Homeland security
rebdeoilw24
chapter2.pdf
Homeland Security Defined
Chapter Objectives
To understand that there is no commonly accepted definition of homeland security and why that is the case
To understand common themes of homeland security as found through the homeland security bureaucracy, concepts, strategy, mission, goals, and areas of emphasis
To consider the importance of having an acceptably shared definition of homeland security
Chapter Outline
• Introduction • What Is Homeland Security? • Definition by Homeland Security Bureaucracy Evolution
• Definition by the Homeland Security Concept Evolution • Definition by Homeland Security Strategic Documents • Definition by Homeland Security Mission and Goals • Definition by Homeland Security Areas of Emphasis
• Whither a Definition? • Chapter Summary
Introduction
Dawn broke cold and brisk as coffee pots began to percolate and people stirred to life that January morning in the northern Virginia suburbs. Soon, the traffic was as heavy as ever in Fairfax and neighboring Arlington County, as people made their way down side streets and highways on their way to work. Police officers responded to a variety of traffic fender-benders, moving them off to the side of the road in order to keep the flow of traffic from backing up on the main arteries into the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. With each passing minute, traffic became heavier and heavier.
One location that always backed up was Dolley Madison Boulevard, Route 123, heading eastbound toward the George Washington Parkway, the “G.W.” in local parlance. At what appeared to be a typical traffic intersection, cars began backing up in the two left-turn lanes, waiting for the light to turn red. The road they were waiting to turn left onto appeared to lead into just another northern Virginia suburb. Only it was not a suburb at all. Nor was it typical. It was the entrance to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency.
It was January 25, 1993. The time was approximately 8:00 AM. In one of the left-hand turn lanes was a brown 1970s Datsun station wagon, waiting behind several other
vehicles stopped at the light.1 The two turn lanes behind the Datsun were full, and the left travel lane was also backed up with people waiting to turn left into CIA headquarters. Suddenly, the door of the Datsun opened and a man in his late 20s exited the vehicle. He was short in stature with olive skin and a thick mustache. As he exited the vehicle, he pulled from the car an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle and he began walking down the median strip. He raised the AK-47 and began firing shots into the cars stopped behind him, aiming toward the drivers. He fired eight rounds as he walked along the median, ultimately hitting five men: Frank Darling, Lansing Bennett, Nicholas Starr, Calvin Morgan, and Stephen Williams.2
As the shooter reached a certain point on the median, he stopped, turned, and began walking back. As he reached the first car he had fired into, the one immediately behind his car, he raised the AK-47 and shot Frank Darling in the head two more times. He then climbed back into the driver’s seat of the Datsun and proceeded to drive east toward the G.W. Parkway, then headed south into Arlington County.
A police officer in Arlington County heard two tones on his radio and was told to check his on-board computer for an important message.3 The screen read that there was a shooting at the CIA headquarters, several people were injured from an AK-47, and the suspect was heading toward the G.W. Parkway. He began making his way toward the parkway as it followed along the Potomac River, heading south to George Washington’s Mount Vernon. As he traveled the G.W. Parkway, he was informed to be on the lookout for a 1970s model station wagon. He started to drive into one of the many parks along the Parkway but was called to Arlington Hospital to guard one of the shooting victims who had been transported there by ambulance.
It turns out the suspect was one Aimal Kasi, born in Pakistan in the mid-1960s, who had entered the United States in 1991.4 He stayed in Reston, Virginia with a friend and found work as a courier, driving by the entrance to the CIA almost on a daily basis. He knew that all of the people turning left at the intersection worked for the CIA, so he purchased the AK-47 and began planning his attack.
After the shooting, he drove to a nearby park and waited for about an hour and a half. As no one approached his car, he traveled back to Reston, hid the weapon under a sofa and left the house.5 He purchased lunch at McDonalds, checked into a hotel, and watched the news about his attack. He then flew home to Pakistan the following morning.6
Two of the shooting victims, Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett, died from their wounds. The other three survived. A joint investigation between the FBI and local police was launched, and Kasi was eventually identified as the shooter.7 He was listed on the FBI’s Most Wanted Fugitives8 list. The search turned international as it was discovered Kasi had returned to Pakistan (see Box 2.1). Eventually, a source identified his whereabouts; he was captured and smuggled back into the United States. He was placed on trial, found guilty of murder, and executed on November 4, 2002.9
© Virginia Department of Corrections/Getty Images.
BOX 2.1 What Happened After the CIA Shooting?
At the time of the shootings, U.S. officials knew nothing of Kasi’s identity or affiliations. Authorities identified Kasi as the shooter several days later, after his roommate filed a missing person’s report with local police. Soon after, the FBI placed Kasi on their Most Wanted List, while the State Department posted a $2 million dollar reward for his capture; it was later increased to $3.5 million. Yet, for 4 years various plans to locate, track, and capture Kasi failed.
