspaper, I don''t drink coffee, I watch very little t.v. and if I want to watch the news, I tape it and fast forward through the things I don''t want to see.

You need to get a grip on reality instead of speculating on what you THINK people do.

[erasmus6]

"MOST EVERYONE in this country IS against this unjust illegal and costly invasion of a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11" posted by newster1

I was not talking about the Iraq war. AND I never said it had anything to do with 9/11.

"The trouble is people like YOU have lived with this war krap for so long in the daily media its ALL you think about 24/7..."

I am a Canadian and I don''t live with this war krap every day. I actually hear very little about it. And when I visit the CBS website it is very rare for me to check anything out about the war.

[nothappyatall]

"That would depend on the Democrat. If you vote for Obama who is against war then you are definitely going to have a problem fighting the terrorists. If you vote for Hillary, you will at least have a chance because she has guts and a spine.

Posted by erasmus6 "

According to the polls every year MOST EVERYONE in this country IS against this unjust illegal and costly invasion of a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and was never a threat, Sadumb also hated Al Quaida and kept them OUT of Iraq.
Bush''s approval rating is at its lowest ever- in the 20% range, we do not need 4 MORE YEARS of this phuxing useless, STUPID war! and we dont need the several billion dollar costs a month either.
The trouble is people like YOU have lived with this war krap for so long in the daily media its ALL you think about 24/7, you wake up turn on the tube and watch the reports of the latest chit in Iraq while heating coffee up, you open the paper at work and read more there, at night you turn on the tube for another Iraq war installment, browse the net for more and cap it off with the 11 o''clock news summing up the day''s WAR and latests bombs in Iraq.
When this fiasco FINALLY ends, yall arent even going to know what to DO with your sorry azz all day without the war 24/7 on your mind.

[erasmus6]

Posted by newster1 at 02:29 AM : Feb 03, 2008


Let''s put it this way, people can surely guess what situation you are in, but thinking and knowing for sure are two different things. No one knows ANYTHING FOR SURE unless YOU tell them.

The problem is that the U.S., unlike most other countries, seems to like airing their dirty laundry to the world. Your media is out of control.

[nothappyatall]

""U.S. Unprepared For Homeland Attack"


What the hell is the matter with your media?? Do they have OCD and have the incessant need to tell the truth? Why would they print this on a website that is seen all over the world? Now China, Russia, and every TERRORIST in the world knows that you are UNPREPARED FOR A HOMELAND ATTACK!!

Posted by erasmus6"

Oh RIGHT, like nobody could EVER figure this out for themselves, they need the media to clue them in and give them ''ideas'' according to you LOL.
Lets see, Amerika sends 150,000 troops, massive amoutns of ships, tanks, planes and supplies to Iraq, Afghanistan and other places for several YEARS, Amerika is also in a recession, and its president, resident murderer-in-chief goes whining to the Saudies abut how high oil prices is hurting the US economy, causing a mortgage meltdown and credit card crunch... Nope, no way could anyone figure out the US is failing, paddling water, sinking fast, and whose military is overworked, exhausted with repeated stop-loss and long tours, damaged worn-out equipment from several years in sand and desert.

[erasmus6]

"Think the US is unprepared? Then vote for a Democrat!" posted by GeorgiaGrl1


That would depend on the Democrat. If you vote for Obama who is against war then you are definitely going to have a problem fighting the terrorists. If you vote for Hillary, you will at least have a chance because she has guts and a spine.

[erasmus6]

"THE REPUBLICANS BOAST THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11 BECAUSE OF THEIR EFFORTS....OBVIOUS BS! WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED BECAUSE THE ENEMY HAS NOT CHOSEN TO DO SO, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REPUBLICAN PREPAREDNESS." posted by frankson2

I wouldn''t be to sure about that.

[erasmus6]

"U.S. Unprepared For Homeland Attack"


What the hell is the matter with your media?? Do they have OCD and have the incessant need to tell the truth? Why would they print this on a website that is seen all over the world? Now China, Russia, and every TERRORIST in the world knows that you are UNPREPARED FOR A HOMELAND ATTACK!!

[libsluvsuvs]

Does this mean that our foreign escapades and misadventures have left us more vulnerable in Der Homeland?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by FeelFree1 at 09:40 PM : Jan 31, 2008
+ report abuse


***********

nah it means that in case of an attack...too many whinney liberals WOULD BE EXPECTING first class service type of rescue..

