BUILDING POPULATION RESILIENCE 

TO TERROR ATTACKS: 

Unlearned Lessons from Military and Civilian Experience 

by 

Michael T. Kindt 

The Counterproliferation Papers 

Future Warfare Series No. 36 

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air University 

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 

BUILDING POPULATION RESILIENCE 

TO TERROR ATTACKS: 

Unlearned Lessons from Military and Civilian Experience 

Michael T. Kindt 

November 2006 

The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF 

Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis to assist 

the understanding of the U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF 

officers to help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of 

mass destruction. Copies of No. 36 and previous papers in this series are 

available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault 

Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-

7530; phone (334) 953-7538. 

Counterproliferation Paper No. 36 

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air University 

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427

The Internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is: 

http://cpc.au.af.mil/

Contents 

Page 

Disclaimer................................................................................................... ii 

About the Author ....................................................................................... iii

I. Introduction.........................................................................................1 

II. Resilience............................................................................................5 

The Concept of Resilience...............................................................5 

Building Resilience..........................................................................7 

U.S. Military as a Model of Resilience..........................................10 

III. Federal Efforts to Build Resilience...................................................17 

Historical Precedent.......................................................................17 

Current Efforts toward Resilience .................................................19 

Efforts to Address Deficits ............................................................23 

IV. Recommendations.............................................................................27 

V. Conclusion ........................................................................................31 

Notes..........................................................................................................33 
ii 

Disclaimer 

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do 

not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, 

Department of Defense, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center. 
iii 

The Author 

Lieutenant Colonel (Dr.) Michael Kindt is currently the Deputy Director 

of the USAF Counterproliferation Center, and adjunct professor at the Air 

War College. Prior to this assignment he was a student at the Air War 

College where he earned a Masters of Strategic Studies with academic 

distinction. Lt Col Kindt has a M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology 

from Bowling Green State University and is licensed to practice in the 

state of Alabama. His previous assignments include directing provision of 

mental health services at Moody AFB and RAF Molesworth, UK. He also 

has extensive experience in education and training having worked as an 

instructor, flight commander and squadron commander of the 382d 

Medical Training Squadron at Sheppard AFB. In this role he directed 40 

resident and distance learning courses in a wide range of medical 

specialties training over 5,500 students annually. 

 

1 

Building Population Resilience to 

Terror Attacks 

Unlearned Lessons from Military and Civilian Experience 

Michael T. Kindt 

I. Introduction 

On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the United States in a 

coordinated attack on our air transportation system and U.S. public 

symbols, causing the greatest single loss of civilian life in the history of 

our nation due to terrorism. The attacks in Washington D.C., New York, 

and Pennsylvania rocked the entire nation, awakening all Americans to the 

dangers of terrorism that had been known for years by other nations. 

The response by America was dramatic as the nation hunkered down 

in an effort to ensure no more attacks. All air traffic was grounded for 

three days, security was increased throughout the nation, the list of targets 

perceived to be at-risk increased, and travel, particularly by air, 

plummeted. It took months for Americans to return to the air in the same 

numbers as before these horrific attacks, and many Americans still fear 

airline travel. The caution of our leaders in shutting down the system and 

the public reluctance to travel by air, while understandable, multiplied the 

negative impact of the terror attacks on the U.S. economy, furthering the 

aims of our attackers. 

On July 8, 2005, terrorists attacked the United Kingdom, killing 58 

and injuring hundreds in a coordinated attack on the London mass transit 

system. Despite the shock of these attacks, London mass transit resumed 

some routes the same afternoon and opened all routes as soon as they were 

repaired. Londoners returned to these systems the next day in apparent 
2 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

defiance of the risks posed by terrorists. Is this dramatically different 

response seen in these two nations that share so much in common, a 

uniquely British characteristic? 

This ability to maintain normal operations is not the sole property of 

the British. Large groups of Americans respond in heroic fashion to 

tragedies every day. These Americans represent our armed forces and our 

emergency first responders. How then, do some seem to maintain 

business as usual or bounce back quickly while others struggle following a 

tragedy? The answer is resilience. 

Resilience, according to psychological literature, is the ability to cope 

with a negative or traumatic event and return quickly to a healthy level of 

functioning. Traumatic events which can test the resilience of a nation or 

community include not only terror attacks, but also natural disasters and 

accidents. Clearly the British population was more resilient to a traumatic 

terror event than the American population. Although it is impossible to 

determine precisely why the British were able to return to normal 

functioning more quickly than the Americans, an understanding of 

resilience suggests some very likely explanations. 

Resilience to trauma is increased by a number of factors, which 

include preparation for the trauma, perceived ability to cope with trauma, 

and, perhaps most important, experience of successful recovery to past 

trauma. Clearly, London has had more experience dealing with the effects 

of bombing than the United States. Beginning with attacks on civilian 

targets by the Germans in WWII and continuing through attacks by the 

Irish Republic Army over the past few decades, the United Kingdom has 

had to learn to live with terror to a much greater extent than America. 

Has our nation learned from our recent experiences and those of the 

United Kingdom? A review of current programs and initiatives reveals 

that while there are both historical and current models of resilience, our 

population is not prepared to cope effectively with another significant 

attack or disaster. The model of resilience provided by the United States 

military has not been modified to benefit the nation, past national 

programs to build resilience have not been revitalized, and current efforts 

build resilience are inadequate or ignored. These shortcomings leave the 

people of the United States unprepared for attack. 

This paper will examine in detail the concept of resilience and 

techniques to enhance the resilience of the public. It will examine the 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 3 

model of resilience preparation provided by the military, explore past 

national efforts to prepare for attack, and examine initiatives related to this 

area that have not yet borne fruit in terms of their ability to enhance our 

resilience. Finally, recommendations will be made to improve the overall 

resilience of the United States to terror attacks and disasters. 

Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 5 

II. Resilience 

The Concept of Resilience 

According to the American Psychological Association, resilience “is 

the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, or 

even significant sources of stress.”1

 Sir Michael Rutter defined it as 

facing “...stress at a time and in a way that allows self-confidence and 

social competence to increase through mastery and appropriate 

responsibility.”2

 Resilience then has several components. It involves 

facing a stress or a threat in a way that builds confidence in the 

individual’s ability to master future threats. It also involves somehow 

having personal responsibility for the successful response to that threat. 

That is, resilience cannot grow from having someone else manage a crisis 

or threat. A lack of personal responsibility for the successful response to a 

threat cannot build resilience or confidence. 

Thus, one key to the development of resilience is having had the 

experience of being faced with responsibility in a threat or crisis and 

successfully managing that crisis. Resilience does not guarantee that an 

event will not have an impact on an individual or that person will never 

experience distress or difficulty coping. Rather, resilience is the 

characteristic that allows one to resume functioning with minimal 

disruption. 

