The United States faces a wide range of national security threats, from intercontinentalballistic missiles to the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (1) by terrorists. The debate overthe seriousness of the various threats has intensified recently. Various studies and commissions haverecommended far reaching changes in the approach to domestic preparedness and response to threatsto the homeland. The threat of domestic terrorism has generated a wide ranging debate regardingall organizational aspects of the problem, including the approach from a strategic perspective andthe more focused aspects of organizational structure, budgetary priorities, and intelligence collection.Several recent studies have proposed a greater role for the U.S. military in combating terrorism whileothers call for the creation of entirely new structures to combat the complete spectrum of threats tothe United States, including terrorism and the use of WMD by terrorists. (2) This paper (3) outlines current legislation and policies that govern the military's role when supporting lawenforcement in a domestic terrorism crisis. It also highlights some of the issues confronting the U.S.government. The military forces designed to respond to a crisis differ significantly from unitsdesigned to support the post-crisis consequence management of a terrorist incident. As such, theyare governed by different directives and levels of authorization for their employment. Until recently, terrorism to many Americans was a remote, if frightening possibility thataffected only individuals or groups outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Eventsof the past decade indicate that the terrorist threat has changed significantly in ways that make itmore dangerous and much more difficult to counter. The terrorist attacks of the 1970s and 1980susually had clear political objectives. These attacks resulted in just enough bloodshed and loss of lifeto gain attention to the terrorists' cause yet not enough to alienate them from the public support theysought. Bombings, kidnapings, and aircraft hijacking were accomplished by declared, identifiablegroups with specific political goals in mind. In contrast, the decade of the 1990s has produced adifferent type of terrorism - terrorism designed to produce massive casualties with little regard fordistinct political goals and often no claims of responsibility. Recent examples of this type of attack,such as the World Trade Center bombing in New York City, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Buildingbombing in Oklahoma City, the East African Embassy bombings in 1998, and destruction of theWorld Trade Center in 2001 make it appear that a terrorist's aim is to kill as many people as possible. The possible inclusion of weapons of mass destruction in the terrorists' arsenal now makes this aneven more dangerous proposition. Recently, in the trial of the perpetrators of the East African Embassy bombings, a witnesstestified that Usama bin Laden's group, al Qaeda (Arabic for "the Base"), sought to acquire chemicaland nuclear material to use against the United States. (4) Although it is unknown whether al Qaeda was successful inacquiring the material, the probability that terrorist groups who have openly threatened the UnitedStates are attempting to acquire a WMD capability is a serious escalation of this dangerous problem. Many recent government and private sector reports and studies conclude that the UnitedStates is becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorism. (5) Although terrorism is defined in different ways by various U.S.government agencies, (6) it is generally accepted that terrorism is a crime designed to coerce others into actions they wouldnot otherwise take or into refraining from actions that they desire to take. Today's terrorists, liketheir predecessors, seek to instill fear, undermine government authority, and possibly goad thegovernment into overreacting to the incident or threat. What has changed in the past decade is thewillingness of the terrorist to inflict indiscriminate casualties as evidenced by the data in Figure 1. In the preceding decade, the United States emerged as the only superpower, and as such, the mostlucrative target for terrorists. Figure 1: Terrorism Becoming More Lethal Source: Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism. Report from the National Commission on Terrorism, p. 5. Although many analysts agree that terrorists are most likely to use conventional explosives,their use of a WMD in the U.S. is now seen as a possibility. For example, the United StatesCommission on National Security/21st Century states: The combination of unconventional weaponsproliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability ofthe U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on Americansoil is likely over the next quarter century. (7) The release of a chemical agent into the Tokyo subway system by the Aum Shinrikyo terroristgroup in 1995 demonstrated the devastating possibilities of a WMD attack as well as the difficultiesof using a WMD to produce mass casualties. The group spent millions of dollars using highlyskilled technicians with an overall result that probably produced far fewer casualties thanconventional explosives. (8) However, the global cultural and political impact of the attack was massive. Although terrorists have long intended to harm the public, now they may posses much greatercapabilities to do so. A former member of al Qaeda described the terrorist group's world-widecorporate structure of multiple businesses and bank accounts from Africa to Europe and Asia. (9) By purchasing an excess U.S.military business jet and flying it to Sudan where it was to be used for transporting the terroristorganization's weapons, al Qaeda vividly portrayed its ability to effect undercover transactions. (10) The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council forecast the followingtrends that may affect the future security of the United States: Asymmetric threats in which state and non-stateadversaries avoid direct engagements with the US military but devise strategies, tactics, and weapons- some improved by "sidewise" technology - to minimize US strengths and exploit perceivedweaknesses. Internal conflicts stemming from religious, ethnic,economic or political disputes will remain at current numbers or even increase innumber. Prospects will grow that more sophisticated weaponry,including weapons of mass destruction - indigenously produced or externally acquired - will get intothe hands of state and non-state belligerents, some hostile to the United States. The likelihood willincrease over this period that WMD will be used either against the United States or its forces,facilities, and interests overseas. Chemical and biological threats to the United States willbecome more widespread; such capabilities are easier to develop, hide, and deploy than nuclearweapons. Some terrorists or insurgents will attempt to use such weapons against US interests -against the United States itself, its forces or facilities overseas, or its allies. (11) The consequences of failing to deter, detect, or preempt terrorist attacks, some possibly withWMD, would be devastating. In addition to the tragedy of hundreds or thousands of dead andinjured citizens, the long lasting serious economic and psychological damage to American societycould well prove to be the terrorists' greatest victory. The implications of a successful WMD attack against the United States goes beyond thepotential loss of life, mass casualties, and infrastructure damage of a single incident. Many expertssay the probable long term affects of such an attack on the population, environment, and theeconomy make it imperative that the U.S. be fully prepared to either deter or interdict an attemptedattack by force if necessary. Should an incident take place, the U.S. government must be preparedto manage the consequences of the attack. These two responses - crisis and consequencemanagement - are the cornerstones of current U.S. policy towards combating terrorism. Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD 39), signed in June 1995, is the foundation forcurrent U.S. policy for combating terrorism. (12) The document spells out three objectives for confrontingterrorism: 1) reduce the nation's international and domestic vulnerabilities to terrorism; 2) deterterrorism; and 3) respond to terrorism rapidly and decisively. PDD 39 designates Lead FederalAgencies (13) forinternational and domestic terrorism policy. The Lead Federal Agency for combating terrorismoverseas is the Department of State (DOS) and the agency designated to respond to terrorist attackson U.S. soil is the Department of Justice (DoJ) through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility to lead federalefforts to deal with the consequences and collateral second and third order effects of terrorist WMDattacks on American soil. (14) PDD 39 pays particular attention to WMD and includes language stating "The United Statesshall give the highest priority to developing effective capabilities to detect, prevent, defeat andmanage the consequences of nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) materials or weapons use byterrorists." (15) It goeson to state that the highest priority in combating terrorism is to prevent the acquisition or use of aWMD capability by terrorist groups opposed to the U.S. (16) PDD 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to theHomeland and Americans Overseas , reinforced PDD 39 and further clarified agency roles incombating terrorism. In both PDDs, the Department of Defense (DoD) plays a supporting role tothe Lead Federal Agencies. President George W. Bush recently signed National Security Presidential Directive-1(NSPD-1) establishing the organization of the National Security Council under his Administration. Among other things, the document abolishes the previous system of interagency working groups andreplaces them with policy coordination committees (PCC). (17) The functions of the PCCdealing with terrorism and WMD are discussed below. To understand fully the military's role in domestic crisis response it is necessary to explorethe national-level structures and response options prior to the involvement of military forces.