One of the more provocative ideas to come out of the 9/11 Commission hearings in New York City earlier this month was a suggestion that the city’s fire and police rescue operations be combined into a new “third force” — a department devoted strictly to emergency rescue operations.

That recommendation came from Dennis Smith, a retired New York City firefighter and author of “Report From Ground Zero” (Plume) about the experiences of rescue workers and volunteers at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Smith is convinced that New York City’s police and fire departments need to be reorganized to better protect against future attacks and other catastrophes.

“To meet the special emergency demands of our times, New York City, a focal point for terrorists, would benefit by the creation of a third force, staffed only by the elite individuals who have advanced from within the police and fire departments,” Smith testified to the 9/11 Commission on May 19.

CQ Homeland Security spoke with Smith on May 26 about New York City’s problems with rescue, incident command and communication and other issues related to homeland security.

CQ: You testified to the 9/11 Commission on May 19 about your concerns with New York City’s emergency response capabilities — about problems that arose on Sept. 11, 2001, and continue today. You suggested creating a new Rescue Emergency Services Department, combining personnel from the New York Fire Department and the New York Police Department. Why do you recommend this “third force,” and how would it work?

Smith: The New York City fire and police departments have great histories of heroism and extraordinary service. They have very good people, and I believe they are being ill-served by being forced to be redundant and competitive. Right now, there are [rescue personnel] in the fire rescue companies, and in the police department’s Emergency Services Unit.

The cost of [creating the third force] would be “de minimis.” These men are already extremely well trained and extremely well equipped. They would be assigned uniforms similar to urban search and rescue teams; their uniforms would be distinctively theirs. They would have a separate commander and commissioner who would report directly to the mayor.

These organizations would be fed only from the police and fire departments, which, to me, honors those long traditions.

CQ: How does your idea fit in with the New York City Office of Emergency Management, which is supposed to coordinate multiagency response to major emergencies? That office has been controversial, and one of its former directors, Jerome Hauer, who ran it from 1996 to 2000, has been very critical of Mayor Michael Bloomberg for what Hauer believes is a reduction of OEM’s response role.

Smith: In New York, in my estimation, the OEM has not worked very well. The “Jerry Hauer model” hasn’t worked very well. My understanding of it is that these professional leaders within the OEM do not bring the sort of qualifications that are respected by the leadership of the police and fire departments.

The great difficulty is that OEM doesn’t bring the juice to the emergency scene that a strong fire or police commissioner would bring.

CQ: What about the role of the police commissioner?

Smith: I think Mayor Bloomberg understands that the police commissioner is the most important person in the city for him to plan and manage what we see as future certainties, and he feels very comfortable, certainly, with [Police Commissioner] Raymond Kelly. Quite frankly, I do as well.

I think Ray Kelly is probably the most professional person in the field today and, in my estimation, he should be heading the Department of Homeland Security.

This doesn’t preclude anything else that I’ve said, in terms of the office of OEM.

CQ: What’s been the response to your proposal for a “third force” in New York City, and does your proposal apply to other cities as well?

Smith: I think it applies to any other city that feels there is a need for a separate and distinctive emergency organization.

I would keep the police department focused on their responsibilities in law enforcement, and [the] fire department primed and focused on fire prevention. Everything else goes to the rescue department.

It’s a very radical idea, and hardly any important line officer will support what I have to say.

In the future, I am convinced that the term “first responders” will ultimately prevail in all of the emergency services. First responders will be cross-trained in everything.

At the very least, immediately, the police and fire emergency professionals should be training together. Every one of their regular drill periods should be together. . . .

The fire and police would better understand each other then, and get to know each other better.

CQ: At the 9/11 Commission hearings, there was a report and testimony about communications problems — within the fire service, between fire and police, and also with emergency operators.

Specifically between fire and police, do you think poor communications contributed to the tragedy?

Smith: I think fundamentally the communication problem was caused by the lack of an understood command system between the police and fire department.

Had there been an understood incident command system in place, police and fire would have been together physically. Had that happened, the communications within the police department would have been communicated to the fire department.

The police department recognized the [need to evacuate] and shared that with their personnel. The fire department did not yet recognize the finality of the moment, and had no information from the police department. The firefighters were still in a rescue mode when the South Tower went down.

CQ: What is the solution to the emergency communications problem in New York City, and what’s the price tag for fixing it?

Smith: I think they have to get better radios.

These issues are very complicated. For example, the new radios cannot be too powerful, because it would interfere with other operations.

What’s the price tag? I don’t know. I just know, for the last 15 years, we’ve put our eggs in the Motorola basket . . . I wonder why we’re not challenging the Dutch, Germans and Japanese to develop new technologies.

CQ: You’ve had concerns regarding incident command at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and how that continues to be a problem. Mayor Bloomberg recently issued a directive on how command should be handled. What do you think of the mayor’s plan, and do you think New York City is unique in its problems with incident command, or is this a widespread concern?

Smith: I think the mayor feels this is a viable plan. Everyone I know in the fire service doesn’t believe it will work.

There is no such thing as absolute incident command. It’s still about core competency.

No, this isn’t widespread. This is the third incident command protocol promulgated in New York City — there were plans under David Dinkins, Rudy Giuliani and now Bloomberg. No other city in the country has such redundant and competitive work. In most places, the incident command situations are easy to agree to.

CQ: What do you think of the International Association of Fire Fighters’ very visible campaign in support of the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry ?

Smith: I can say fire departments everywhere should try to stay out of politics because they have to be as pure as Caesar’s wife. Their mission is only to save lives. They might think that being politically active will increase recognition and support, but you know, essentially, it doesn’t, and it’s a mistake to tie with one candidate, because in politics, people win and people lose.

CQ: Since the attacks of Sept. 11, we’ve seen the formation of a new federal Department of Homeland Security, which is working to mobilize firefighters and other emergency responders to be equipped and trained against terrorism. How do you view the fire service’s role in the new department?

Smith: Here’s the problem: The fire chiefs in America feel they are the poor nephews in emergency services. I think it’s true.

The U.S. Fire Administration is tucked way down in the ranks of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And FEMA seems to be tucked down in the ranks of the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS, it seems to me, has decided to put most of its resources into terrorist prevention work. There’s nothing wrong with that, and we’ve had some great successes, but to do it at the cost of training and equipping fire departments is, to me, foolhardy.

To think of the fire service as this minor organization [would be wrong], when they are the absolute No. 1 first responders, first mitigators, and first decision makers. The fire service has to be elevated greatly.

CQ: You mentioned you feel DHS is shortchanging fire departments. The department and Congress have allocated more than $9 billion for equipment and training for emergency responders, including firefighters, in the last three years. If that isn’t enough, what do you think the number should be?

Smith: On the dollars, I have no expertise in the budget part of this.

I don’t think it’s a question of numbers. I think the Congress, in their allocations, has to think of [New York City] as the 51st state. There are other major cities with great targets, but New York City is the center of the world and it is the most obvious place, and the place where we’ve had more terrorist experience than anyplace else.

Alice Lipowicz can be reached via alipowicz@cq.com