A new report from a prominent bipartisan think tank questions the resiliency of the U.S. transportation system [1] and the global supply chain if a major terrorist attack occurred.

“[T]he U.S. government and the other major trade nations still have no plan to respond and recover from a major security incident involving the global intermodal transportation system," Dr. Stephen Flynn [2]and Sean P. Burke, warn in their report, Building a More Resilient America: The Case of Transportation [3], published by the Center for National Policy. "As a result, there could be a weeks-long period where the international system of trade and logistics grind to a halt with devastating consequences for the global economy."

Resiliency, or the ability to recover quickly after serious disruption, matters more than ever, they argue, as terrorists shift from sophisticated and time-intensive spectacular attacks to crude and quick smaller attacks. This realization, however, means U.S. policymakers’ security mindset must evolve from primarily being focused on prevention and protection to resilience. Otherwise, a perverse incentive is created for terrorists to dream up new ways of attacking these targets, especially those critical to the flow of goods and services within the global supply chain.

"If every terrorist act or near-miss leads to new government measures that make transportation systems more inefficient, then an adversary gets a much bigger dividend than the actual attack could deliver," Flynn and Burke, both executives at the George J. Kostas Research Institute for Homeland Security at Northeastern University, write in their report.

There’s evidence that terrorists understand this very well. In the November 2010 edition of Inspire [4], al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) gloated that it had spent $4,200 dollars on constructing two printer cartridge bombs [5] that were eventually found on cargo planes destined for the United States.

"In such an environment of security phobia that is sweeping America, it is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch and thus we may circumvent the security barriers America worked so hard to erect," the letter from the editor explained. "This strategy of attacking the enemy with smaller, but more frequent operations is what some may refer to as a strategy of a thousand cuts. The aim is to bleed the enemy to death."

In response, the U.S. and other Western nations issued cargo alerts and restrictions, particularly with Yemen, where the bombs entered the air cargo system. AQAP determined the plot, dubbed Operation Hemorrhage and which failed to bring down a plane, was a success.

"During the initial discussions of the team it was determined that the success of the operation was to be based on two factors: The first is that the packages pass through the latest security equipment. The second, the spread of fear that would cause the West to invest billions of dollars in new security procedures," AQAP boasted. "We have succeeded in the former and we are now witnessing the inception of the latter."

Knowing how terrorist methodology has shifted means “it makes no sense” to jeopardize “the purpose of transportation so as to better protect it," argue Flynn and Burke. Rather they recommend that U.S. policymakers and security professionals commit themselves to reasonable prevention and protection measures that are “not unduly disruptive” and can survive “the-morning-after test” when they fail, therefore maintaining public confidence, while ensuring adequate plans are in place to get the transportation system up and running again quickly after an attack.

If they do so, then transportation targets become a waste of terrorists’ time and resources. "When the United States demonstrates that it has the ability to withstand attacks without inflicting damage on the essential systems that underpin our economy and way of life, terrorism becomes a less attractive weapon for America's adversaries,” Flynn and Burke write.

Nevertheless, Flynn and Burke argue not one of their recommendations is satisfied in regards to current cargo security measures [6], even though this lack of preparedness creates significant economic and security vulnerabilities, particularly since Mother Nature is as big as a threat as terrorism.

"While the danger that disasters will occur is inescapable, boosting resilience will always provide a positive return on investment,” write Flynn and Burke. The more resilience a country is, they argue, the better positioned it is to attract the talent and investment necessary to remain globally competitive.

The Obama administration knows this philosophically, write Flynn and Burke, crediting the president with identifying natural disaster preparedness as part of the homeland security mission and incorporating resilience as a strategic focus of homeland and national security.

But now its time to start the hard work of building resilience into U.S. critical infrastructures, they write, particularly transportation systems. Otherwise the United States is courting disaster, especially on the economic front.

"Companies striving to...grow strong and prosperous and then remain so, don't stay in societies that are easy to knock down and slow to get up," Flynn and Burke argue. "These companies know that if they are a part of a supply chain or depend on one that lacks resilient elements, they will wither and die. So they move to safer harbors that can better assure business continuity."

♦ Photo by doobybrain/Flickr [7]

Thumbnail: