Of Distinctive Doctrines, Systems or Theories

According the American Heritage Dictionary, “ism” is a distinctive doctrine, system or theory. Combining “terror” and “ism” we get ‘the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.’ Adding the prefix ‘eco’ to ‘terrorism’ the FBI defines this as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, sub-national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

Eco-terrorism made the news the other day as a result of five luxury homes being sent ablaze (apparently) by eco-terrorists in protest of luxury homes being built in rural cluster developments. The group that claiming responsibility is the Earth Liberation Front (E.L.F.) which, according to the New York Times, is “a loosely organized group that has been linked to multiple bold acts of eco-terrorism across the Northwest and elsewhere for two decades.” These claims are still being investigated at this time.

Eco-terrorism is just the latest “ism” to enter our lexicon even though the group in this particular case, E.L.F., has been active for over two decades. Whenever something like this occurs, it hits the media with a vengeance temporarily even eclipsing the Democratic primaries. On one hand, the fires in Washington state help remind us that “terrorism” takes on many different forms and violent acts committed by wide range of groups, both foreign and domestic. The attacks of 9/11 still has the majority of national counter-terrorism agencies (including DHS and the FBI) looking at foreign terrorist groups. However, this recent act of terrorism in Washington demonstrates that those in the safety and security arena need to have a broader focus.

The likelihood of Al Qaeda attacking a city such as Fayetteville, Arkansas (population 58,000) is virtually non-existent. It is too far inland and located away from major metropolitan centers to make is an attractive target to most foreign terrorist groups. Remember, a foreign terrorist group needs to strike a target their supporters are familiar with and need to maximize the impact of their attack. Therefore a mid-size city such as Fayetteville would fail to make the impact that an attack against Chicago or San Francisco would have. However, this is not to say Fayetteville, Arkansas is free from the possibility of experiencing some type of terrorist attack. Fayetteville happens to be home of the University of Arkansas which means a diverse population of college students and a number of research facilities. Students committing acts of violence recently made the news at both Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech. As those who work or study at colleges and universities can attest, providing a secure and safe environment while maintaining the open architecture associated with campus life. The research conducted at major universities sometimes is contentious leading to protests which can occasionally become confrontational. In rare cases, it can lead to violence.

Safety and security management experts need to resists the temptation to focus on the next “ism” when developing the response plans and training scenarios. Response plans need to remain focused on those threats and vulnerabilities most likely to be encountered in your community. Unfortunately, the federal agencies that control grants tend to associate funding with a particular threat. Eco-terrorism may become the future nexus for training dollars available through DHS which would be unfortunate. Communities most in need of assistance are the ones least likely to meet the thresholds created under federal guidelines. While eco-terrorism certainly poses a threat for some communities, perhaps a better way to look at the situation in Washington is simply domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorist can target ANY vulnerability that can be exploited within the community. If we change our thinking towards this broader perspective, than a little noticed story from earlier in the month takes prominence over simple eco-terrorism.

According to the American Coalition for Ethanol website, “U.S. ethanol production is reaching unprecedented levels, growing America's ability to supply a portion of its own transportation fuel. Currently there are 142 ethanol production facilities operating in the U.S. and 67 more under construction. Today, about 40% of the nation's ethanol facilities are owned by farmers and other local investors.” The mandate to move towards cleaner burning fuels in automobiles has lead to a boon for corn growers, however the increased number of ethanol plants increases the need for communities to re-assess their vulnerabilities. Most communities have yet to recognize the unique threats posed by ethanol fires. According to a recent AP story, ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline fires and require a special type of firefighting foam. Most fire departments, especially those in smaller cities or volunteer departments, don’t carry the foam. Water does not work against ethanol fires and the foam normally used to fight gasoline fires is ineffective against ethanol. Small amounts of ethanol that are used in E85 fuel is not a problem. The real challenge for firefighters is dealing with tanker trucks or ethanol refinery fires. The foam need to fight these fires is expensive and would be hard for smaller departments to justify, yet these may be the same departments dealing with a tanker truck fire on a remote stretch of highway. A terrorist or saboteur at an ethanol plant could create set a fire at an ethanol plant or cause a tanker truck to wreck in a remote area. The increasing number of ethanol plants means more communities could be faced with this problem. It also means that a wider variety of malcontent could use ethanol as a weapon to create fear and panic.

Before we end up putting “ism” behind another word (and thus creating a funding criteria), let’s go back to the basics and use “all hazards” as the criteria.