DHS Homeland Security Advisory System and DoD FPCON - Research Paper Example

Introduction Terrorist attacks are plotted by very organized and well-funded groups, such as the al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Tamil Tigers. These attacksare not done randomly and are planned with several considerations. According to Pointon (2005), terrorists primarily weigh the potential benefits of an attack against the resources it will cost them and their likelihood of succeeding. Hence, they distinguish between hard and soft targets. Hard targets are military bases and political institutions or figures and offer the highest benefits to terrorists. In contrast, soft targets are generally the public. They do not carry political or military significance but huge casualties are expected when they are targeted. In order to protect military and civilian targets, the Department of Defense (DoD) devised two separate terrorist response systems. FPCON is devised to protect military personnel and facilities while Homeland Security Advisory System is implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Alert levels in these systems could last for weeks or months depending on the perceived situation by authorities. Background Aside from the laws implemented to deter, detect, and punish terrorists after 9/11, the federal government has devised warning systems to guide civilians and military personnel on how to respond to terrorist threats. HSAS was implemented on March 11, 2002 to make the dissemination of threats faster and more efficient. To avoid confusion with its military counterpart, the existing THREATCON was renamed to FPCON by the military (U.S. Defense Attaché, 2009). Summary of DHS Homeland Security Advisory System and DoD FPCON DHS Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) The advisory system is primarily designed to inform government agencies and department (federal, state, and local) public and private sectors, and citizens in general of an imminent or perceived terrorist threat in the country. Established on March 11, 2002, the Advisory System is organized into five color codes, each code of which corresponds to descriptions of a terrorist threat level. The lowest risk of terrorist threat is coded green. This warning signals minimum threat but it calls for the refinement of preplanned preventive measures to deter an attack. It further calls for the assessment of vulnerabilities and to take measures that these vulnerabilities are safeguarded and secured against terrorists. The next threat level is coded blue, with “guarded” as its corresponding descriptor. In code blue, there is a general risk of terrorist attacks and emergency response communications and systems are assessed. The public is informed of a general threat and prepared for correct response to an attack. When general threats escalate, they are then coded yellow. This “elevated” threat signals a significant terrorist danger and protective measures are evaluated and refined as called for by the situation. Emergency response plans are implemented in case the threats are not deterred. Code orange comes next in the advisory system, which denotes “high” terrorist threats. A code orange requires federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to work with each other. Citizens are likely to be advised to change venues for public events or cancel them if assessed threat levels prove it necessary (O’Connor, 2009). The final code in the advisory system is red, which signals a “severe” terrorist threat. Law enforcement personnel are mobilized to respond to emergencies. Specially trained personnel are deployed alongside special emergency response groups. Public transportation systems, the most vulnerable target for terrorist attacks, are monitored or redirected if necessary. Public and government facilities are closed for precautions as well. Red alert has only been used once, in 2006, when British law enforcers intercepted a plan to blow up ten aircrafts heading to the United States. U.S. authorities immediately raised the alert and airport security as well (Totten, 2010). The codes mentioned above are designed to preplan appropriate responses to specific threat levels. House Bill H.R. 2250 was enacted by the State for the design of a warning and response system called READICall, which stands for Responsive Emergency Alert and Dissemination of Information Call System (O’Connor, 2009). It can only be activated by the Secretary of Homeland Security but once it is activated, calls are made to all households that have landline telephone service to inform them of terrorist threats. Department of Defense FPCON Just as the DHS Advisory System informs civilians of terrorist threats, the Department of Defense (DoD) Terrorist Force Protection Condition (FPCON) alerts military personnel of terrorist threats in order to prepare them to make the appropriate responses. Military personnel either heighten or lower military protective measures depending on the FPCON alert level (Flynn, 2002, p. 9). It is comprised of 95 measures which are distributed to five different levels. The first level, Normal, is a situation where threats are general, as in daily operation of military bases. It is coded green and security remains