As the years passed, Kasi assumed the United States had forgotten about him and began leaving Afghanistan to visit friends in Pakistan. On June 15, 1997, acting on an informant’s tip, a combined FBI and CIA team lured Kasi to a meeting in the Dera Ghazi Khan District of Punjab, Pakistan to work out details of a supposed business venture involving smuggled arms and electronics. As the plan unfolded, CIA headquarters established radio contact with a Chevy Suburban containing a joint CIA–FBI team sitting outside a Chinese restaurant and hotel where Kasi waited to meet his alleged new business partners.
The appointed 4 PM meeting time came and went, as Acting DCI George Tenet anxiously awaited word. At 4:30, according to one account, the radio cracked “Base, base, this is Red Rover. The package is aloft, the package is aloft.” Kasi was in American hands. Within minutes, Tenet phoned the families of Kasi’s victims.
Tenet made a public announcement of the arrest 2 days later praising the 4-year effort—and ultimate success—of the CIA, FBI, and State Department.
The Justice Department decided that local authorities in Fairfax County should try Kasi on capital murder charges since federal law did not then provide for the death penalty for terrorist acts. In court, Kasi acknowledged his role in the shootings, but pleaded not guilty. Convicted after a jury trial, Kasi received the death penalty, carried out by lethal injection at the Virginia State Penitentiary in Jarratt on November 14, 2002.
A permanent memorial to Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett was erected in May 2002 near the site of the shootings on Route 123.
Reproduced from: Central Intelligence Agency. (2013). “A Look Back … Murder at CIA’s Front Gate.” Retrieved online at https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/murder-at-cia.html
What Is Homeland Security?
The killing of two CIA employees and the wounding of three others was the first attack in the 1990s that suggested the possibility of international terrorism coming to the United States. The case of Aimal Kasi, however, was treated as an isolated incident, and in many ways as nothing more than a domestic crime. Although both the FBI and local police worked together to solve the case, when it was discovered that Kasi had fled back to Pakistan, the operation became a joint effort between the CIA and the FBI. He was captured and, in an early use of rendition, was brought back to the United States without going through diplomatic channels. Once he returned to the United States, however, he was tried as a criminal in a Virginia Court, charged with two counts of capital murder. Found guilty of these crimes, he was executed in Virginia’s death chamber, as Virginia has and uses death penalty statutes.
The question that arises from this short case study is whether this was an act of terrorism (see text elsewhere for further discussion on terrorism), and if so, was this an early example of America defending the homeland? Kasi, by all accounts, acted alone out of hatred that arose from watching CNN and seeing “Americans kill Muslims.”10 He had no accomplices, represented no terrorist group per se, and was simply driven by his personal hatred toward Americans being in the Middle East. Hence, the murders were criminal
acts. However, Kasi was not born in the United States, came from a country where many people tend to foster a hatred for America, and may have grown up among many of the radical Mullahs preaching violence against Americans. Given this scenario, was this an act of terrorism?
Regardless, the following month, the United States would witness the first bombing of the World Trade Center, this time through a conspiracy among terrorists with Al Qaeda ties. Yet even this attack was treated more as a crime than as an act of terrorism. Interestingly when, 2 years later, the Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated by Americans, this act was generally considered more of an act of terrorism than the first World Trade Center bombing, albeit it was domestic terrorism not international terrorism. It was the attacks on 9-11, however, that brought the concept of terrorism to the forefront of the minds of most Americans. It was also this event that brought the concept of homeland security to life, but has left us to beg the question: What exactly is homeland security?
KEY TERMS
Homeland security—an effort to prevent, mitigate, respond, and recover from natural and man-made disasters, including terrorist attacks.
Bellavita, in his article about defining homeland security, noted that people often ask, “What is homeland security? Is it a program, an objective, a discipline, an agency, an administrative activity, another word for emergency management? Is it about terrorism? All hazards? Something completely different?”11 Logan and Ramsay explained in their book on homeland security that “Although the United States was familiar with terrorism long before September 11, 2001, the term homeland security was not commonly used until the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.,” and that even though the new agency was called the Department of Homeland Security by the Bush Administration, “the lack of definition of what is meant by homeland security and how it related to existing civilian agencies and their missions resulted in challenges for the new department, for agencies that combined in it, and for state government counterparts.”12 Even 10 years after the September 11 attacks, Reese, in an analysis of emergency management and homeland security policy for Congress, observed that “the U.S. government does not have a single definition for ‘homeland security.’”13
Recognizing that there is no generally accepted definitive definition of homeland security, it is important to understand that the current and varied definitions come from various sources. The first is from a historical perspective, as primarily detailed in the following text. The second is also from a historical perspective, but related more to the evolution of governmental usage of the term as found in documents such as presidential directives and commission reports. A third source, and closely related to the second, is found in federal strategic documents attempting to wrestle with the definition, but in a post 9-11 environment. A fourth source comes not from abstract strategy but instead from a focus on the mission and goals of homeland security in this same post-9-11 world. Finally, we can return to Bellavita’s analysis, in which he argues that the definition has actually developed in eight different areas and has not yet reached a shared definition, although some of the definitions do share certain elements. It is to these four perspectives that we now turn.