Further, resilience is not an all-or-nothing characteristic. Everyone 

has a degree of resilience, and some may be more resilient to one type of 

stress than to another.3

 For example, some people may manage the stress 

induced by time pressure at work much better than they handle 

relationship stresses at home. More relevant to the preparation for terror 

attacks, individuals and communities on America’s Gulf Coast may have 

developed a significant amount of resilience to the effects of hurricanes, 

based on past experience of successfully preparing for, surviving and 

recovering from them. While this resilience to hurricanes may enable 

confidence in coping with future hurricanes, it may not translate well to 

the response to a chemical or biological terrorist attack. The degree to 

which resilience translates from one event to another may depend on the 
6 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

extent to which an individual is familiar with a threat or feels a sense of 

control in the response to it.4

While different individuals may manifest resilience in different 

situations, there are a number of characteristics common to resilient 

individuals. The characteristics can be grouped into three general 

categories. These categories are individual characteristics, social ties, and 

coping strategies. 

The first category of resilience factors is individual characteristics. 

This category includes optimism, the ability to see hope for the future even 

in difficult circumstances. Another individual feature is self-efficacy, or a 

sense that the individual can utilize available resources to manage the 

event or task at hand effectively. Self-efficacy is related to mastery, which 

is the ability to take control of the situation one is placed in, and break a 

large problem down into smaller pieces and begin with these small steps to 

work to resolve the problem. Resilient people also demonstrate a sense of 

coherence, which represents a belief that the events that happen in life 

make sense, and allows them to place even traumatic events in a bigger 

picture of life.5

While the definitions are informative, they do not directly illustrate 

how these individual characteristics relate to better coping during a 

terrorist attack. In preparation or response to a bombing or chemical or 

biological attack, a resilient person would demonstrate optimism by 

believing that he or she, their community, and the nation would be able to 

cope with the crisis and recover to see better days. Self-efficacy would 

enable the individual to believe that by accessing and making use of 

available information and resources they can work to protect themselves 

and begin to recover. Mastery would allow them to use available 

information and personal resources to take steps to evacuate or prepare 

shelter, or identify personal plans for safety. A sense of coherence would 

allow the person to see the attack as part of a larger war on terror (rather 

than an unforeseen bolt from the blue) and part of a larger life that, 

although negatively affected by the attack, can still go on. 

These resilient features allow an individual to respond well and be 

maximally effective in the event of a crisis. An individual without one or 

all of these individual characteristics is more likely to be overwhelmed by 

the stress of crisis and be more reliant on the support of others, creating 

drain on the rescue and healthcare systems. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 7

In addition to these individual characteristics, the social ties that bind 

people together also contribute to resilience. People who are able to ask 

for and receive support from social groups such as family, friends, church, 

or community are more resilient to stress than those who either cannot 

seek support or have none available. While it seems obvious that 

receiving support would help an individual cope well with stress, there is 

also evidence that providing support for others in times of crisis is helpful 

for the person providing the support. This may explain why one in three 

Americans contributed to the recovery after 9/11 by contributing either 

time, money, or blood.6

The final set of factors contributing to resilience is related to coping 

strategies. Even with the individual characteristics identified above, a 

person must still utilize coping strategies to respond effectively to an 

attack. These strategies include stepping back to see the big picture before 

rushing to solve a problem, breaking large and potentially overwhelming 

problems into more achievable tasks, and taking breaks from the crisis to 

rest or refocus energy.7

High resilience to stress is the combination of a positive individual 

perspective, strong social connectedness, and effective problem solving 

skills all of which allow an individual to cope positively with even 

traumatic events such as a terror attack. Although some individuals are by 

nature or experience more resilient than others, resilience is a trait that can 

be improved.8

Building Resilience 

The American Psychological Association (APA) has produced a 

series of brochures reviewing information to enhance resilience. These 

are posted on their website for public access. The APA identifies several 

factors toward building resilience that may not only be utilized by 

individuals, but could also be enhanced by federal, state, and local policy. 

The APA recommends that individuals build connections with others, 

including social and civic groups, to help develop avenues for social 

support in the event of a crisis. Creation or support of local organizations 

with abilities to bring individuals together to create support networks is 

one method of helping the population to build resilience. 
8 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

Another technique for increasing resilience is taking decisive action. 

This is a way of reducing the anxiety of indecision. By taking action, 

individuals can focus on the action at hand, rather than feeling stuck in 

uncertainty. Government agencies could facilitate this aspect of resilience 

by providing clear guidance of actions that should be taken in preparation 

for the general risk of disasters and terror attacks. Additionally, direct 

guidance should be provided for coping with specific threats as risk 

increases or immediately following an attack. 

Keeping things in perspective is another method of enhancing 

resilience. As individuals improve their ability to look at the big picture of 

events they can better direct their actions and moderate emotional 

reactions. Larger efforts to communicate clearly about the risk of terror 

attacks, particularly in comparison to the other threats inherent in modern 

life, can help reduce anxiety associated with terror attacks. For example, 

despite the emphasis placed on securing our nation from terrorism, the 

relative risk to Americans is rather low, with more people in the United 

States killed by lightning over the last 40 years than killed by terrorist 

attacks.9

 Providing accurate data to allow the population to place the 

threat of terror attacks in the proper perspective would be one method of 

enhancing resilience. 

A final technique for increasing resilience is to avoid seeing crises as 

too large to be managed, and by beginning to break down a crisis into 

more manageable pieces. Authorities could greatly enhance resilience in 

this area by providing pre-attack information, directing small steps that the 

population could take to improve their security from attacks. Thus, it 

appears clear that with the proper motivation and allocation of resources, 

the nation could embark on a program to mobilize the population to be 

confident in its own ability to respond to a significant threat. In fact, such 

a program has been utilized by the United States in past. 

This understanding of resilience and how it can be enhanced is 

particularly important in light of current knowledge regarding human 

behavior in the face of threat or disaster. Recent work by Anthony 

Mawson highlights the marked disparity between how people are 

presumed to behave during disasters and their actual behavior. He finds 

that in contrast to the prevailing belief that in the face of disaster there will 

be mass panic and/or violence as people recklessly flee to safety, there is 

little evidence to support this belief. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 9 

Mawson finds that rather than panicking and fleeing, research 

suggests that people are much more likely to engage in activities that are 

supportive of others or involve seeking familiar people or places. He cites 

four mistaken assumptions that contribute to the belief that panic is likely 

in disaster situation. First, that the drive for self-preservation will result in 

fleeing the scene or fighting others. Second, individuals will choose to 

move toward a safe location. Third, physical dangers will create more 

panic than other types of stress. Fourth, panic is only prevented by strict 

social discipline and leadership.10 These mistaken assumptions can lead 

those in positions of responsibility and authority to attempt to avert such 

panic by not releasing information about a potential disaster or attack. 

This behavior could potentially make panic more likely when a disaster 

does occur.11

Mawson goes on to outline four corollaries to these mistaken 

assumptions that reflect research on human behavior in times of crisis or 

disaster. First, more than the drive to flee to safety, people are motivated 

by a desire to be with familiar people (family, friends, etc.) and in familiar 

places, even if this means moving toward the danger. Second, people tend 

to move not toward an objectively safe place but toward people and places 

they perceive to be safe. Third, separation from these familiar people or 

places during a disaster may be more disturbing than the actual physical 

threat. Fourth, the key to avoiding panic may not be firm social control or 

discipline but the presence of familiar people.12

These findings by Mawson mesh well with the basic concepts of 

resilience reviewed earlier. One of the key factors in resilience was the 

ability to reach out to provide support to and receive support from others 

in times of stress. This ability to affiliate with others during crisis or stress 

then appears to not only help individuals cope with a crisis, but on a large 

scale enables groups to avoid panic behavior. This drive for the familiar 

has both advantages and disadvantages for emergency planners. 