at routine levels. When a slight threat against personnel and facilities is present, FPCON Alpha, coded blue, is implemented. In this threat level, military personnel are alerted for possible yet unpredictable attack. Although greater responses are not required by general and unpredictable attacks, personnel are required to sustain Alpha measures when they are raised. During FPCON Alpha, military personnel are required to increase suspicion on abandoned packages and vehicles. Strangers should also be suspected and vehicle inspections are tightened. When threats increase and targets become more definite, FPCON Bravo is implemented. At this level, the military maintains higher protection against terrorists “without causing undue hardships, without affecting operational capability, and without aggravating relations with local authorities” (Alexander & Richardson, 2009, p. 149). This suggests that alert is raised but to a more subtle level. In code Bravo, vehicles are kept 25 meters away from bases to deter car bombs. Personnel check all incoming mail and conduct random check on people, buildings, and vehicle. Anti-terror specialists are required to get ready in case they are needed for a higher alert. When threats happen or when military personnel intercept intelligence about an imminent threat, the level of alert is raised to Charlie. During this level, anti-terrorist personnel are required to be on active duty. Guards, who are non-military personnel, are also armed. If an attack has occurred or when a facility or base is very likely, the highest level of protection is implemented. Code named delta, more personnel and guards are called to respond to the situation. Closing roads and facilities might be necessary. Discussion Although it differentiates different threat levels, Shora (as cited in Department of Homeland Security, n.d.) criticized the HSAS for being too broad. Unlike the FPCON, HSAS categories for raising alarm levels are not definite and much of the decision is left to the DHS. Because of its broadness, the threat levels have gone up and down so many times since 2003 that the public has become less responsive to it (Alexander, 2004, p. 36). This is not necessarily the case in FPCON since the military follows definite standards in raising threat levels. The FPCON is merely a standardization of the established response against terrorist threats. Military personnel have better understanding of the dangers of terrorism. The public, however, is not certain whether the HSAS does them good. As Smith and Anderson (2006, p. 20) noted, the public has become weary of the HSAS advisories because they have been either overly used or poorly implemented. The government faces greater challenge in using HSAS because it covers a wider, more diverse, and less controlled public unlike the military which is strongly held together by a single system. Reaction to HSAS can vary widely unlike the FPCON that military personnel follow rigidly when raised. Conclusion The main difference between the HSAS and FPCON is that the former is directed towards the public while FPCON is devised for the military. HSAS is also implemented in the homeland while FPCON is mostly implemented overseas, where terrorist threats on military bases are greater. Since the priority of the Department of Defense is military operations and negotiations abroad, HSAS is implemented and overseen by the Department of Homeland Security. Nonetheless, they are both designed to warn either civilians or military personnel about any perceived or imminent terrorist threat. Federal officials believed that these warning systems can help deter and disrupt terror activities. However, there are still uncertainty on whether the HSAS has indeed helped the public or whether it has only raised unnecessary fear. It can be contented that enforcers can implement heightened security measures without fear-raising codes. References Alexander, D.C. (2004). Business confronts terrorism: Risks and responses. Madison, WI: Terrace Books. Alexander, Y., & Richardson, T. (2009). Terror on the high seas: From piracy to strategic challenge (Vol. 1). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). HSAS task force stake holder feedback. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsas_task_force_stakeholder_feedback.pdf Flynn, M.J. (2002). Installation antiterrorism force-protection planning. Department of the Army Headquarters, 82 (2), 9. O’Connor, T. (2009). Public advisory communication systems. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3430/3430lect08.htm Pointon, T.D. (2005). Terrorist targets. In Military History Encyclopedia on the Web. Retrieved from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/concepts_terrortargets.html Smith, J., & Sanderson, T.M. (2006). Five years after 9/11: An assessment of America’s War on Terror. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Totten, M.J. (2010). A guide for understanding Homeland Security Advisory System. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1842964-a-guide-for-understanding-the-homeland-security-advisory-system U.S. Defense Attaché Office. (2009). Terrorist Force Protection Condition. Retrieved from http://adelaide.usvpp.gov/dao/FPCON%20Definitions.pdf Read More