KEY TERMS
Homeland security goals—those key tasks that must be accomplished in order for the homeland security mission to be accomplished.
Definition by Homeland Security Bureaucracy Evolution
As detailed elsewhere in this text, civil defense arose out of fears during World War I, but responsibility was largely relegated to the states. In World War II, the idea of civil defense was resurrected, and although initially under state responsibility, the states were given direction through federal coordination. During the Cold War, at least at first, civil defense became more centralized under the federal government and, more specifically, coordinated out of the White House.14 During the Nixon administration, the move was toward a centralized, independent agency, eventually the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with a decentralized execution. FEMA became the primary means for emergency management policies and practices throughout the 1990s. In the wake of 9-11, however, the emphasis was on a much broader federal government response in which emergency preparedness and response, essentially FEMA’s role, was only a part. FEMA would then be absorbed as only one component, or directorate, under the Department of Homeland Security.
KEY TERMS
Homeland security bureaucracy—the various federal, state, and local agencies that are directly or indirectly involved in the protection of America’s homeland.
In this quick historical review, it is evident that the true nature and development of homeland security, and hence its eventual definition, is primarily a response to cataclysmic events and an evolving bureaucratic organization to best deal with such events. World Wars I and II were events that called for a response, and civil defense was that bureaucratic response. Throughout the Cold War and a number of serious natural disasters, changes to the bureaucracy were the usual response to these events. Hence the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was simply a response to the events of September 11th, and merely the next step in an evolutionary development of bureaucratic changes (See FIGURE 2.1).15 After 9-11, “homeland security” could be loosely defined as a wider-reaching, bureaucratic response (and organization) to better prepare and respond to future terrorist attacks against the United States. Although charged to include natural disasters, early on DHS was heavily focused on terrorist attacks. It was not until Hurricane Katrina (2005) that it came to focus also on natural disasters (as in an “all-hazard” organization).
In this sense, the term homeland security is part of a historical evolution that is embodied by the federal bureaucracy created in the wake of the various cataclysmic events. As a result, the definition would simply be however the reigning bureaucracy, today the Department of Homeland Security, defines the concept.
FIGURE 2.1 The Evolution of Homeland Security.
Reproduced from: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2010). Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, p. 14. Courtesy of the DHS.
Definition by the Homeland Security Concept Evolution Rather than developing as a bureaucratic reaction to events over time, the concept of homeland security can be thought of evolving from the policy experts in the decade prior to September 11, 2001. While most Americans were not focused on the issue of terrorism in the 1990s, many government entities and
researchers/think-tanks were. For instance, in Presidential Directive Number 62, dated May 22, 1998, President Clinton addressed the issue of “Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas.”16 On the same day, Clinton also issued Presidential Directive Number 63, regarding Critical Infrastructure Protection, and while not using the term homeland security, discussed what could be considered the preliminary plans for a Department of Homeland Security.
In 1999, a number of interested government agencies, including defense, justice, and energy, along with the Director of FEMA, entered into a contract with the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute to establish a federally funded advisory panel. It was officially known as the U.S. Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Informally it was known as the Gilmore Commission, named for its chair, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore. In the Advisory Panel’s first official report, published December 15, 1999, it speaks of “federal funding for domestic preparedness and homeland defense programs.”17
Another commission formed the year before was the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, also known as the Hart–Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security, which was developed at the request of Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The goal of the task force was to assess the emerging international security environment and to develop possible responses. In one document, released on February 15, 2001, the task force noted that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern,” and that “it recommends a new National Homeland Security Agency to consolidate and refine the missions of the nearly two dozen disparate departments and agencies that have a role in U.S. homeland security today.”18 The task force’s recommendations actually found their way into a bill, House Resolution 1158 in the 107th Congress, titled the National Homeland Security Agency Act.19 The bill was introduced into the House on March 21, 2001 and was referred to committee, where it subsequently died.
In this case, the term homeland security developed not so much as a bureaucratic response to attacks or disasters, but rather bureaucratic policy development within the federal government focused on changing the bureaucracy to meet future attacks. In this case, it is clear the concept of homeland security was being circulated among policy experts concerned with the issue of terrorism and they had developed a plan for evolving the bureaucratic response to future attacks. The only problem was that while the policy experts had identified a legitimate problem (international terrorism attacks on the U.S.) and they created a possible plan for better dealing with this problem (the creation of the National Homeland Security Agency), they were missing serious public concern in order to galvanize the issue to force passage through Congress. That would not come until the events of September 11, 2001.
Courtesy of Donna Burton, Defense Information Systems Agency.