On the positive side, based on Mawson’s research, mass panic is a 

much less likely outcome of disaster than may often be feared. On the 

negative side however, the tendency to seek out familiar people and places 

may lead many to ignore early warnings to evacuate or seek shelter 

leaving them at greater risk when danger occurs.13 This potential appears 

to have been clearly demonstrated by the behavior of tens of thousands of 

citizens of New Orleans who opted to remain in their homes and with their 
10 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

families despite warnings before Hurricane Katrina to seek higher ground. 

This unwillingness or inability to heed warnings and seek shelter resulted 

in an overwhelmed emergency response system. The challenge for those 

seeking to build population resilience to attack will be to build on this 

desire to be with familiar others and support each other while enabling 

people to follow evacuation warnings and other directions. 

In the devastation of the Gulf Coast left by Hurricane Katrina, the 

nation turned to the one organization in America that exemplifies facing 

stress in a way that builds self confidence and mastery, the United States 

military. 

U.S. Military as a Model of Resilience 

By virtue of its mission to protect the nation, members of the military 

must be prepared at all times to respond to and perform in a wide range of 

life threatening circumstances around the world. Despite the risk of 

chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and conventional attack, 

thousands volunteer to accept these risks each year and perform 

exceptionally around the world. Thus, while not discussing it directly, 

military training and organization has long recognized the importance of 

building the ability to master intense threat and stress in a productive and 

unified manner. 

Research and commentary from as early as the 1940s speak of the 

preparation of combat troops and their reactions on the battlefield in terms 

very similar to those used today to talk about resilience. S.L.A Marshall, 

in his classic, Men Against Fire, addresses many of the challenges of 

preparing men for and leading men into the intense danger that is combat. 

Marshall wrote of the need to prepare soldiers for the type of situations 

they would encounter on the battlefield so they would feel more prepared 

when encountering that danger. Such preparation requires realistic 

training, including live fire exercises, that will allow soldiers to 

approximate the fear they may feel in battle and prepares them to have the 

confidence to cope effectively.14

Marshall writes at length of the factors that enable men to face the 

fear and danger of the battlefield noting, “I hold it to be one of the 

simplest truths of war that the thing that enables an infantry soldier to go 

on with his weapons is the near presence or presumed presence of a 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 11

comrade...he would rather be unarmed with comrades around him than 

altogether alone, though possessing the most perfect of quick firing 

weapons.”15 Even 60 years ago, while not described as resilience, then the 

concepts of efficacy and perceived social support were recognized as key 

features in preparing soldiers to cope well with crisis. 

Marshall goes on to address the factors that prevent panic and 

uncontrolled fleeing of troops in combat. Marshall notes that it is 

intelligence and training that allow soldiers to overcome their fear and 

desire to huddle together for safety and continue with their mission. He 

also notes the importance of leaders providing clear instructions in order 

to ensure continued focus on the mission. In fact, Marshall asserts that it 

is only when this communication breaks down that soldiers are likely to 

panic on the battlefield. 

Based on his investigation of seven incidents of panic among troops 

in combat, he determined that none were caused by a “spontaneous 

movement of a body of men.”16 Rather these incidents of panic grew out 

of deliberate acts of a few that were misunderstood by others and led to 

the panic of many. In each case, the deliberate withdrawal of as few as 

one soldier, when not explained to others, led to mass disorderly panic. 

Marshall concludes then that in the chaos and danger of combat it is of 

primary importance to communicate clearly so that individuals will know 

what is happening and what is expected of them.17

Marshall’s personal conclusions about the importance of the social 

bond in combat and the need to prepare soldiers adequately for battle were 

echoed in a large scale study of attitudes of soldiers in WWII. This study, 

authored by Samuel Stouffer and first published in 1949, found that 

soldiers responded less to worries about self-preservation and more to 

concerns about finishing the task at hand and preserving the unity of the 

unit in the face of attack. This environment placed a priority then on 

developing connections to others in the unit and the ability to make friends 

with and rely on others quickly. This report also emphasized the 

importance of training to simulate battle and create fear. This experience 

of fear would help men to learn to acknowledge fear and see their ability 

to continue to perform despite it.18 

Although these historical accounts do speak directly of resilience, it is 

clear that they address many significant resiliency components that are 

vital to coping with acute stressors, including self-efficacy, mastery, the 
12 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

value of supporting and being supported by others. These same factors are 

still addressed by the U.S. military today and many military programs are 

designed to create a sense of resilience in members of the military. While 

all branches of the service have generally comparable programs, this 

analysis will focus on the programs of the United States Air Force that 

directly or indirectly contribute to the resilience of its members. 

Returning to the definition of resilience as “the process of adapting 

well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, or even significant sources 

of stress,”19 we can see its parallels in modern military training. Most 

aspects of military training throughout history have been designed to 

create a sense of confidence that soldiers, sailors, or airmen can face 

threats of danger and overcome them. 

Today, this process starts in basic training. Basic military training is 

designed to teach the critical importance of discipline, teamwork, and 

foundational knowledge needed to succeed as an airman. It also prepares 

recruits physically as warriors in the profession of arms.20 These concepts 

of discipline and teamwork combine to create the sense that the individual 

is no longer alone and they can accomplish more by working together as 

team. 

These concepts, along with the knowledge of how to respond to a 

wide range of threats and the trust that following the commands of 

leadership will lead to success, create some of the initial facets of 

resilience. Specifically, basic training starts to build the sense of social 

connectedness, that the recruit can support others and will be supported by 

others (emphasized in the work of Mawson and Stouffer), while 

simultaneously increasing self-confidence and self-efficacy. 

This concept of connectedness is enhanced in the Air Force on 

mastery of wartime skills during Warrior Week, when a recruit is first 

recognized as an Airman and presented with an Airman’s coin as a symbol 

of the bond with other airmen. In addition to these aspects of resilience, 

Airmen also learn the specific skills necessary to protect themselves and 

their fellow airmen. Some of these specific skills include how to wear the 

chemical protection suit and how to perform self-aid and buddy care in the 

event of an injury. These specific training programs build the sense of 

mastery that the airman can respond appropriately in the event of a crisis. 

These initial facets of resilience learned in basic training are reinforced 

throughout the military experience. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 13

The entire military environment of on-base housing areas, 

commissaries, exchanges, and chapels continues to build a strong sense of 

community that strengthens the connectedness encouraging resilience. 

Each unit further works to create a sense of camaraderie and esprit de 

corps that fosters not only a feeling of being part of the Air Force but also 

as being part of a smaller unit family. Airmen are taught that First 

Sergeants are available to help them with their problems, and First 

Sergeants work to identify the needs of the members of the unit and ensure 

that personnel are referred to the agencies on base that are able to provide 

assistance. 

