Bioterrorism and the U.S. Preparedness: Article Critique

In the article, the authors explore the state of the United States’ preparedness to deal with a bioterrorism act in the country. The article examines the various legal and structural adjustments that were made in the wake of the terrorism events of the early 1990s. The paper sheds light on the various interventional measures taken by the United States in the event of bioterrorism. The country has faced some attacks in the past, such as the anthrax attack in 2001. These issues have shaped the U.S. policy on bioterrorism. Fry-Pierce and Lenze decry the fragmentation of the units responsible for handling terror incidents, thus weakening the response time and overall effectiveness. According to the authors, there is a need to restructure the system to make the force robust and better equipped to combat any challenges that mat beset the country. The structure and legal provisions on combating bioterrorism in the country are fragmented, inhibiting the effectiveness of the units responsible to competently deal with any emerging issues.

Analysis

Strengths and Weaknesses of Domestic Preparedness Proposals

The authors suggest a policy of preparedness as opposed to reactiveness. With regard to the common forms of bioterrorism, the assertions by the writers are misleading. Chemical weapons are reactive and often undetectable until their effects have set in. it is almost impossible to foresee the myriad of possibilities that may occur. However, a robust disaster response unit can help dissipate some of the complications that may arise as a consequence. The method suggested is suitable after-the-fact as opposed to the proposed before-the-incident approach. On the idea of centralized operations, the writers are right on point. Centralized operations will enhance a speedy and better coordinated response. It is possible to get all the actors at one point and issue instructions at once, instead of going through several bureaucratic steps before transmitting instructions. On the proposal of effective intergovernmental cooperation, the writers are right in their findings. Both the federal and state governments need to liaise and speak with a common voice. Under the arrangement, it becomes easier for the parties to enforce certain measures since there is maximum cooperation. The proposals on intergovernmental cooperation and centralization of management are strong on the basis that they can lead to better outcomes. However, the proposal on preparedness is too far-fetched as often the bioterrorism incidents cannot be foreseen.

Powers of Sovereign Governments in Disaster Preparedness

In relation to international or cross-border incidents, the foreign governments have different levels of interventionism depending on their capabilities and the extent to which they are affected. Sovereign nations must play their part in alleviating the suffering of the people. However, other nations have a crucial to play in the entire incident. In instances where the effect will spill-over, neighbor states can intervene to prevent a calamity, within the confines of international law. However, the association must respect the sovereignty of either country and the cooperation must be aimed at alleviating the suffering of the people as opposed to exerting influence on the other nation. 

Conclusion

The authors have done a good job in analyzing the present situation and even prescribing some areas of reform. I agree with the authors on the concept of intergovernmental association and the idea of centralization of disaster response. However, I do not agree with the assertion that the country ought to prepare for every form of bioterrorism. The idea is flawed as the country is not capable of predicting the nature and extent of each attack. 

Reference

Fry-Pierce, C. C., & Lenze, Jr., P.E. (2011). Bioterrorism and U.S. domestic preparedness: 

Bureaucratic fragmentation and American vulnerability. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management , 8 (1): 1-6. DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1887.