In this historical sense, the development of homeland security, and hence its definition, was placed in the hands of the federal policy makers, developing plans based on perceived problems, rather than as merely a reaction to them.
Definition by Homeland Security Strategic Documents Reese has explained that homeland security has been defined in several strategic documents post 9-11.20 The first homeland security strategy document issued by the Bush Administration was the 2003 National Strategy for Homeland Security, which was revised in 2007. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued
Strategic Plan—One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland. The 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security primarily focused on terrorism, whereas the 2008 Strategic Planincluded references to all-hazards and border security. Arguably, the 2003 and 2007 National Strategies for Homeland Security specifically addressed terrorism, due to such incidents as the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the attempted bombing of American Airlines Flight 93, by Richard Reid, named the “Shoe Bomber” for disguising the bomb within his shoe (see Box 2.2). In contrast, the 2008 Strategic Plan addressed terrorism and all-hazards due to natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. These documents were superseded by several documents, which are now considered the principal homeland security strategies.
Today, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security have advanced the homeland security strategies in the 2010 National Security Strategy, which addresses all-hazards and is not primarily terrorism focused. DHS’s strategic documents are the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the 2010 Bottom-Up Review, and the 2012 Strategic Plan. DHS states that these documents are nested in the 2010 National Security Strategy. At the national level, the 2010 National Security Strategy guides not just DHS’s homeland security activities, but it also guides the homeland security missions of all federal government agencies.
BOX 2.2 Richard Reid—“The Shoe Bomber”
© ELISE AMENDOLA/AP Images.
Richard Reid, a British citizen and self-proclaimed follower of Osama bin Laden, boarded a plane in December of 2001, flying from Paris, France to Miami, Florida. While in flight across the Atlantic Ocean, Reid was seen by fellow passengers lighting matches and trying to touch them to his shoe. He was subdued by a combination of passengers and flight attendants and, after an emergency landing in Boston, turned over to the FBI. Reid was found to have had enough explosives in his shoe to damage the plane, but he could not get the fuse to light. Reid was dubbed the “Shoe Bomber” by the media and was eventually tried and found guilty of terrorism charges. He is serving a term of life in prison.
Reproduced from: Carafano, James Jay. (2007). “U.S. Thwarts 19 Terrorists Attacks Against America Since 9/11.” Backgrounder. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
TABLE 2.1 provides a summary of the various homeland security definitions along with the specific documents they originated from. Some of the common themes that can be found among these definitions include: 1) the homeland security enterprise (see Box 2.3), encompasses a federal, state, local, and tribal government and private sector approach that requires coordination; 2) homeland security can involve securing against and responding to both hazard-specific and all-hazards threats, and: 3) homeland security activities do not imply total protection or complete threat reduction. Each of these documents highlights the importance of coordinating homeland security missions and activities. However, individual federal, state, local, and tribal government efforts are not identified in the documents. Homeland security, according to these documents, is preventing, responding to, and recovering from natural and man-made disasters, especially terrorist attacks, which is consistent with evolving homeland security policy after 9-11.
KEY TERMS
Homeland security enterprise—the collective efforts and shared responsibilities of federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners—as well as individuals, families, and communities—to maintain critical homeland security capabilities.
TABLE 2.1 Summary of Homeland Security Definitions
Document Definition
2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security (White House)
A concerted, national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recovery from attacks that do occur.
2008 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2008–2013 (DHS)
A unified, national effort to prevent and deter terrorist attacks, protect and respond to hazards, and to secure the national borders.
2010 National Security Strategy (White House)
A seamless coordination among federal, state, and local governments to prevent, protect against, and respond to threats and natural disasters.
2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (DHS)
A concerted, national effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and ways of life can thrive.
2010 Bottom-Up Review (DHS) Preventing terrorism, responding to and recovering from natural disasters, customs enforcement and collection of customs revenue, administration of legal immigration services, safety and stewardship of the nation’s waterways and marine transportation system, as well as other legacy missions of the various components of DHS.
2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism (White House)
Defensive efforts to counter terrorist threats.
2012 Strategic Plan (DHS) Efforts to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.
Reproduced from: Reese, Shawn. (2012). “Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations.” Congressional Research Service. Retrieved online at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42462.pdf
BOX 2.3 The Homeland Security “Enterprise”
The homeland security “enterprise” refers to the collective efforts and shared responsibilities of federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners—as well as individuals, families, and communities—to maintain critical homeland security capabilities. It connotes a broad-based community with a common interest in the safety and well-being of America and American society.
Reproduced from: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2010). Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, p. 12.