Base communities provide a wide range of support services that 

strengthen the bonds of community connectedness and facilitate members 

of the base community in helping others to be successful. Programs such 

as Life Skills, Family Advocacy, Family Support Centers, and Chapels 

provide services designed to address personal, financial, and spiritual 

needs at all stages of a military career. These services are not only 

designed to support individuals, but also to ensure that the stresses of 

military life are being taken care of so that military members can focus, 

when necessary, on deployment and crisis, confident that they and their 

families are prepared. Together these military culture and communitybased programs create a firm foundation of the basic facets of resilience. 

Military members are trained and supported to feel connected and capable 

of responding to any situation they may encounter. 

Other Air Force programs are specifically designed and implemented 

to help build resilience, the capability to perform when called upon, and 

the ability to adapt to extreme circumstances when necessary. The Family 

Care Program requires all military members to have a plan for the care of 

their families in the event of deployment or recall. Airmen who are 

married to other military members, single parents, and members with 

special needs family members must document a workable plan to ensure 

families are cared for should the airman be deployed or recalled for a 

crisis. These plans must be periodically reviewed to ensure they can be 

activated at any time.21 This plan helps to ensure that a call to duty will 

not overly stress a member with difficult family circumstances. 

Another program designed to build resilience is the Suicide and 

Violence Prevention Education and Training program. This program, 

while not focused on the threat of terrorism or attack, serves to educate all 
14 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

personnel regarding the risk factors for suicide and workplace violence, 

with the goal of reducing suicides and incidents of violence. The program 

emphasizes the role of supervisors and co-workers being involved in the 

lives of those around them and recognizing the signs of difficulties in 

coping. The program specifically addresses a number of resilience factors 

addressed earlier in this article including self-efficacy, optimism, personal 

control, and social support as critical factors in preventing suicide and 

violence. The program reviews local procedures for seeking help from the 

range of base helping agencies and ensures members are aware of the 

support available to help with stress. This training is required for all Air 

Force members every 15 months in conjunction with the Air 

Expeditionary Force cycle.22

A final program that warrants specific consideration in terms of the 

resilience of the Air Force population is the Traumatic Stress Response 

Program. The goal of this program is to increase resilience in those who 

may be, or have been, exposed to a traumatic event, through education, 

training and referrals. This training, then, is one military program that 

works directly to building resilience in the face of trauma. The program 

requires trained multi-disciplinary Traumatic Stress Response Teams to be 

maintained at each base. These teams, with representatives from key 

helping agencies, may be augmented by peer members who assume a 

special role of helping those assigned to their specific functional unit. The 

policy states the goal of providing preventive critical incident stress 

management services to Air Force members whenever possible.23

These preventive programs focus on educating members about the 

stress they may encounter during a particular deployment or as part of a 

traumatic duty such as body recovery following an accident. Prevention 

training provides insight into the normal reactions during trauma so 

individuals are prepared not just for the stressful events, but also for their 

own reactions. Individuals are specifically trained in coping techniques to 

use in response to any stress reactions to ensure they maintain the highest 

level of functioning possible. Since many stressors and traumatic events 

cannot be predicted, debriefings are also conducted for those who have 

been exposed to a traumatic event. This debriefing also normalizes the 

reaction to stress and works to facilitate a sense of mastery over the 

reaction and the expectation for a return to normal functioning. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 15

While it is clearly impossible to send all Americans through Air Force 

Basic Training to improve their ability to respond in the event of a terrorist 

attack, the programs produced by the Air Force and other military services 

demonstrate that individuals and groups can be made more resilient 

through focused preparation efforts. These efforts, however, have not 

been adopted on a national level and represent a missed opportunity in our 

national preparedness efforts. Despite the failure to learn lessons from the 

military regarding resilience, the federal government has in the past 

pushed the population toward greater resilience and has made some new 

(if not yet successful) efforts in that direction since 9/11. 

Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 17

III. Federal Efforts to Build Resilience 

Historical Precedent 

The threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on New 

York and Washington D.C. was not the first grave danger that has 

threatened the American citizenry. The United States as a nation actually 

has experience in building national preparedness for attack. In the late 

1940s the United States faced a significant threat--atomic attack by the 

Soviet Union. In evaluating how to prepare Americans to respond to such 

a threat, the Federal Civil Defense Act was passed in 1950 creating the 

Federal Civil Defense Agency (FCDA).24

In her book, Civil Defense Begins at Home, Laura McEnaney outlines 

some of the practical and political motivations of the government’s 

decision to place preparedness in the hands of the population rather than 

establishing the federal government as the primary protector of Americans 

against attack. She notes that civil defense had been a grass roots 

organization since WWI, and had been continued successfully during 

WWII. 

McEnaney observes that precedence was not the only motivation for 

placing preparation in the hands of the communities. Planners at the time 

had also observed in cities that had been subjected to aerial bombing, most 

lives had been saved by local defense teams and these efforts had been a 

great success in coping with WWII bombings in Great Britain. 

Yet other factors were also involved. The government wanted to 

avoid the expectation that it could protect everyone, a task that would have 

been impossible following an atomic attack. Additionally, there was 

concern that if the population came to expect the government to protect 

them they would not practice effective civil defense. Thus, McEnaney 

concludes the proposal for reliance on self-help “was advantageous 

because it released the government from complete responsibility for 

citizen protection while giving people a tangible role to play in the defense 

of their own country.”25

Despite the catastrophic level of risk to the population posed by 

atomic weapons (compared to the threat faced in WWII) the government 
18 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

embarked on an extensive program in the 1950s and 1960s to put 

homeland response to an attack firmly in the hands of the population. 

McEnaney details the efforts during this period to create an elaborate 

program to educate the public regarding preparation for an atomic attack. 

This effort reflected the primary view and approach taken in the face of 

nuclear war. A 1947 War Department study recommended “the 

fundamental principle of civil defense is self-help...it is incumbent upon 

each individual to protect himself, his home and his family to the 

maximum before calling for aid. To implement the self-help principle, the 

populace should be organized into small groups under leaders and 

trained...Calls for aid should not be made until the situation is beyond the 

control of the group.”26

The efforts of the government, enhanced by cooperation from all 

sectors of society, including the mass media, generated a tremendous 

amount of response from the public. The Federal Civil Defense Agency, 

created in 1950, reported that by 1953, 4.5 million people had enlisted in 

the United States Civil Defense Corps, and by 1956 the Warden Service, 

comprised of those who led neighborhood efforts, numbered 800,000.27

Although resilience as a concept was not studied at the time, these 

efforts in the face of nuclear war reflect many of the principles outlined in 

the earlier discussion of resilience. When faced with the potentially 

overwhelming threat of a nuclear attack, the government made systematic 

efforts to put the focus of survival on the individual Americans. They 

provided education and training on responding to a nuclear attack and 

empowered individuals to believe that by taking small manageable 

actions, they could increase their ability to survive an attack. This 

empowerment and direction likely enhanced the resilience of the nation at 

the time. 