[beehive21-2009]

Not to worry we the citizens shall handle it.That''s the genius of the second amendment,the right to bear arms.We the people shall handle it ,now get out there and do your duty and arm yourselves,put a year of food and water aside and prepare to rock and roll.

[tbweb]

After the attacks of 9/11 this is irresponsible. This is is right up there with attempting to authorize control of U.S. Ports to Dubai. It makes no sense, Police and Fire radios are still not on the same channel. It just goes to show us, as soon as the cameras and new media take the spot light away its business as usual. Just based on 9/11 alone U.S. BORDERS should be more secure but BORDER SECURITY is also a joke. The U.S. has always relied on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to protect us, those days are long gone, Osama bin Laden could walk right into the U.S. from Mexico, plant a WMD and walk back out again and no one would catch him! Are we serious about security? Instead of worrying about and fixing Iraq, how about concentrating on the U.S. and why did we create Homeland Security, more bureaucracy with no results!

[rowdytexan2]

Hell, we didn''t even have enough troops to sandbag during Katrina...or any of the big storms in any state late year. They are not kidding!

Who''s going defend us? A bunch of old men up in the Pentagon?

[feelfree1]

Does this mean that our foreign escapades and misadventures have left us more vulnerable in Der Homeland?

[feelfree1]

Is this article foreshadowing another TERRA attack pending from ******** Cheney?

Will "human energy" be tapped from Chevron, in order to augment the TERRA ruse with a campaign of torture, rape, and murder, as we have seen in their previous efforts?

[frif1981]

The bottom line is that we are not making headway in the war against terror. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, didn''t get him there but stayed there. I don''t even know why we went into Iraq (not after Al Qaeda they weren''t active there before we went in) and we are still there. The war on terror is a different type of war. We will never beat a VERY mobile enemy when we go in like a bull and have to lumber behind and fix our messes. We require more precision like what went on in Pakistan reported today. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand this. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but not to "build democracy" there. That is not our job. Not to mention that we would have all the trained personnel we need here if we had listened to him in the first place and not gone into Iraq when they did not aggress against us.

[frif1981]

The bottom line is that we are not making headway in the war against terror. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, didn''t get him there but stayed there. I don''t even know why we went into Iraq (not after Al Qaeda they weren''t active there before we went in) and we are still there. The war on terror is a different type of war. We will never beat a VERY mobile enemy when we go in like a bull and have to lumber behind and fix our messes. We require more precision like what went on in Pakistan reported today. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand this. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but not to "build democracy" there. That is not our job. Not to mention that we would have all the trained personnel we need here if we had listened to him in the first place and not gone into Iraq when they did not aggress against us.

[frif1981]

The bottom line is that we are not making headway in the war against terror. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, didn''t get him there but stayed there. I don''t even know why we went into Iraq (not after Al Qaeda they weren''t active there before we went in) and we are still there. The war on terror is a different type of war. We will never beat a VERY mobile enemy when we go in like a bull and have to lumber behind and fix our messes. We require more precision like what went on in Pakistan reported today. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand this. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but not to "build democracy" there. That is not our job. Not to mention that we would have all the trained personnel we need here if we had listened to him in the first place and not gone into Iraq when they did not aggress against us.

[frif1981]

The bottom line is that we are not making headway in the war against terror. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, didn''t get him there but stayed there. I don''t even know why we went into Iraq (not after Al Qaeda they weren''t active there before we went in) and we are still there. The war on terror is a different type of war. We will never beat a VERY mobile enemy when we go in like a bull and have to lumber behind and fix our messes. We require more precision like what went on in Pakistan reported today. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand this. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but not to "build democracy" there. That is not our job. Not to mention that we would have all the trained personnel we need here if we had listened to him in the first place and not gone into Iraq when they did not aggress against us.

[frif1981]

The bottom line is that we are not making headway in the war against terror. We went into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, didn''t get him there but stayed there. I don''t even know why we went into Iraq (not after Al Qaeda they weren''t active there before we went in) and we are still there. The war on terror is a different type of war. We will never beat a VERY mobile enemy when we go in like a bull and have to lumber behind and fix our messes. We require more precision like what went on in Pakistan reported today. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand this. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but not to "build democracy" there. That is not our job. Not to mention that we would have all the trained personnel we need here if we had listened to him in the first place and not gone into Iraq when they did not aggress against us.

[bm6005]

My bad! NG not reservist''s.