The focus of the definition of homeland security communicated in these strategy documents differs in two areas that may be considered substantive. Natural disasters are specifically identified as an integral part of homeland security in only four of these six documents, but are not mentioned in the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Securityand the 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism.21 Only one document—the Bottom-Up Review—specifically includes border and maritime security and immigration in its homeland security definition.22 The 2012 Strategic Plan uses the encompassing terms “other hazards” to define any threat other than terrorism.23 These “other hazards” are obviously significant and require substantial funding. An absence of consensus about the inclusion of these policy areas may result in unintended consequences for national homeland security operations. For example, not including maritime security in the homeland security definition may result in policymakers, Congress, and stakeholders inadequately addressing maritime homeland security threats, or, more specifically, being unable to prioritize federal investments in border versus intelligence activities.24
The varied and sometimes competing definitions in these documents indicates that there is no generally accepted and succinct homeland security concept.25 Without a definitive homeland security concept, policymakers and others with homeland security responsibilities may not successfully coordinate activities well or focus on the most necessary activities. Coordination is especially essential to homeland security because of the multiple federal agencies and the state and local partners with whom they interact. Coordination may be difficult if these entities do not operate with the same understanding or set of priorities. For example, definitions that do not specifically include immigration or natural disaster response and recovery may result in homeland security stakeholders and federal entities not adequately resourcing and focusing on these activities. Additionally, an absence of a consensus definition may result in Congress funding a homeland security activity that DHS does not consider a priority. For example, Congress may appropriate funding for a counterterrorism program such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program when DHS may have identified an all-hazards grant program, such as the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, as a priority. It is, however, possible that a consensus definition and overall concept exists among policymakers and federal entities, but that it isn’t communicated in the strategic documents.
KEY TERMS
Homeland security concepts—fundamental aspects of homeland security that are common to all responses whether they are natural disasters or terrorist attacks, such as preparedness.
Finally, former DHS Deputy Secretary Jane Lute recently stated that homeland security “… is operation, it’s transactional, it’s decentralized, it’s bottom-driven,” and influenced by law enforcement, emergency management, and the political environment. Conversely, Lute stated that national security “… is strategic, it’s centralized, it’s top-driven,” and influenced by the military and the intelligence community.26 Some see in these
comments an attempt by DHS to establish a homeland security definition that is more operational than strategic. If nothing else, these comments serve as a fine illustration of the difficulty of reaching a common understanding of homeland security and its associated missions.27
Definition by Homeland Security Mission and Goals Another means by which to assess a common definition of homeland security is through the mission and goals of homeland security as articulated by the many sources detailed previously. These varied homeland security definitions, in numerous documents, result in the homeland security stakeholders identifying and executing varied strategic missions.28 Homeland security stakeholders include federal departments and agencies, state and local governments, and nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. The strategic documents specifically identify numerous homeland security missions such as terrorism prevention; response and recovery; critical infrastructure protection and resilience; federal, state, and local emergency management and preparedness; and border security. As noted earlier, none of these documents specifically task one federal entity with the overall homeland security responsibilities. TABLE 2.2 details the various missions and goals that have been articulated by these government documents.
The federal documents all identify specific missions as essential to securing the nation. All of the documents state that the nation’s populace, critical infrastructure, and key resources need protection from terrorism and natural disasters. Protection from both terrorism and natural disasters is a key strategic homeland security mission. Some, but not all, of the documents include missions related to border security, immigration, the economy, and general resilience. Members of Congress and congressional committees have sometimes criticized these documents.29
KEY TERMS
Homeland security mission—those key items that must be achieved in order for the homeland to be secure and the homeland security strategy implemented.
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), at the time a ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, expressed disappointment in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and Bottom-Up Review because they did not communicate priorities and stated that they did not compare favorably to the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review.30 According to Collins, the Quadrennial Defense Reviewidentifies national security and U.S. military priorities through a process “… from objectives to capabilities and activities to resources.”31 Furthermore, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review missions are different from the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security missions, and neither identifies priorities or resources for DHS or other related federal agencies. Since the National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review missions are differing and varied, and because the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review does not specifically identify a strategic process to achieve its mission, one may assume that these documents serve solely as operational guidance (see Box 2.4). Additionally, some critics found the Bottom-Up Review lacking in detail and failing to meet its intended purpose.32
Courtesy of the DHS.
TABLE 2.2 Summary of Homeland Security Missions and Goals
Document Mission and Goals
2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security (White House) • Prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks
• Protect the American people, critical infrastructure, and key resources
• Respond to and recover from incidents that do occur
• Strengthen the foundation to ensure long term success
2008 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2008–2013 (DHS)
• Protect the nation from dangerous people
• Protect the nation from dangerous goods
• Protect critical infrastructure
• Strengthen the nation’s preparedness and emergency response capabilities
• Strengthen and unify the department’s operations and management
2010 National Security Strategy (White House)
• Strengthen national capacity
• Ensure security and prosperity at home
• Secure cyberspace
• Ensure American economic prosperity
2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (DHS)
• Prevent terrorism and enhance security
• Secure and manage our borders
• Enforce and administer our immigration laws
• Safeguard and secure cyberspace
• Ensure resilience to disasters
• Provide essential support to national and economic security.
