Terrorism and Domestic Preparedness - Case Study Example

Terrorism and Domestic Preparedness Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Issue 2 6 Issue 3 8 References 11 Appendix 12 Abstract This essay is about terrorism and domestic preparedness. It is no doubt that international terrorism has had major impacts on the United States, and more on the homeland security policies. There is need for concerted efforts in the fight against international terrorism and its consequences. Local communities and law enforcement agencies have appropriate roles to play in a national strategy for protecting the homeland. The security agencies in the US are characterized by lack of adequate coordination of their counter terrorism activities. This is due to the bureaucratic structure of communication and management of security activities and details among the security agents in the federal, state and local jurisdictions. It is recommended that security policies which favor coordination and efficient communication among the security agencies are provided within the legal framework of the federation. This will ensure that standards are set for compliance of security agencies and provision of guidelines for effective communication and financial resources for training and security information technology. Terrorism and Domestic Preparedness Issue 1 International terrorism is recognized as an ongoing and serious domestic and security threat. Basically, international threat is defined as terrorism that is practiced and sometimes planned in a foreign country by terrorists (individuals or groups) who are not native to that particular country. The definition mostly used by United States government is terrorism that involves the property or citizens of more one or more countries (Siniver, 2010). As noted for over the years, the threat of international terrorism is more serious in the United States of America than in any other country in the world. It is a widely agreed fact that the United States terrorism threat level has been substantial especially after the 9/11 attacks substantial, that is, there is a strong possibility of terrorist attacks. Siniver (2010) argues that international terrorism is considered a major United States’ domestic and foreign security threat because its target selection and timing by terrorists can significantly affect the interests of the United States in numerous areas such as trade, nuclear non- proliferation, Middle East peace process, and budgetary allocations among other economic, social, and political interests. It is against this background that the United States government through the Department of Homeland Security has made protection of the American people from terrorist threats as its highest priority. The department has put a number of measures in place to counter international terrorism and its possible consequences (Department of Homeland Security, 2011). It is important to note that international terrorism and the threat it poses to the U.S and its domestic and foreign interests have greatly impacted on the U.S homeland security policies (Siniver, 2010). US Homeland Security Council (2007) defines homeland security as an integrated and concerted national effort to minimize the US’ terrorism vulnerability, prevent terrorist attacks within the US border, and reduce the damage of any attacks in addition to facilitating recovery to such attacks. Mainly, international terrorism has had two major impacts to the homeland security namely; reform of intelligence and security architectures, and amount of security budget (Siniver, 2010). In regard to reform of intelligence and security architectures policy, it is a fact that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the third largest in the federal bureaucracy of the US; this shows its importance in regard to homeland security policies of the US. Prior to the threat of international terrorism being so immense, DHS was non- existent, but international terrorism changed all this in the homeland security circles. Department of Homeland Security (2011) states that in order to counter international terrorism and its consequences, DHS was established so as to provide policy support and implementation in the following key areas of homeland security: emergency preparedness and response; domestic counter- terrorism; defense against catastrophic threats; transportation and border security; protection of key assets and critical infrastructure; and, intelligence and warning. US Homeland Security Council (2007) observes that homeland security policies on reform of intelligence and security architectures has been relying heavily on cooperation from local and state government so as to achieve success; a scenario that was underemphasized prior to the emergence of international terrorism as a domestic and foreign security threat. Along with that, international terrorism impacts on homeland security policies have been noted in regard to the amount of budget allocated to security (Siniver, 2010). Emphasis on homeland security and counter- terrorism has heightened over the years resulting to increased budget towards homeland security. Over the years the budgetary allocation to the DHS has witnessed dramatic rise so as to help counter international terrorism. The amount of funding allocated to the implementation of homeland security policies in the wake of international terrorism is unprecedented, thus showing significant impact that international terrorism has had on homeland security policies Appendix (Department of Homeland Security, 2011). Issue 2 Protecting the homeland requires the concerted effort of the government agencies, local communities, and law enforcement agencies. It is through the concerted efforts that effective protection of homeland can be achieved (US Homeland Security Council, 2007). The DHS has realized this necessity in its efforts of ensuring homeland security and that is why it relies heavily on cooperation of local and state government in its operations. Therefore, the need for local communities and law enforcement agencies to play appropriate roles in the national strategy for protecting the homeland is much greater than ever before. The roles of local communities in a national strategy for protecting the homeland are informed by the need that protection of the homeland is a shared responsibility of all the Americans (Department of Homeland Security, 2011). One of the appropriate roles of the local communities in this endeavor is being part of collaboration and coordination as the first preventers and responders to security concerns in the country. They should be able to notice when something or a situation is abnormal and requires a closer look as a way of thwarting terrorism plot. In addition, they have a great role in information sharing with local and state law enforcement agencies so as to improve their understanding about terrorist and other security threats. This will be very essential in filling the gap between the nation’s numerous law enforcement agencies and the federal Intelligence Community (IC) (Department of Homeland Security, 2011). Besides, local communities have a role in national strategy for protecting the homeland by engaging in preparedness activities that aim at responding appropriately to terrorist attacks hence minimizing the consequences of such attacks such as loss of lives and property. Moreover, since terrorism is often inspired by ethnicity, claimed ideological affiliation, religious background, or age group, local communities have a role which is also a common responsibility to secure themselves from threats of violent extremism that may emanate from such groupings and beliefs. As noted, protecting the homeland requires the concerted efforts of the government agencies and local communities. Even though the efforts of other players are necessary in the protecting the homeland, law enforcement agencies have a higher mandate and responsibility of protecting the homeland courtesy of the authority conferred to them by law, resources allocated to them, and the training and skills they possess in regard to the role of protecting the homeland. Homeland Security Council (2007) explains that local law enforcement agencies are responsible for addressing threat of terrorism and crime for their jurisdictions. In order to achieve their mandate they often receive DHS support and funding from their state homeland security authorities, but the decisions on allocation fall to them. One of the appropriate roles of law enforcement includes allocation of resources obtained from homeland security authorities. Secondly, they set priorities regarding terrorism preparedness and prevention which are geared towards protecting the homeland. Thirdly, these agencies have a role of planning and coordinating with state authorities, federal agencies, local communities, and other local agencies on matters relating to protecting the homeland (Department of Homeland Security, 2011). It is important to note that the appropriate roles of local communities and law enforcement agencies in a national strategy for protecting the homeland are aimed at covering the all the areas that homeland security covers namely: emergency preparedness and response; domestic counter- terrorism; defense against catastrophic threats; transportation and border security; protection of key assets and critical infrastructure; and, intelligence and warning Issue 3 Public agencies in the United States have an obligation of protecting the public from security threats such as terrorism. The role of the various agencies within the federation, states and local jurisdictions in the war against terrorism has been hampered by the bureaucratic organization among these agencies which has led to lack of coordination and thus inefficiency in their anti terrorist operations and preparedness. After the September 11 terrorist attacks the homeland security department has realized the challenges that the government jurisdictions have in terrorist preparedness which are related to poor coordination and bureaucratic organization of the federation (Wise & Nader, 2002, p. 44). However, the major challenge that the US law enforcement and security agencies face is the attainment of the legal authority for coordinating their activities so that efficiency and effectiveness in protecting the public from terrorist activities is achieved. Legal compliance will enable the US security agencies to have financial support, enhanced collaboration and communication, encouraged compliance with the security standards and establishment of strong formal relationships among these agencies which will promote cohesiveness. The bureaucratic organization of the federal, state and local security agencies has led to poor communication among these organizations on matters pertaining to the security of the public. Moreover, the attacks by terrorists are poorly managed because of the bureaucracy that limits communication among the agencies (Waugh, William & Sylves, 2002, p. 148). The local security jurisdictions are obliged to have a bureaucratic process in communicating security issues and the management of security crises. As a result of the inefficiency in communication, more preventable deaths are recorded. The limitation in communication is a drawback in preparedness and management of terrorist attacks because it slows down the process of decision making. The local security agencies in the bureaucratic organization of the system are limited in decisions and thus consultation from the state jurisdictions on issues of security and decision making is required. The state law enforcement and security agencies are also answerable to the federal jurisdictions which further slow the process of decision making. A less bureaucratic security system would be the most effective way of enhancing the preparedness and management of terrorist attacks in terms of financing, training, collaboration and decision making (Waugh, William & Sylves, 2002, p. 145). There is poor utilization of resources within the federal, state and local security jurisdiction as a result of the bureaucratic organization of the system (Wise & Nader, 2002, p. 46). The modern security systems are characterized by the application of technology to enhance the detection, prevention and mitigation of terrorist security threats. The fact that these resources have limited reach through the bureaucratic structure of the security system makes the local jurisdictions limited in the application of these resources for effective prevention and management of terrorist attacks. The centralized system leads to a common control of resources and limited access for their use in anti-terrorist activities. In return, the government agencies are not able to effectively protect the public from terrorist threats. The immense support of the Homeland Security programs as opposed to other security agencies within states and local jurisdictions demonstrates that there is a disparity in the availability, access and use of security resources (Waugh, William & Sylves, 2002, p. 147). These resources include skilled and experienced human security personnel. The Homeland Security and high ranking agencies within the bureaucracy system have advantages of more funding, personnel and technology which make the local jurisdictions less advantaged and thus limited in collaboration in the process of terrorist preparedness and management of security threats. Issue 4 Cooperation among the security agencies of the United States will adequately be achieved through the enhancement of communication among the agencies (Kincaid & Cole, 2002, p. 181). Communication will be facilitated by the adoption and implementation of security communication technology. The various points through which terrorists would enter the country such as ports and airports would be secured through communication and the enhancement of cooperation of Homeland Security and other security agencies within the states and local jurisdictions. For an improved communications, the federal government should set standards for a top down communication of commands which will aim at ensuring efficiency. Additionally, the government should ensure that all security agencies comply with the standards of proper communication. Enhanced communication will facilitate the sharing of information on various security details which are related to terrorism. The communication process should also be designed in a manner that will ensure that there is security of sensitive data from possible information security threats on information systems. National investment programs on security resources and personnel will remove the bureaucracies that are associated with the coordination of security agencies (Waugh, William & Sylves, 2002, p. 151). This means that the federal government should provide sufficient finances for training security personnel on issues related to coordination and communication of security matters in the most effective and efficient manner. The prioritization of resources for investing in technology should be less biased so that the state and local security jurisdictions are enabled to effectively collaborate with other security agencies in the pursuit of combating terrorist activity. The federal government should also invest in an effective National Emergency Management System so that the coordination of security agencies in the management of terrorist threats is enhanced (Kincaid & Cole, 2002, p. 187). The national policies on counterterrorism should be reviewed by the legislature and the government so that improved coordination within the federation’s security agencies is provided within the policies. This will ensure that communication of information on possible terrorist activities is not limited by factors related to bureaucracy and jurisdiction (Wise & Nader, 2002, p. 49). Therefore the organization of the war on terror should be organized in a manner that eliminates bureaucracy and limitations in communication. Furthermore, the various security agencies within the federation must be provided by clear definition of what terrorism is and the strategies through which it would be prevented and managed. This would help the security agencies within states and local jurisdictions aim at a unified goal of protecting citizens from terrorist activities and hence promote their cooperation in counter terrorist activities. References Department of Homeland Security. (2011). Counterterrorism. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/files/counterterrorism.shtm, on January 12, 2012. Homeland Security Council. (2007). National Strategy for Homeland Security. US Government Printing Office. Kincaid, J., & Cole, R. L. (2002). Issues of federalism in response to terrorism. Public Administration Review, 62(00333352), 181-192 Siniver, A. (2010). International Terrorism Post- 9/11: Comparative Dynamics and Responses. Routledge. Waugh, William L. & Sylves, R. T. (2002). Organizing the war on terrorism. Public Administration Review, 62(00333352), 145-153 Wise, C. R., & Nader, R. (2002). Organizing the federal system for homeland security: Problems, issues, and dilemmas. Public Administration Review, 62(00333352), 44-57 Appendix $20.7 billion- the amount the United States spent in 2004 for homeland security $47.5 billion- the amount the United States spent in 2008 for homeland security This shows that the United States has not only been increasing spending for homeland security but also has been spending huge amount of money for the same. Read More