Despite this recent historical example of a massive campaign to 

involve the population of the nation in a primary role in enhancing their 

own security, this has not been the primary focus in securing the nation 

against terrorism. Although there is much more an individual can do to 

adequately prepare for or even prevent a terrorist attack (compared to 

person’s ability to prepare for or prevent a nuclear attack), the focus since 

9/11 has been heavily on government responsibility for security.28 The 

focus at the federal level has been on aviation security, improved 

intelligence gathering and coordination, and direct military action against 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 19

terrorist threats. Despite this focus, there have been some federal 

initiatives that have the potential to address the need to increase 

population resilience. 

Current Efforts Toward Resilience 

Although resilience is not mentioned specifically, the National 

Strategy for Homeland Security clearly addresses the idea that securing 

the nation requires not only the reliance on public resources but also the 

focused effort of the American people.29 There are two major initiatives 

that address issues relevant to psychological resilience. Both, though 

well-intentioned, have failed to meet the mark in enhancing the ability of 

American citizens to respond effectively in the event of a major attack or 

catastrophe. These initiatives are the Homeland Security Advisory System 

(HSAS) and the Citizen Corps. 

The Homeland Security Advisory System was unveiled by then 

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge (he was later 

named the first Secretary for Homeland Security) on March 12, 2002. The 

system was established by Homeland Security Presidential Directive-3 to 

provide “a comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information 

regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities 

and to the American people.”30 The Homeland Security Advisory System 

appears to have never experienced very wide-ranging support from either 

the public or government agencies. From its inception, the Homeland 

Security Advisory System has faced criticism from the public, including 

jokes from comedians and cartoonists, and more serious critiques from 

journalists and security experts.31 Despite this ridicule and criticism, the 

system did initially appear to have some effectiveness in capturing the 

attention of the American people and altering their behavior in regard to 

the terrorist threat. 

The pinnacle of public respect for and confidence in the Homeland 

Security Advisory System may have been demonstrated in February 2003. 

On February 7, 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft, Secretary Ridge, and 

FBI Director Mueller made a joint announcement of an increase in the 

Homeland Security Advisory System level from Yellow to Orange. This 

increase was accompanied by clear statements indicating that there were 

specific threats against “apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or 
20 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

lightly guarded targets.”32 In this same announcement, the Attorney 

General mentioned a specific chemical, biological, or radiological threat 

with ricin having recently been connected to an Al Qaeda group in 

England. 

Secretary Ridge made some of his first statements advising 

Americans on actions they could take to prepare themselves for attack, 

including developing family emergency plans and putting together an 

emergency supply kit. The combination of identification of a more 

specific threat and concrete recommendations for public action addressed 

the features for improving resilience noted earlier by providing concrete, 

small steps the public could take to counter the threat, and a dramatic 

public response followed. 

The days following the Homeland Security Advisory System increase 

to the Orange level saw Americans rush to stores to purchase duct tape and 

plastic sheets, among other emergency supplies. One writer described the 

public reaction as a “zero-to-60 mobilization” of the American public in the 

war on terrorism.33 Despite the success of the Homeland Security Advisory 

System in mobilizing the population in this situation, the overall trend is one 

of decreasing confidence in the system as accusations were leveled 

proposing that the system was being manipulated for political purposes.34

Confidence in the Homeland Security Advisory System was further 

eroded in May 2005 by statements made by former DHS Secretary Ridge. 

He stated there were often significant disagreements within the 

administration about whether or not to raise the threat levels. According 

to former Secretary Ridge, he often argued the threat level should not be 

raised because of poor intelligence or because the country did not need to 

be put on alert. He further stated that in some cases where he disagreed 

with raising the threat level he was over-ruled by other members of the 

Homeland Security Advisory Council. 

The new Secretary for Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has also 

acknowledged the system is under review and that it requires 

improvements.35 Without specific, credible threats that can be trusted by 

the American public, the Homeland Security Advisory System will not be 

an effective tool for encouraging the population to prepare for and 

effectively cope with a terror attack. Thus, the Homeland Security 

Advisory System must be considered a failure relative to its potential to 

build resilience. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 21

The second major federal initiative relevant to psychological 

resilience is the Citizen Corps. Launched by President Bush in his 2002 

State of the Union address, the mission of the Citizen Corps is “to harness 

the power of every individual through education, training, and volunteer 

service to make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to 

respond to the threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues and 

disasters of all kinds.”36 Although not mentioning the concept of 

resilience directly, the mission statement of the Citizen Corps clearly 

echoes both the themes of resilience in making people better able to 

respond as well as the techniques of increasing resilience through 

preparedness and building support through community ties. The Citizen 

Corps (part of the larger Freedom Corps) included 5 major programs. 

• The Community Emergency Response Team program which 

trains members in basic disaster response skills; these skills 

enable individuals to assist their communities and workplaces to 

become more prepared for attack or disaster. 

• The Fire Corps advocates the use of trained civilian volunteers to 

provide support to local fire and rescue teams thereby increasing 

their capabilities. 

• An expansion of the Neighborhood Watch Program to build on 

existing community focus on crime prevention and enable these 

groups to also focus on terrorism awareness. 

• The Medical Reserve Corps which organizes volunteers to 

increase the capacity of local medical teams to respond in the 

event of a tragedy. 

• The Volunteers in Police program which encourages individuals 

to support the local police departments to increase outreach 

capacity particularly in times of emergency.37

These programs together create a wide range of activities that can 

benefit both the individuals participating and the community at large by 

increasing preparedness and disaster capability. The guide for community 

leaders states that having citizens who are better prepared to care for 

themselves will enable the emergency personnel to focus on the most 

serious local problems, and that building of the Citizen Corps will build 

community pride and cohesion.38
22 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

The Citizen Corps webpage suggests that these programs are meeting 

with great success throughout the country, reporting that there are 2,117 

Citizen Corps councils serving 210,000,000 people or 73% of the United 

States population.39 While these numbers appear to suggest an impressive 

level of public involvement in these valuable programs, other data 

suggests that this may not be the case. Despite a call for all communities 

to establish a Citizen Corps program and a report of 69% coverage of the 

nation, the National League of Cities reports that there are 19,429 

municipal governments in the United States.40 This indicates that fewer 

than 11% of municipal governments have established a Citizen Corps 

council. The difference in the number of communities with councils and 

the reported percentage of the population served by the Citizen Corps may 

be due to a disproportional creation of councils by large cities. 

There is also significant disparity in the number of people who are 

reportedly served by Citizen Corps Councils (210 million) and the number 

of people who even know the Citizen Corps exists. According to a survey 

conducted in June and July of 2003, by OCR Macro for the Department of 

Homeland Security, only 8% of the population was even aware the Citizen 

Corps existed. They also reported that of the 8% who had heard of the 

Citizen Corps, many could not give an accurate description of what the 

program was.41 This general lack of awareness seems to be supported by 

the numbers of individuals actually being trained and taking part in 

Citizen Corps programs. 