2010 Bottom-Up Review (DHS) • Prevent terrorism and enhance security
• Secure and manage borders
• Enforce and manage immigration laws
• Safeguard and secure cyberspace
• Ensure resilience to disasters
• Improve departmental management and accountability
2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism (White House)
• Protect the American people, homeland, and American interests
• Eliminate threats to the American people’s, homeland’s, and interests’ physical safety
• Counter threats to global peace and security
• Promote and protect U.S. interests around the globe
2012 Strategic Plan (DHS) • Prevent terrorism and enhance security
• Secure and manage our borders
• Enforce and administer our immigration laws
• Safeguard and secure cyberspace
• Ensure resilience to disasters
• Provide essential support to national and economic security
BOX 2.4 The 5 Core Missions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Their Goals
Core Mission #1—Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security
Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks: Malicious actors are unable to conduct terrorist attacks within the United States.
Objectives:
• Understand the threat: Acquire, analyze, and appropriately share intelligence and other information on current and emerging threats.
• Deter and disrupt operations: Deter, detect, and disrupt surveillance, rehearsals, and execution of operations by terrorists and other malicious actors.
• Protect against terrorist capabilities: Protect potential targets against the capabilities of terrorists, malicious actors, and their support networks to plan and conduct operations.
• Stop the spread of violent extremism: Prevent and deter violent extremism and radicalization that contributes to it.
• Engage communities: Increase community participation in efforts to deter terrorists and other malicious actors and mitigate radicalization toward violence.
Goal 1.2: Prevent the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Materials and Capabilities: Malicious actors, including terrorists, are unable to acquire or move dangerous chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials or capabilities within the United States.
Objectives:
• Anticipate emerging threats: Identify and understand potentially dangerous actors, technologies, and materials.
• Control access to CBRN: Prevent terrorists and other malicious actors from gaining access to dangerous materials and technologies.
• Control movement of CBRN: Prevent the illicit movement of dangerous materials and/or technologies.
• Protect against hostile use of CBRN: Identify the presence of and effectively locate, disable, or prevent the hostile use of CBRN.
Goal 1.3: Manage Risks to Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and Events: Key sectors actively work to reduce vulnerability to attack or disruption.
Objectives:
• Understand and prioritize risks to critical infrastructure: Identify, attribute, and evaluate the most dangerous threats to critical infrastructure and those categories of critical infrastructure most at risk.
• Protect critical infrastructure: Prevent high-consequence events by securing critical infrastructure assets, systems, networks, or functions—including linkages through cyberspace—from attacks or disruption.
• Make critical infrastructure resilient: Enhance the ability of critical infrastructure systems, networks, and functions to withstand and rapidly recover from damage and disruption and adapt to changing conditions.
• Protect government leaders, facilities, and special events. Preserve continuity of government and ensure security at events of national significance.
Core Mission #2—Securing and Managing Our Borders
Goal 2.1: Effectively Control U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders: Prevent the illegal flow of people and goods across U.S. air, land, and sea borders while expediting the safe flow of lawful travel and commerce.
Objectives:
• Prevent illegal entry: Prevent the illegal entry of people, weapons, dangerous goods, and contraband, and protect against cross-border threats to health, food, environment, and agriculture, while facilitating the safe flow of lawful travel and commerce.
• Prevent illegal export and exit: Prevent the illegal export of weapons, proceeds of crime, and other dangerous goods, and the exit of malicious actors.
Goal 2.2: Safeguard Lawful Trade and Travel: Ensure security and resilience of global movement systems.
Objectives:
• Secure key nodes: Promote the security and resilience of key nodes of transaction and exchange within the global supply chain.
• Secure conveyances: Promote the safety, security, and resilience of conveyances in the key global trading and transportation networks.
• Manage the risk posed by people and goods in transit.
Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations: Disrupt and dismantle transnational organizations that engage in smuggling and trafficking across the U.S. border.
Objectives:
• Identify, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal and terrorist organizations: Disrupt transnational criminal or terrorist organizations involved in cross-border smuggling, trafficking, or other cross-border crimes, dismantle their infrastructure, and apprehend their leaders.
• Disrupt illicit pathways: Identify, disrupt, and dismantle illicit pathways used by transnational criminal and terrorist organizations.
Core Mission #3—Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws
Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System: Promote lawful immigration, expedite administration of immigration services, and promote the integration of lawful immigrants into American society.
Objectives:
• Promote lawful immigration: Clearly communicate to the public information on immigration services and procedures.
• Effectively administer the immigrations services system: Create a user-friendly system that ensures fair, consistent, and prompt decisions.
• Promote the integration of lawful immigrants into American society: Provide leadership, support, and opportunities to immigrants to facilitate their integration into American society and foster community cohesion.
Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration: Reduce conditions that encourage foreign nationals to illegally enter and remain in the United States, while identifying and removing those who violate our laws.
