CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT IN THE HOMELAND:
WHAT DOES RIGHT LOOK LIKE?
Colonel William SteeleUSAWC Class of 2010
The views expressed in the document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Department of the Army, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many people in the government
and the Department of Defense have debated the domestic role of the military. With the
increased possibility of a terrorist attack using a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) in
the homeland, many in the Department of Defense and the federal government believe
that the military should play a greater role in homeland security. They argue that the
military should be prepared to fight the nation's wars and should also provide a force to
assist in the consequence management from a successful WMD attack.
This AY-10 USAWC Resident Student author identifies
many issues related to this debate ranging from funding, training,
equipping, size of the force, and the ability to move to the incident site quickly and with
the capabilities to save the lives of those affected by the attack. His paper focuses on
determining the correct size and defining the capabilities that such a force should have to
allow it to move quickly enough to the incident site to conduct its primary mission,
To access this document, click here
CSL Issues Papers Page
CSL Studies Page
CSL Home Page
USAWC Home Page
This page last updated on 10 March 2011.
Please send corrections or comments regarding this page to:
Secretary, USAWC Strategic Communications Board