The 2004 Citizen Corps Annual Report (no further reports has been 

released as of this publication date) indicates that relatively few 

individuals were actually taking part in training volunteer programs being 

offered the by Corps through the end of 2004. The report cites that 58,756 

individuals had completed Community Emergency Response training 

since the program became part of the Citizen Corps. The report also cited 

total numbers participating in the Volunteers in Police Service program at 

73,000 and the number in Medical Service Corps at 30,000. Only 1,194 

people had taken part in the Fire Corps by the end of the reporting 

period.42 Combining these figures provides a total involvement of 

approximately 165,000 people participating in the Citizen Corps 

programs. With an estimated United States population of approximately 

295,000,000 this equates to only .05% of the population being engaged in 

these programs. This compares very unfavorably to the 4.5 million who 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 23

enrolled in the Civil Defense Corps in the first three years of its 

existence.43

There has been some significant criticism of these programs which 

helps explain the differences in the numbers reported served by the Citizen 

Corps and the number aware of the program and participating in it. These 

criticisms suggest that many of the Citizen Corps Councils are merely 

preexisting programs such as Neighborhood Watch that have been 

renamed Citizen Corps programs, or some of the Councils may exist on 

paper only without actual citizen involvement.44 Recent studies appear to 

confirm this assessment. The quarterly review of citizen preparedness 

released in the fall of 2006 revealed that despite the increased media 

attention and impact of Hurricane Katrina, “Americans today are no better 

prepared for a natural disaster or terrorist attack than they were in 2003.”45 

Regardless of the cause of low involvement, it is clear that federal 

government efforts to inspire civilian involvement in homeland security 

have failed to achieve the level of involvement prompted by the civil 

defense movement of the 1950s. These programs have also apparently 

failed to increase the overall preparedness of the population. Thus, the 

Citizen Corps must also be considered a failure relative to the 

development of resilience in the American citizenry. 

Today’s programs appear to have great potential to increase the 

resilience of the individuals who participate in them, but figures indicate 

that this promise is being wasted. While some people are benefiting, and 

some councils may be working effectively to build resilience in the 

community, the overall program does not appear to be effective. If 

utilized effectively to reach out to and engage Americans in working 

toward their security and the security of their communities, personal and 

community resilience could be greatly enhanced. The current program 

metrics of tracking percentage of population covered by a council seems 

to be a dramatic misrepresentation of the Citizen Corps ability to meet the 

mission to “harness the power of every individual.”46

Efforts to Address Deficits 

There has been some recognition within the government of the need 

to increase the focus on improving the psychological preparedness of the 

population to terror attacks. The Department of Homeland Security 
24 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

(DHS) has identified the need for additional research on behavioral health 

issues related to resilience and sponsored one initiative to address this 

need. During 2005, the Department of Homeland Security created a 

number of Centers of Excellence at universities to increase understanding 

of different factors relating to domestic preparedness for terror attacks. 

In January of 2005, the Department of Homeland Security announced 

the creation of a Center of Excellence for Behavioral and Social Research 

on Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. In addition to research on the 

questions related to the causes of terrorism and strategies to counter it, this 

center will “examine the psychological impact of terrorism on society and 

strengthening the population’s resilience in the face of terrorism.”47

Headquartered at the University of Maryland with support of 

universities across the country, the center, renamed the National 

Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism 

(START), has already created several working groups including one 

focusing on societal responses to terrorist threats and attacks. This 

working group, chaired by some of the leading researchers in social 

resilience, has already started projects investigating best practices for 

preparing communities, school-based preparedness programs, and 

community resilience to terrorist threat.48 If the funding for such 

programs continues, the START program could identify valuable tools and 

programs for enhancing individual and community resilience. 

Another initiative to improve the focus on population resilience began 

in Congress. Prompted by a desire to increase the national focus on the 

development of resilience to terror attacks, Congressmen Kennedy, 

Weldon, Turner, Smith, Frost, and Thompson introduced, on February 5, 

2003, to the House of Representatives a bill “to improve homeland 

security by providing for national resilience in preparation for and in the 

event of a terrorist attack.”49 This bill, entitled the National Resilience 

Development Act cites recommendations by the National Academy of 

Sciences to ensure the public health infrastructure is prepared to cope with 

the psychological as well as physical consequences of any attack. The bill 

also encourages use of techniques developed in Israel to enhance 

resilience of individuals and decrease the effects of terror attacks. 

The overall goal of the Act is to “identify effective strategies to 

respond to the behavioral, cognitive and emotional impacts of terrorism; to 

coordinate efforts in researching, developing and implementing programs 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 25

to increase the psychological resilience and mitigate distress reactions and 

maladaptive behaviors of the of the American public.”50 The National 

Resilience Development Act, which has been endorsed by former New 

Jersey Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean,51 would 

also establish an Interagency Task Force including the Director of the 

Centers for Disease Control, Director of the National Institute of Mental 

Health, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Director of 

the Office of Public Health Preparedness, and several other agencies, to 

track progress toward achieving community resilience goals. Despite the 

important issues raised in this bipartisan bill, the Act has been referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, and the Judiciary Committee for review. The Act was 

reintroduced in 2004 and again referred to committees and no action has 

yet been taken on the bill.52

The initiatives being taken in Congress and by the DHS confirm that 

there is interest (if little measurable accomplishment) in addressing 

America’s need for increased resilience to attack. However, interest alone 

is not enough to prepare our nation for terror attacks and disasters. 

Concrete programs, based on the past successes of the government and 

military, combined with efforts to measure effectiveness, must be initiated 

to better prepare the population. 

Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 27

IV. Recommendations 

Before recommendations for improving the resilience of the 

American population can be effectively considered, it is important to 

address a prerequisite for all resilience initiatives--establish national level 

leadership to make resilience an important national goal. The political 

dialogue on the Global War on Terror, to the extent that it has involved the 

American people at all, has been to recommend that they “go about their 

business.” Homeland Security Advisory System levels change with no 

indication of how the public should prepare. The general public has been 

encouraged to believe that the best defense against terror is a military 

offensive against terrorists and those who harbor them. Americans’ 

involvement in this military offensive has been limited to placing “I 

support our troops” stickers on their vehicles, with little personal sacrifice 

or effort required. 

Although the strategy of pre-emption and taking the fight to the 

terrorists in Iraq has its merits, it does not eliminate the threat of attacks 

here at home. In fact, this general theme of “don’t worry, we have it 

covered” serves to decrease resilience as individuals feel there is nothing 

they can or should do to prepare, decreasing their sense of efficacy and 

control. Without a clear emphasis at the national level on the vital role 

individuals can and should play in preparing themselves and their 

communities for attack, no other recommendations will bear fruit. 

The establishment of a positive, consistent, national message which 

says, “We as American people are all vital parts of a team, each with our 

own critical roles, working together to prepare to ultimately defeat 

terrorism,” would begin to create at a national level the sense of mission, 

purpose, and teamwork developed in a military basic training program. It 

would empower individuals to accept a role and try to fulfill it. This 

message would also give life to the mission of programs such as the 

Citizen Corps “to harness the power of every citizen” toward preparing 

our nation. With this emphasis on resilience established, other 

recommendations can be considered. 

First, the Homeland Security Advisory System should be significantly 

revised or abandoned. The most constructive revision to the HSAS would 
28 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

be the elimination of general nationwide threat level changes in favor of 

more specific alerts targeted at specific regions or industries. These alerts 

should always be accompanied by specific recommendations for public 

action in response to that threat. The alerts should be followed by targeted 

surveys of affected individuals and organizations to assess the extent to 

which recommendations were followed. This would provide some 

structured feedback on the effectiveness of the warning system, and help 

to identify constraints on individual preparedness. 

