Department of Homeland Security - Coursework Example

Department of Homeland Security Question 1 In my opinion, I find it necessary for the Department of Homeland Security to undergo some reforms, particularly in terms of leadership and formation (structure). The reason why I find these two requiring some makeovers is because unlike its initial nature when it was established, today’s DHS has become an umbrella body; sharing the same name but constituted of different “tails” under it owing to the absence of cohesion by the 22 constituting departments. It is sensible that security organizations depend largely on cooperation between them, and if it lacks, then the security objectives cannot be met. One of the weaknesses I have discovered from recent course discussions is that our security systems, represented by the DHS, is not effective when it comes to national preparedness with respect to crisis preparedness (GAO, 2011). The problem arises from the current emergency management systems which rely on bureaucratic approaches. This may not seem so because the government agencies across all levels are mandated with executing specific responsibilities. However, it is proven that bureaucracy and emergency situations do not merge (Takeda & Holmes, 2006). This is so because bureaucracy does not support the conducts required during a crisis (emergency) situations such as rapid making of decisions, prioritization, fast structuring and processing. The second weakness I discovered was that our maritime security is not sufficient in effectiveness. This situation is especially critical at the ports. The reason for alarm is that a big percentage of the total U.S. overseas trades are shipped into the country via maritime transport, and whose evaluation exposes its structuring as being prone to terrorist invasion. According to Parfomak & Fritelli (2007), the weakness lies in that the DHS is limited with regards to identification, thus verification of foreign seafarers using electronic means. This limitation affects the inspection of cargo vessels. This in turn creates a big security loophole, and whose economic impact on the U.S. economy might be massive. The final weakness evident is that similar to most security agencies globally, the DHS is needy when it comes to cyber security. The DHS’ strategies of securing federal agencies’ telecommunications systems are insufficient to be termed as secure. In the telecommunications context, the crimes committable include money laundering, identity theft, fraud, corporate espionage, communications misdirection, and system sabotage to mention but a few (Deloitte, 2010). The problem with this weakness is that owing to the rapid evolution of technology, terrorists (or criminals) might easily gain an upper hand in the cyber context and move in to cause extensive damage to a state. As Bellavita & Gordon (2006) suggest, the only solution to these weaknesses would be giving up on the old paradigms constituting the DHS, and replacing them with networks that are collaborative in hierarchical structure. This would ensure that information is shared across all security departments, a move that would promote collectiveness and collaboration thus a better and more effective security system. Question 2 The National Infrastructure Protection Plan in its executive summary provides strategies that are generalized in the provision of security and protection plans. In short, it highlights several departments and what area they are supposed to cater for. In my specific department, which is water, the Environmental Protection Agency is the department put in charge. It is obvious that the matters related to water are way too complex to just rely on the Environmental Protection Agency. Other departments such as the Public Health and Finance are also crucial stakeholders in sustaining the effectiveness of this sector. This, therefore, presents one weakness in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and which render it less effective, meaning that with these loopholes, then America is not a safe haven. This coincides with Auerswald, Branscomb, Porte, & Michel-Kerjan (2014) conclusions that the problem with the layout is that it does not provide the framework through which these departments are supposed to interact thus provide sufficient security. The key problem is that the National Infrastructure Protection Plan highlights the different departments and what they are supposed to do in serving the American people, but does not give the details about how they should interact. In its executive summary, it states that the Federal Government will cooperate with the private sector, local and government authorities in making the plan successful (DHS, 2009). On water issues for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency should have its overall activities, resources, and stakeholders pooled together such that it does not have to rely on other departments for it to implement the measures it finds necessary. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security is mandated with some activities which lay under water, such as Chemical, Dams, and Critical Manufacturing. The problem with this arrangement is that for water issues to be dealt with, the Water Processing sector would have to wait upon the DHS, EPA, Treasury, and Public Health departments to provide its services to the people. In the event that one of these departments encounters a problem or challenge in processing required elements of water services, then the entire hierarchy would be interfered with, and the end-seer would be the loser. The solution to the problem would be allocating an independent Water Department which would have all the resources and mandates to execute the roles termed as necessary for water protection and dissemination (McNeil & Weitz, 2010). This is to say that water testing, transportation, processing, regulation, and all other water-related issues are left wholly to the proposed standalone Water Department. Question 3 Recent terrorist attacks targeting subway systems such as the Madrid, Moscow, and London bombings spell that the current security systems focus too much on aviation security, and this has in turn exposed the other transportation channels to risks of breach. In these three incidents, approximately 300 people have lost their lives (Herrera-Flanigan, 2010). In the light of these, the fact that the aviation sector is overly secure stands out because fewer cases of aviation sabotage have emerged especially after 9/11. However, terrorists are turning to alternative mass transportation channels such as subways. The call for tightening of the other sectors therefore emerges. To achieve this objective, several measures can be applied by the DHS and Federal government. One of them would be collaborating with stakeholders who run the transport systems in coming up with a plan that highlights priorities and identifies potential resolutions to the emerging threats. This would further see to it that effective consensus mass-transit security standards are established. All stakeholders in the sector would be required to adhere to them, and the result would be a better-off indiscriminate transport system. Question 4 In the event that unverified rumors pertaining to interference with water supply in my town, I would find the fastest means of response, and these would be moving fast to verify the rumors and preventing people from suffering if they are proven true. The first move would be stopping all water supplies to users, so that there is time to verify the issue and also protect the people. I would also send out messages that the people should not consume any water before it is verified as being safe. The water and sanitation department should be on the lookout for terrorist moves such as the deliberate poisoning of water, contamination, vandalizing of water supply systems, and the issuance of false threats meant to interrupt the dissemination of safe water to the people (Hlavinek et al, 2009). The long-term strategies to protect the people would be keeping the departments responsible for water and sanitation on their toes in ensuring that the loopholes opening up to threats or service breach are minimized. In addition, they would be responsible for any harm resulting from their ignorance if any problems arose from them. These strategies would incorporate several agencies such as the Environmental department, Public Health, Treasury, and Federal government. The associated infrastructure should be secured, the products (water) tested regularly, and funds provided for implementing innovated security and service dissemination facilities. The DHS’ proposed strategies are potential one-stop solutions in implementing the stated, but they are just on paper. They would only be effective if materialized. References Auerswald, P., Branscomb, L., Porte, T., & Michel-Kerjan, E. (2014). “The Challenge of Protecting Critical Infrastructure”. Issues in Science and Technology. Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://issues.org/22-1/auerswald/ Bellavita, C. & Gordon, E. (2006). “Changing Homeland Security.” Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=2.1.1 Deloitte. (2010). Cyber crime: A clear and present danger: Combating the fastest growing cyber security threat. Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AERS/us_assur_DeloitteCyber%20CrimePOV_Jan10.pdf Department of Homeland Security. (2009). “National Infrastructure Protection Plan.” Department of Homeland Security. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Department of Homeland Security. Progress made and work remaining in implementing homeland security missions 10 years after 9/11. Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11881.pdf Herrera-Flanigan, J. (2010, April 3). “TSA: Turning to Mass Transit & Passenger Rail.” Homeland Security Watch. Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://www.hlswatch.com/category/ground-transport-security/ Hlavinek, P., Popovska, C., Marsalek, J., Mharikova, I., & Kukharchyk, T. (2009). Risk Management of Water Supply and Sanitary Systems. Springer Publications. McNeil, J., & Weitz, R. (2010). “How to Fix Homeland Security Critical-Infrastructure Protection Plans: A Guide for Congress.” The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/how-to-fix-homeland-security-critical-infrastructure-protection-plans-a-guide-for-congress Parfomak, P., & Fritelli, J. (2007). “Maritime Security: Potential Terrorist Attacks and Protection Priorities.” CRS Report for Congress. Takeda, M.B. & Helms, M.M. (2006). “Bureaucracy, meet catastrophe. Analysis of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and their implications for emergency response governance”. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19 (4) 397- 411. Retrieved on July 3, 2014 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm Read More