Objectives:
• Reduce demand: Eliminate the conditions that encourage illegal employment.
• Eliminate systemic vulnerabilities: Prevent fraud, abuse, and exploitation, and eliminate other systemic vulnerabilities that threaten the integrity of the immigration system.
• Prevent entry or admission: Prevent entry or admission of criminals, fugitives, other dangerous foreign nationals, and other unauthorized entrants.
• Arrest, detain, prosecute, and remove: Arrest, detain, prosecute, and remove criminal, fugitive, dangerous, and other unauthorized foreign nationals consistent with due process and civil rights protections.
Core Mission #4—Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace
Goal 4.1: Create a Safe, Secure, and Resilient Cyber Environment: Ensure malicious actors are unable to effectively exploit cyberspace, impair its safe and secure use, or attack the Nation’s information infrastructure.
Objectives:
• Understand and prioritize cyber threats: Identify and evaluate the most dangerous threats to Federal civilian and private-sector networks and the Nation.
• Manage risks to cyberspace: Protect and make resilient information systems, networks, and personal and sensitive data.
• Prevent cyber crime and other malicious uses of cyberspace: Disrupt the criminal organizations and other malicious actors engaged in high-consequence or wide-scale cyber crime.
• Develop a robust public-private cyber incident response capability: Manage cyber incidents from identification to resolution in a rapid and replicable manner with prompt and appropriate action.
Goal 4.2: Promote Cybersecurity Knowledge and Innovation: Ensure that the Nation is prepared for the cyber threats and challenges of tomorrow.
Objectives:
• Enhance public awareness: Ensure that the public recognizes cybersecurity challenges and is empowered to address them.
• Foster a dynamic workforce: Develop the national knowledge base and human capital capabilities to enable success against current and future threats.
• Invest in innovative technologies, techniques, and procedures: Create and enhance science, technology, governance mechanisms, and other elements necessary to sustain a safe, secure, and resilient cyber environment.
Core Mission #5—Ensuring Resilience to Disasters
Goal 5.1: Mitigate Hazards: Strengthen capacity at all levels of society to withstand threats and hazards.
Objectives:
• Reduce the vulnerability of individuals and families: Improve individual and family capacity to reduce vulnerabilities and withstand disasters.
• Mitigate risks to communities: Improve community capacity to withstand disasters by mitigating known and anticipated hazards.
Goal 5.2: Enhance Preparedness: Engage all levels and segments of society in improving preparedness.
Objectives:
• Improve individual, family, and community preparedness: Ensure individual, family, and community planning, readiness, and capacity-building for disasters.
• Strengthen capabilities: Enhance and sustain nation-wide disaster preparedness capabilities, to include life safety, law enforcement, information sharing, mass evacuation and shelter-in-place, public health, mass care, and public works.
Goal 5.3: Ensure Effective Emergency Response: Strengthen response capacity nationwide.
Objectives:
• Provide timely and accurate information to the public: Establish and strengthen pathways for clear, reliable, and current emergency information, including effective use of new media.
• Conduct effective disaster response operations:
Respond to disasters in an effective and unified manner.
• Provide timely and appropriate disaster assistance: Improve governmental, nongovernmental, and private-sector delivery of disaster assistance.
Goal 5.4: Rapidly Recover: Improve the Nation’s ability to adapt and rapidly recover.
Objectives:
• Enhance recovery capabilities: Establish and maintain nationwide capabilities for recovery from major disasters.
• Ensure continuity of essential services and functions: Improve capabilities of families, communities, private-sector organizations, and all levels of government to sustain essential services and functions.
Reproduced from: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2010). Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Further congressional criticism includes an observation of the absence of a single DHS strategy. At a recent House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management hearing, Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) stated that “… DHS needs a single strategic document, which subordinate agencies can follow and make sure the strategy is effectively and efficiently implemented. This single document should conform to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. If the agencies do not have clearly established list of priorities, it will be difficult to complete assigned missions.”33
Other criticism includes the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) discussion of the 2010 National Security Strategy (NSS). CFR states that the “… one thing that the NSS discussion of resilience omits, but which the Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan has emphasized, is that despite all the homeland security precautions, there is likely to be a successful attack. When that happens, real resilience will entail a calm, deliberate response and confidence in the durability of the country’s institutions.”34 In summary, as Reese has noted, “Multiple definitions, missions, and an absence of prioritization results in consequences to the nation’s security.”35
Definition by Homeland Security Areas of Emphasis One further means of coming to a consensus on a definition of homeland security has been articulated by Naval Postgraduate School Instructor Christopher Bellavita.36 He advances the idea that rather than focusing on historical evolution, government definitions, or homeland security missions, the best way to define homeland security is by focusing on various areas of emphasis in homeland security. He argues there are essentially seven areas of focus: 1) Terrorism, 2) All Hazards, 3) Terrorism and Catastrophes, 4) Jurisdictional Hazards, 5) Meta Hazards, 6) National Security, and 7) Security Über Alles.37
KEY TERMS
Homeland security areas of emphasis—various ways of perceiving homeland security as detailed by Homeland Security expert Christopher Bellavita.