This system would then better mirror the Force Protection levels 

established by the military to secure bases. Under this system, changes 

can be made base, command, or DoD-wide and are accompanied by 

specific changes in procedures for all to follow. Moves toward greater 

specificity of warning and increased guidance as to how these warnings 

should be addressed by the public, would appear to be well received by the 

population, increase confidence in the system, and enhance resilience as 

people learn not just to be more afraid, but rather how they can be more 

prepared. 

Second, existing programs in the Citizen Corps must be maximized to 

capitalize on their potential for success. As outlined earlier, many of the 

Citizen Corps programs that have been established have tremendous 

potential to increase individual and community resilience, but have 

underachieved. These programs should be re-energized and proper 

metrics established to track their progress and success. Resilience 

programs in the Air Force are not measured by how many Suicide 

Prevention programs or Traumatic Stress Response teams exist, but by 

what percentage of their population is trained and ready to go. Similarly, 

the metric for success of the Citizen Corps program should not be the 

percentage of people living in a community that has a Citizen Corps 

Council, but how many people in that community have been trained or 

engaged by that Council. Such metrics would allow for more 

accountability of the money being spent on Citizen Corps programs now, 

and be used to provide justification for additional spending. This would 

also allow benchmarking of the techniques used by the most successful 

Councils so these techniques can be distributed to all Councils. 

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security, along with other 

national leaders, should work to communicate more directly to the 

population regarding why and how they should be prepared. There is 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 29

currently a great deal of valuable, practical information on the Ready.gov

website that can help an individual or family prepare for attack or disaster. 

The help in preparing emergency plans found on this website and the 

confidence preparedness brings can be a key step in building resilience. 

However, this information is only accessible if people become curious 

enough to look for it, or call the Department of Homeland Security phone 

line to request it. Without guidance that important information is 

available, few will likely take this initiative. 

Increased national emphasis on resilience could include media 

campaigns or direct mailings, advising Americans of the specific risks and 

precautions that can be taken in their region to make them safer. 

Partnerships could be developed with retailers to pre-package readiness 

kits along with flyers advising buyers on how to use them. In the same 

way that the Air Force recognizes the completion of training with an 

Airman’s coin, the Department of Homeland Security could provide 

stickers or flags that Americans could use to identity their homes and 

workplaces as “Ready.” 

Perhaps the most successful program that falls under the Citizen 

Corps is the Neighborhood Watch program, with over 11,000 

neighborhood groups nationwide.53 These programs, which have already 

expanded beyond crime prevention to terrorism watch, could be 

encouraged to expand further to help identify neighbor residents who may 

not be able to care for themselves in a time of emergency, or those without 

transportation during evacuation situations. The disabled or shut-in could 

also be identified through this program and information shared with the 

local police departments who sponsor the watches. This would build a 

greater sense of connectedness in the community and reduce the reliance 

on emergency personnel to respond in a crisis. 

Two key factors in resilience are optimism and confidence in ability to 

respond to a threat. Consequently, training opportunities to build 

preparedness skills should be expanded. One training program that is very 

valuable both to individuals and communities is provided by Community 

Emergency Response Training. Although the full training requires 20 hours 

to complete, the program launched a web-based training program open to all 

Americans to familiarize them with the concepts of emergency response. 

Created in 2003, this web-based program was completed by only 

5,320 people in 2004. Clearly more emphasis needs to be placed 
30 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

marketing and engaging individuals to complete the training. The 

military, of course, does not have to worry about marketing training 

programs in order to increase attendance; it simply makes things 

mandatory. Although it is not practical to make preparedness training 

mandatory for all Americans, partnerships that have been used in the past 

could be revitalized to increase Americans resilience. 

Perhaps the easiest partnership for training and educating Americans, 

and one used heavily in the 1950s and 60s, is through the nation’s schools. 

Many remember “duck and cover” drills and science films regarding the 

effects of atomic bombs. Although “duck and cover” drills are clearly 

outdated, a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Department of Education could work to include preparedness and 

resilience topics in public school curriculum. While it may not be 

necessary for all Americans to complete Community Emergency Response 

Team training, self aid and buddy care skills or cardio-pulmonary 

resuscitation (CPR) could be added to health curricula. Israel has already 

taken steps in this area, developing resilience building programs for high 

school students, and is working to establish this nationwide.54

Finally, new efforts that have been initiated, such as the National 

Resilience Development Act and the new Study of Terrorism and 

Responses to Terrorism program, should be supported so that new tools 

and techniques for enhancing resilience can be developed and 

disseminated to ensure that all Americans can maximize their ability to 

respond to a disaster. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 31

V. Conclusion 

Based on this review, it can be concluded that resilience is a key 

attribute in being prepared to deal with crisis and adversity whether it 

comes in the form of an attack, a disaster, or a combat situation, and to 

recover in its aftermath. Resilience is a skill that can be improved both for 

individuals and communities, through building confidence, efficacy, 

problem solving skills, and social connectedness. 

The United States has knowledge and experience in building such 

resilience in populations and groups dating back to the 1940s and 50s, 

when not only were troops prepared for battle, but the nation as a whole 

was prepared for a devastating attack. This knowledge continues to be 

utilized in the U.S. military to prepare troops for a wide range of traumatic 

experiences. Unfortunately, this knowledge and experience has not been 

more widely utilized to prepare the population for attack following 9/11. 

This lack of preparation on the part of individuals, families, and 

communities was clearly demonstrated in the aftermath of Hurricane 

Katrina. The ineffectiveness of warnings systems were highlighted in that 

even with days of advance warning, these systems did not create the 

desired behavior in the population. Thousands of people had difficulty 

coping with the storm. 

The Homeland Security Advisory System was designed to help alert 

the population to the danger of an attack, but has been ineffective in 

advising people how to prepare for attacks and has subsequently failed in 

changing behavior. The Department of Homeland Security Citizen Corps 

programs show some potential for preparing people to better respond and 

recover in the face of attack but these efforts have reached far too few 

people to have any real impact on population resilience. Based on the 

review of these programs and the evidence provided by the response to 

Hurricane Katrina, the nation has not learned the lessons provided by the 

Cold War and the military, and the resilience of the American people to 

attack remains dangerously low. Although not addressed by the 9/11 

Commission, utilizing the graded rating scale the commission used to 

evaluate progress toward implementing their recommendations, the 
32 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

effectiveness of national efforts at building resilience in the population 

would be graded no better than a C-.55 Clearly much remains to be done. 

While there are many things the government can do to prevent an 

attack from happening, no amount of pre-emption, intelligence, or security 

can eliminate the possibility of attack. As long as the threat exists, efforts 

must be made to enable the general population to respond as well as 

possible when an attack occurs. Without greater emphasis on increasing 

the resilience of the population, thousands or millions could be at greater 

risk if or when another significant attack occurs. For any of the techniques 

or recommendations to enhance resilience to be effective on a large scale, 

it will take significant and sustained leadership at the national level. 

