National Disaster Preparedness: How September 11, 2001 changed the way Americans Think - Research Paper Example

The day of September 11, 2001 was a day that will live in the minds of Americans forever. On that day, the nation saw a national emergency and disaster on a scale that it had never seen before. The events of that day forever changed the way that the nation saw itself, but more importantly, it changed the way that the nation looked at the issue of national disaster and how it prepared for it. As a result, new departments were created in the government, new directives issued, and disaster response procedures were upgraded, streamlined, and practiced, some for the first time in years. That fateful day in history turned every eye to the fact that the United States, as a whole, was completely unprepared to handle any disaster of great magnitude, and made it clear that change was needed. As a result, disaster preparedness became more of a priority to the nation than at any other time in history. Before 9/11, as September 11, 2001 has come to be called, it is not an exaggeration to say that little to no attention had been paid to disaster preparation, or to putting emergency procedures in place for the nation. While the nation as a whole would have thought of itself as progressive, the sad fact was that there was neither budgetary allotment nor real thought given to updating safety procedures, and the United States had not turned a serious amount of attention to updating and integrating disaster procedures on any level (White & Collins, 2006). In a report issued in January 2001, called The Road Map for National Security, The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century endeavored to hammer home the point that more stringent actions and measures were needed in regards to national security. It stated, in brief, that due to such factors as advancing technology, new developments in science, and globalization, that the United States was grievously found to be still living in Cold War-era times when it came to national security issues (Hart & Rudman, 2001). It recommended, among other actions, that the President of the United States create a National Homeland Security Agency, transfer FEMA to the control of that agency, and make homeland security the primary issue and target of the National Guard (Hart & Rudman, 2001). Looking back, it was almost as though a crystal ball sat on the table in front of the Commission, and they were able to see into the future of what was in store for the United States. Response to Hurricane Disasters before September 11, 2001 Hurricanes have been coming ashore in the United States since before Christopher Columbus boarded his ships; they are a natural disaster occurrence and, as such, cannot be controlled by man. However, the way in which people respond to a hurricane is very much within the control of local, state, and government agencies. Before 9/11, the response that was garnered from any level of agency was often seen to run the gamut between too much to not enough, with never a happy medium being found. While local and state agencies tried to work with those in disaster areas, often their resources would become overwhelmed, leaving them no choice but to request assistance from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Association. When FEMA was called in, however, their presence tended to be more of a hindrance to solving the problem of basic necessities than a solution. FEMA was formed in 1979, and tasked with coordinating the role of the federal government in preparing, preventing, and assessing the damage of disasters in the United States (“FEMA History”, 2010). Unfortunately, FEMA had grown into nothing but a powerhouse of bureaucratic red tape, slow to respond to situations. In 1992, when Hurricane Andrew ravaged Florida, leaving nearly 200,000 homeless and 1.3 million without electricity, FEMA was nowhere to be found for the first three days (Franklin, 2005). When FEMA finally did arrive, they spent more time questioning the way that requests were phrased for aid than actually processing them (Franklin, 2005). Clearly, this was not FEMA’s finest hour. This is not to say that FEMA did not have successes before 9/11. Unfortunately, they seem to have been the only Federal agency tasked with aid to communities after a natural disaster, or at least the only one called in on a regular basis. Compounding the problem was that the budget of FEMA was never consistent; as with most federal agencies before 9/11, budgets were most likely requested and turned out based on Cold-War era practices (Hart & Rudman, 2001). Response to Terror Attacks before September 11, 2001 Long before the attacks of 9/11, terrorism preparedness was included in what was then known as an “all-hazards approach”, and it was quite understandably part of the resources put to work at FEMA (Keisling, 2005). However, in 1995, as per the Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD 39), the lead agency tasked with responding to terrorism was the Department of Justice (DoJ), through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the responsibility of coordinating all the agencies during a disaster fell to the National Security Council (NSC) (White & Collins, 2006). While the efforts were admirable, the NSC was also comprised of at least four committees with four separate sets of concentrations, as well as the fact that the chain of command ran through numerous deputies (White & Collins, 2006). The alphabet soup of federal agencies that would become involved in a terror attack, and the responses, while probably appearing organized to Washington, D.C., quite possibly did not appear organized to anyone not directly involved. It is not hard to imagine a terror attack before 9/11 eliciting responses from two or three different agencies, with more time spent haggling over who was in charge of leading what investigation, than any actual investigation going on. After September 11, 2001: Creation of Government Agencies and Procedures One of the most sweeping changes after 9/11 was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (White & Collins, 2006). Its three main objectives included preventing terrorist attacks on United States soil, strengthening the position of the United States to terrorist attacks, and minimizing the damage while assisting