Stephen Sloan, the author of “Terrorism: The Present Threat in Context,” has worked for many years with the U.S. military on responding to and preventing terrorism. He discussed the investigation into an Army psychiatrist’s alleged rampage at Fort Hood with McClatchy-Tribune foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia.

Question: What is your assessment at this stage?

Answer: One should not rush to judgment. But in this case, even though it is early, one can validly ask: Could this incident have been averted? Increasingly, the answer looks like yes. The military has long emphasized what it calls force protection, which among other things deals with the danger of terrorism. Unfortunately, in the past, most of the attention was given to physical security, in essence a gate-and-key mentality.

Q: Why is that insufficient?

A: Force protection requires much more. It deals with everything from the physical and mental health of the troops to other factors. Perhaps even more troublesome, we have known for quite some time – in terms of both force protection and terrorism – that the challenge arises not only within the barricaded area but outside it. Good force protection means identifying, proactively evaluating and ideally preventing situations before they occur. It has been said that when an incident happens, in many instances it is the result of a 90 percent failure in intelligence. Clearly, in the case of Fort Hood, that appears to have occurred.

Q: How did you reach that conclusion?

A: As we now know, there were many indications and warnings about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s attitudes and to a degree, one could suggest, his mental state. But those indications and warnings were not acted upon. In part, that may have been the result of the belief by certain individuals that others would do it. In part, it may have been an effort to avoid the perception of bias. In part, it may have been due to poor communication. Whatever the cause, the information was not acted upon. This has always been a significant concern in matters of intelligence.

Q: What is the essence of the problem?

A: In intelligence, knowledge is often viewed as bureaucratic power. But information is useless when it is not disseminated to those who need it. There must be greater awareness among all individuals who could be brought into harm’s way to encourage reporting, not based on paranoia or stereotyping, but using the techniques of Crime Watch. That is, if you see something suspicious, you should report it.

Q: How might we help prevent a Fort Hood situation in the future?

A: What the Department of Defense should avoid is the usual quest to assign blame. Instead, it should revamp its thinking on force protection. There must be an integrated effort not only in regards to the official intelligence community and the people on various military bases, but to the broader community. Also, state and local law-enforcement agencies have to be involved in the sharing of intelligence. That way, the result will not simply be – as we have previously seen after violent acts – that another physical barrier goes up.

Stephen Sloan can be reached at carlos@ou.edu.