Although our military is strong and our security sound, our nation 

could be significantly stronger if we were truly able to, “harness the power 

of every individual”56 toward making our nation as strong as it could be. 

All Americans must be included and encouraged to build the confidence to 

do their part and to have the optimism that, by doing their part, they make 

themselves, their families, their communities, and our nation as safe as it 

can be from those who would do us harm. 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 33 

Notes 

1. “The Road to Resilience,” American Psychological Association, On-line, 

Internet, available from http://apahelpcenter.org/featuredtopics/feature.php?id=6&ch=2. 

2. Michael Rutter, “Family and School Influences on Cognitive Development,” 

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1985, vol. 26, 683-704. 

3. “Promoting Resilience,” New York State Office of Mental Health; OMH 

Quarterly, March 2003, On-line, Internet, available from http://omh.state.ny.us/ 

omhweb/omhq/q0303/Resiliance.htm. 

4. Ibid. 

5. “Fostering Resilience in Response to Terrorism: A Fact Sheet for Psychologists 

Working with Adults,” American Psychological Association, On-line, Internet, available 

from http://www.apa.org/psychologists/pdfs/adults.pdf. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid. 

9. John Mueller, “Simplicity and the Spook,” reprinted from International Studies 

Perspectives, vol. 6, No 2, May 2005, AWC Terrorism Elective Reader. 

10. Anthony Mawson, “Understanding Mass Panic and Other Collective Responses 

to Threat and Disaster,” Psychiatry, 68, Summer 2005. 

11. Ann E. Norwood, “Commentary on ‘Understanding Mass Panic and Other 

Collective Responses to Threat and Disaster:’ Debunking the Myth of Panic,” Psychiatry, 

68, Summer 2005. 

12. Anthony Mawson, “Understanding Mass Panic and Other Collective Responses 

to Threat and Disaster,” Psychiatry, 68, Summer 2005. 

13. Ibid. 

14. S.L.A. Marshall, Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command; (1947; 

repr., Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000).

15. Ibid., 42-43. 

16. Ibid., 145. 
34 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

17. Ibid. 

18. Samuel A. Stouffer et al., The American Soldier: Combat and its Aftermath, 

Volume II; (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949). 

19. “The Road to Resilience,” American Psychological Association. 

20. United States Air Force, Basic Military Training, “About Basic Military 

Training,” On-line, Internet, available from http://www.lackland.af.mil/737web/bmt.htm. 

21. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2908, Family Care Plans, 1 October 2000. 

22. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 44-154, Suicide and Violence Prevention Education 

and Training Program, 3 January 2003. 

23. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 44-153, Traumatic Stress Response, 1 May 2006. 

24. “From Civil Defense to Emergency Management,” On-line, Internet, available 

from http://fcgov.com/oem/civildefense.php. 

25. Laura McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home; (Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press, 2000), 24. 

26. Report to the War Department Civil Defense Board, February 1947. In 

McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home, 24. 

27. McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home. 

28. David Hunt, They Just Don’t Get It: How Washington is Still Compromising 

Your Safety and What You Can Do About It; (New York: Crown Forum, 2005). 

29. Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, 

(Washington, DC, July 2002), On-line, Internet, available from http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/ 

assetlibrary/nat_strat_hls.pdf. 

30. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-3, Homeland Security Advisory 

System, 12 March 2002, On-line, Internet, available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

news/releases/2002/03/20020312-5.html. 

31. Wikipedia, “Homeland Security Advisory System,” On-line, Internet, available 

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_System. 

32. Remarks by Secretary Ridge, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Director Mueller, 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Press Secretary, 
Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks . . . 35 

7 February 2003), On-line, Internet, available from http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ 

display?content=451. 

33. Linda Feldman, “Terror Alerts Create a Run on Duct Tape,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 13 February 2003, On-line, Internet, available from http://www.csmonitor.com/ 

2003/0213/p01s02-ussc.html. 

34. Mimi Hall and Kevin Johnson, “Ridge on Defensive after Terror Alert,” USA 

Today, 3 August 2004, On-line, Internet, available from http://www.usatoday.com/ 

news/washington/2004-08-03-terror-analysis_x.htm. 

35. Mimi Hall, “Ridge Reveals Clashes on Alerts,” USA Today, 10 May 2005. 

36. Department of Homeland Security, Citizen Corps Annual Report 2004, 

(Washington, DC 2005, 1), On-line, Internet, available from http://www.citizencorps.gov/ 

pdf/news/CC_AR2004_SFS.pdf. 

37. Department of Homeland Security, “Citizen Corps Programs and Partners,” Online, Internet, available from http://www.citizencorps.gov/programs/. 

38. Department of Homeland Security, “Citizen Corps: A Guide for Local 

Officials,” On-line, Internet, available from http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf. 

39. Department of Homeland Security, “Council Profiles and Resources,” On-line, 

Internet, available from http://www.citizencorps.gov/councils/. 

40. National League of Cities; “About Cities,” On-line, Internet, available from 

http://www.nlc.org/about_cities/cities_101/138.cfm. 

41. OCR Macro, “2003 Citizen Corps Survey of U.S. Households,” (11785 

Beltsville Drive, Calverton, MD 20705), On-line, Internet, available from 

www.citizencorps.gov/ppt/citizen_corps_2003_survey_results.ppt. 

42. Department of Homeland Security, Citizen Corps Annual Report 2004.

43. McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home. 

44. Natasha Chin, “Inspiring Preparedness in a Complacent America; Homeland 

First Response,” On-line, Internet, available from http://www.jems.com/homeland 

firstresponse/CitizenResponder.HTML. 

45. OCR Macro, “Fall 2006 Citizen Preparedness Review: A Quarterly Review of 

Citizen Preparedness Research” (11785 Beltsville Drive, Calverton, MD 20705) On-line, 

Internet, available from http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/cp_surveysdbase_112006.pdf. 
36 . . . Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks

46. Department of Homeland Security, Citizen Corps Annual Report 2004. 

47. Department of Homeland Security, “Homeland Security Centers of Excellence,” 

On-line, Internet, available from http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=27&content= 

3856. 

48. START “Areas and Projects,” On-line, Internet, available from http://www.start. 

umd.edu/research/areas/index.asp. 

49. HR 3774 IH National Resilience Development Act 4, Feb 2004, On-line, 

Internet, available from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3774.IH. 

50. Ibid. 

51. Comments by Governor Tom Kean at Bill Drop of “The National Resilience 

Development Act of 2003,” On-line, Internet, available from http://www.healthtogether.org/ 

healthtogether/reseources/news_kennedy_bill_drop.html 

52. HR 3774. 

53. Department of Homeland Security, Citizen Corps Annual Report 2004.

54. “Immunizing the Public Against Terrorism: The ICT Educational Project,” Online, Internet, available from http://www.ict.org.il/institute/Projectdet.cfm?ProjectID=1. 

55. Thomas H. Kean et al., Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, 

(Washington, DC: 9/11 Public Discourse Project, December 2005). 

56. Department of Homeland Security, Citizen Corps Annual Report 2004.