President Barack Obama has unquestionably brought new energy to the battle against weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism. What he has not brought is a dramatic change in U.S. policy or our actions to address these evils. These are both very good things.
Pop quiz: Which U.S. President, in his first term:
• Signed a new arms-control treaty with the Russians, lowering the number of operational nuclear weapons that both sides were allowed to deploy
• Issued a nuclear-strategy review that markedly reduced the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. deterrence policy
• Rallied leaders at an international summit to commit unprecedented resources to reducing the threat of WMD
• Delivered a speech in a world capital calling for the strengthening of multilateral tools to combat nuclear terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons, leading to adoption of a new UN agreement?
The answer is not the current occupant of the White House; it is George W. Bush (although Presidents Obama, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush can all claim some similar achievements).
In his landmark April 2009 speech in Prague, President Obama presented the world with a series of initiatives to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. He brought global focus back to a critical challenge of our time, but his proposals were not a radical course change for U.S. efforts. In fact, most of his proposals had their origins in previous administrations, and nearly all were in line with the policies of his predecessors.
There is remarkable consistency in the nation’s policy and approach to defeating WMD threats, even between presidential administrations as otherwise different as those of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. This should be a source of reassurance for the American people. It is particularly important that our government should proceed down a steady path toward preventing the potential horror of a nuclear detonation in an American city, regardless of the political flavor of the month. Happily, whether we call it “combating WMD” (Bush) or “countering WMD” (Obama), the song remains the same.
Nuclear terrorism is not the only—and perhaps not even the most likely—WMD threat that we face. President Obama has also continued previous efforts in other areas. In his National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats, issued in November 2009, he “provides a framework for future United States government efforts that supports the overall National Biodefense Strategy” and “complements existing White House strategies related to biological threat preparedness and response.” All of the strategies thus endorsed in Obama’s new strategy are contained in Homeland Security and National Security Presidential Directives issued by his predecessor.
Other initiatives also build on the work of the Bush administration. A December 2009 Executive Order establishing a federal capability to provide timely medical countermeasures after a biological attack implemented a program that was conceived and developed in the previous administration.
Finally, the federal government began developing, acquiring, and stockpiling medical countermeasures for various biological threats under President Clinton. With the impetus of the 9/11 attacks, the federal effort to prepare for biological terrorism and pandemic disease expanded enormously, including through a series of presidential directives and funding and authorities provided in legislation such as the Project Bioshield Act in 2004 and the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act in 2006. These programs allowed a strong response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and are the foundation for current improvements entirely consistent with the intent of previous administrations.
Despite the discomfort that continuity of policy for WMD terrorism might bring to partisans on either side, the real cause for alarm would be if the current administration initiated a dramatic break from the past. The challenge of preventing terrorists from using WMD against the United States represents an effort for the long haul. Progress can be made during the term of a single President, but real success can be achieved only if a succession of national leaders has the will to build on efforts of predecessors to develop lasting solutions—to reduce the global availability of WMD and their precursors; make them difficult to acquire, transport, and use; and protect the American people from the consequences of their use. In the fight against WMD proliferation and terrorism, consistency counts.