in recovery of any terrorist attacks (White & Collins, 2006). In addition, two Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) were issued; HSPD-5, issued in February 2003, required DHS to establish a “single, comprehensive approach to and plans for the management of emergency events whether the result of terrorist attacks or large-scale natural or accidental disasters” (Keisling, 2005). This would become known as the National Response Plan, and be the basis for which all other plans, task lists, and other actions related to preparedness on a national level would stem from. HSPD-8, issued in December 2003, established policies to strengthen the preparedness of the United States to prevent and respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks and large-scale natural or accidental disasters (Keisling, 2005). This included requiring DHS to “coordinate the development of a national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal” (Keisling, 2005). In 2005, in support of the directives and the goal of National Preparedness, the DHS put the National Planning Scenarios, fifteen scenarios covering both natural disasters (hurricanes and earthquakes) and man-made attacks on the United States. Complex scenarios were set out, detailing considerations in planning and implications in the events themselves, such as fatalities, service disruption (including communications), and environmental damage (White & Collins, 2006). The scenarios, intended to be used as a platform to build training programs for all levels of disaster response and preparedness throughout the United States, were a step up from the disorganization and lack of attention to detail that had been felt before 9/11. Indeed, for the first time in the history of the nation, disaster response teams at any level had concrete scenarios from which to train. They also had guidelines to look to for security and guidance in the event of a disaster. FEMA, as well, benefitted from the presidential directives and the establishment of the DHS. In 2003, they were moved from being an independent agency to the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security along with other agencies (“FEMA History”, 2010). Due to their role in managing disaster relief, they were allocated additional funding and included as a vital part of the National Response Plan (Keisling, 2005). They have gone from a cluster of small agencies, to an independent agency with no backbone and too much red tape, to an agency that is a vital part of the preparedness of the nation. In the years since 2001 and that fateful day in September, the United States has become united in terms of national preparedness for disasters. Whereas before a disjointed, irregular series of procedures existed, now there are guidelines and training scenarios. While there have still been issues and roadblocks to overcome, as a nation, disaster preparedness is taken 100% more seriously than before 9/11. Local and State Agencies Before 9/11, often procedures and directives of different organizations would be either nonexistent or in conflict with one another. There was no greater example of this than 9/11 itself, as three different local agencies attempted to gain control of the situation at the World Trade Center. The Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey struggled to rescue those that were in danger while being hampered by such conditions as the magnitude of the disaster, communications difficulties, and lack of preparedness procedures already in place (White & Collins, 2006). Since 9/11, there have been clear and precise guidelines in how to handle disasters at all levels, from the Federal Government down into the smallest local community. Due to the preparedness goals, and the National Response Plan in addition to the National Planning Scenarios put into place, local and state authorities such as local police, fire, and EMS departments now have clear purposes and roles during a disaster situation (Keisling, 2005). The Homeland Security Act of 2002 also upheld PDD 39, stating that “primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism shall be vested not in the Department of Homeland Security, but rather in Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the acts in question” (White & Collins, 2006). Also, the role of local and state authorities has been affirmed to be one of “first responders”, acting as the eyes and ears of FEMA until it can safely and quickly reach the disaster and assist (Keisling, 2005). Are we Safer…and at What Price? As a nation, we are a safer place since September 11, 2001, and the procedures and organizations that were put into place. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the streamlining of procedures on a local, state, and national scale, along with a clear-cut assignment of roles for all levels of response has, indeed, made the nation safer. However, that safety has come at a hefty price tag. Local and state governments have implemented emergency and disaster response teams, but such teams and their costs for maintenance have had to be included in budgets that are already stretched to the limit by a declining economy. The average American family has been advised repeatedly to put together a “disaster kit”, but such kits cost money that the average family may not have. While we are a safer nation for the disaster that occurred in our on 9/11, the price tag that it has come with may someday be too great to sustain. References Fema history. (2010, August 11). Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm Franklin, D. (2005, July/August). The fema phoenix: reform of the federal emergency management agency. The Washington Monthly, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.franklin.html Hart, G., & Rudman, W. Department of Defense, The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century. (2001). Road map for national security: imperative for change. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nssg.pdf Keisling, C. Government Accountability Office, (2005). Dhs' efforts to enhance first responders all-hazards capabilities continue to evolve (GAO-05-652). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05652.pdf White, R., & Collins, K. (2006). The united states department of homeland security: an overview. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Read More