Editor's corner.

• Position: Editorial

Can the United States grapple with domestic terrorist threats? That question is the subject of much controversy within the Beltway and has prompted a slew of studies by think tanks and blue-ribbon commissions.

Some provocative thoughts on this matter are offered in this issue of National Defense, beginning on page 12. Contributing writer John J. Stanton conducted interviews with local law enforcement and emergency response officials in Arlington County, Va. The county, among other things, is responsible for chemical or biological threat response when an incident occurs at the Pentagon.

Stanton's report reinforces much of the current thinking about homeland defense: that there is no clear chain of command and that federal resources are not allocated as efficiently as they should be.

In a companion piece on page 15, Charles R. Bell--the chief of the Defense Consequence Management Systems Office at the Marine Corps Systems Command, in Quantico, Va.--advocates the adoption of the Gilmore commission report, which recommended the creation of a national office responsible for homeland defense against weapons of mass destruction attacks.

The Gilmore panel, chaired by Virginia Coy. James Gilmore (R), issued an extensive report on the subject last December.

Much of this edition of National Defense focuses on the current state of U.S. special operations forces, particularly the efforts by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)--based at McDill Air Force Base, in Tampa, Fla.--to modernize its aging equipment and to incorporate new capabilities into its arsenal.

Senior Editor Joshua A...