In 1999, there were 169 terrorist attacks against U.S. interests
abroad that resulted in 184 casualties, according to the U.S. State
Department. Of those terrorist attacks, 111 involved the use of
explosive devices.
The obvious conclusion is that explosive devices remain the preferred
terrorist weapon, assert experts from the U.S. government’s
so-called Technical Support Working Group.
The TSWG is a unique federal interagency panel that works in relative
anonymity to stimulate the research, development and deployment
of novel antiterrorist technologies and techniques.
The TSWG–located in Arlington, Va.–is convinced that
high-tech weapons are the least likely to be employed in a terrorist
attack. "The biggest threat across the board is explosive devices,
because it takes a lower level of resources to build one and transport
it to the target," said one senior Defense Department official,
who is a member of the TSWG.
The TSWG’s $62 million budget for counter-terrorism programs
is small by Pentagon standards. But the TSWG’s unconventional
approach to developing technology defies the accepted Beltway wisdom.
Members of the TSWG from the Defense and State Departments told
National Defense that they are not interested in increasing their
budget by any significant amount and that gee-whiz gadgetry means
very little unless it has practical use.
Indeed, a $62 million budget is just fine with them. One of the
benefits, according to these officials, of having a small budget
is that it keeps it somewhat transparent to other large and "predatory"
federal agencies. "First, we can manage a lot better when we
have what we believe is the right amount of money and no one wants
to take us over. Secondly, a big pot of money usually means strings
are attached. Finally, we don’t have a large staff. Our staff
comes from other agencies," said a TSWG State Department official.
The TSWG’s funding and program direction is the responsibility
of the State Department’s office of the coordinator for counter-terrorism,
the Pentagon’s office of the assistant secretary of defense
for special operations and low-intensity conflict.
The most substantive action takes place within the eight TSWG subgroups,
which are responsible for determining what counter-terrorism technologies
or methods are needed.
Those needs often are based on classified threat assessments from
the TSWG’s intelligence and law-enforcement member agencies,
such as the CIA and FBI, along with other agency-specific risk assessments.
In fiscal 2000, the eight subgroups shared the $62 million budget
as follows:
It’s hardly a surprise that when the TSWG was formed in the
1980s, many assumed that the Defense and State Department representatives
would engage in "empire building," at the expense of other
smaller agencies.
But it did not work out that way, said a senior TSWG State Department
official. "The beauty of this program is the way it is set
up. … We wanted to get buy-ins from other agencies, and we
brought in counter-terrorism experts from those other agencies.
"We are looking at multi-agency needs, and this is not just
a Defense or State program. Folks saw this, and we haven’t
had a problem since."
Equipment Users
The TSWG’s marching orders ultimately come from the equipment
users in the field, such as the bomb squads, who don’t want
to have to go down range to dismantle an explosive device, which
requires wearing extraordinarily cumbersome protective gear, said
a TSWG official during a recent briefing to industry, sponsored
by the National Defense Industrial Association. "We have to
make sure we expedite technology and new methods of operation to
the field as quickly as possible," he said. Any project that
involves more than three years of development work gets transferred
to a more traditional agency.
The TSWG’s customers include more than 80 organizations spread
throughout the military services, federal agencies and state and
local emergency first-responders.
Of interest to contractors is the TSWG’s keen concern about
protecting high-tech companies’ intellectual property. That
is a sensitive issue for many contractors, who often shy away from
government work, because they don’t trust the government’s
ability to safeguard proprietary software rights. The TSWG seeks
out small start-up firms, with a penchant for risk taking. "We
are careful who we bring into the TSWG. We are looking for self
starters and people who don’t mind hanging out on a limb,"
said the State Department official.
Novel Technology
Anthony Beverina, president of Digital Sandbox, in Reston, Va.,
typifies the risk-taking entrepreneur that the TSWG believes can
help generate novel anti-terrorist technologies. "Somehow,
we ended up in a meeting with one of the TSWG program managers,
and he was looking for some new ideas for security-assessment devices,"
Beverina said in an interview.
"He gave us a $100,000 ‘put-up or shut-up’ contract
to prove the concept and demonstrate it within five weeks. So we
did the usual start-up thing in the garage, worked 24 hours a day
and came up with a concept demo. We had a shoot off against some
other concepts, and the TSWG ended up choosing the ‘JVAT suite.’"
The joint vulnerability assessment tool (JVAT), or JVAT suite,
consists of three PC-based, artificial-intelligence software applications
that can be used to plan anti-terrorism programs. The system is
being delivered to more than 600 military installations, including
the Pentagon and overseas command posts. "What really makes
the JVAT suite unique, and what the TSWG really liked, was the way
we were able to integrate gaming into the product. A lot of that
has to do with artificial intelligence and 3-D technologies that
we incorporated. That really sets us apart from the spreadsheet
programs that are out there."
Bevarina likened the TSWG to another innovative federal agency,
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which helped spawn
the Internet.
"The TSWG is so aggressive in their approach," he said.
"It’s one of the few organizations I’ve worked
for that wants to take the risk, that’s willing to buy the
riskier solution if they think the pay-off is bigger. It’s
a great environment to innovate, but it kills you programmatically.
"Our software models showed that it should have taken us 600
man-months to complete this effort, but it took only 400. There
is no bureaucracy at the TSWG, and decisions are made very rapidly–and
that really helps."
Within the TSWG, there seems to be an absence of a "close-hold
mentality among members of the subgroups," said one defense
industry official.
Lyle Malotky is the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)
chief scientific and technical advisor for aviation security. He
has been involved with the TSWG for the better part of 10 years.
"The TSWG allows people to exchange information, and they find
out that their problems are not that unique," said Malotky.
"A concealed explosive is a concealed explosive."
In January, he explained, the explosives-detection subgroup–40
people from 12 different agencies–met to outline future requirements.
"We racked and stacked our lists, and cooked them down to about
five to six requirements, and some of those involved our canine
detection teams."
The FAA’s explosive-detection canine team is one of the most
valuable counter-terrorism tools in the federal government today,
said Malotky. There are approximately 186 teams at the 39 largest
airports in the United States.
"The TSWG has helped us to determine what the best dog is
for the explosive-detection task," said Dave Kontny, the FAA’s
manager of the canine and explosives program. "Information
sharing through the TSWG also will help us develop training aids
that will determine what makes a good canine handler and gives that
handler the ability to ‘read’ the dog."
The TSWG currently is working to figure out how a dog is able to
recognize explosives through scent and, subsequently, turn that
into technology-based training aids. According to Malotky, "One
of the problems with canines is that they appear to perform much
better than they should in detecting the molecules that come off
of explosives.
"We are trying to figure out how to change the electrons so
we can operate the same way. … If this effort is successful
and I wanted to test the dog in a realistic environment, we could
use training aids that give off the same signatures, or vapors,
as the bomb. That would give us more flexibility and also be safer
than using a real explosive."