In the first instance, homeland security is about terrorism, hence it is focused on the prevention of, response to, and recovery from future terrorist attacks.38 Terrorism, in this case, is both foreign and domestic, and the mechanisms to deal with terrorism are located at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels of government, while also including the private sector. The focus on homeland security in this regard is aimed at mitigating the impact these attacks may have on the United States.
In the second area of focus, homeland security is about all hazards; thus, it is not limited solely to terroristic attacks, but encompasses terrorism, natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, and other issues such as border security, illegal immigration, and cyber attacks. It is a concerted effort by national, state, local, and tribal agencies to prevent and disrupt terrorism, protect against man-made and natural disasters, and respond to and recover from such incidents.
The third area of Terrorism and Catastrophes appears to be little different from either the first or the second. Bellavita argues here that the Department of Homeland Security often details homeland security as either including both terrorism and natural disasters, and sometimes just terrorism. In this case it is not just a focus on terrorism (as in area one), or on everything, but whatever the Department of Homeland Security sets as a priority, which state, local, and tribal governments tend to follow. Therefore, the focus is on what DHS sets as a priority and the other agencies then follow to prepare for, respond to, and recover from either a terrorist attack or a catastrophe.
The fourth area of focus, according to Bellavita, is Jurisdictional Hazards. In this case, the concept of homeland security is really contingent upon the jurisdiction one is talking about and the specific hazards they may face. Washington, D.C. and New York City both face unique challenges because of their size and importance to the nation; San Diego, and El Paso face different issues in that they are border cities; Houston and Boston face unique challenges as major port cities; while New Orleans and Miami face the threat of hurricanes. In other words, homeland security means different things to different people based upon the environment in which they live, and what is most likely to threaten the safety and security of the local citizens.
The fifth area, Meta Hazards, takes on a much larger focus. Moving beyond terrorism and natural disasters, or even such terror threats as cyber attacks, meta hazards begin to look at threats they may affect any aspect of the American way of life. In this case, things such as the growing federal debt, global warming, or America’s dependence on foreign oil, may be cause for future threats to the United States, and thus warrant a broad homeland security response.
The sixth area sounds more confined, National Security, as when government efforts to define homeland security are solely focused on threats to our national security. The goal here is to use the instruments of national power to protect the sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical infrastructure of the United States against threats and aggression. In many ways, this area of focus is rooted in the development of our 20th century national security apparatus, and homeland security is the evolution from earlier concepts of civil defense, as discussed elsewhere in this text.
The last area, according to Bellavita, is what he calls Security Über Alles, which translates from German as being “security above all.” In other words, homeland security is about protecting the United States, no matter what, even if it means curtailing American civil liberties, taking away personal freedoms, and to defer to government to have the best interest of American citizens in mind. This concept of homeland security emphasizes process over outcomes.
In the end, when asking the larger question, “What is homeland security?” Bellavita avoids answering the question, because depending upon the emphasis of the seven areas he details, one would end up with various definitions. Still further, it matters whether one is trying to develop a pragmatic and usable definition, an objective reality definition, or simply a coherent definition, all of which further exacerbates reaching a commonly shared definition of homeland security.
Whither a Definition?
Policymakers are faced with an extremely complex list of potential threats to security, for which they then attempt to plan. However, failure to anticipate and respond to just one of those threats may lead to significant human and financial costs.39 Homeland security is essentially about managing risks.40 The purpose of a strategic process is to develop missions to achieve that end. Before risk management can be accurate and
effective, policymakers must coordinate and communicate. That work depends to some degree on developing a foundation of common definitions of key terms and concepts in order to ensure stakeholders are aware of, trained for, and prepared to meet assigned missions. At the national level, there does not appear to be an attempt to align definitions and missions among disparate federal entities. DHS is, however, attempting to align its definitions and missions, but does not prioritize its missions. Because of this, funding may drive priorities rather than priorities driving the funding.
DHS is aligning its definitions and missions in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the Bottom-Up Review, and the 2012 Strategic Plan; however, DHS does not prioritize the missions. DHS prioritizes specific goals, objectives, activities, and specific initiatives within the missions, and prioritizes initiatives across the missions. However, there still exists no single national homeland security definition, nor is there a prioritization of national homeland security or DHS missions.
There is no evidence in the existing homeland security strategic documents that supports the alignment and prioritization of the varied missions, nor do any of the documents convey how national, state, or local resources are to be allocated to achieve these missions. Without prioritized resource allocation to align missions, proponents of prioritization of the nation’s homeland security activities and operations maintain that plans and responses may be haphazard and inconsistent.
Congress may decide to address the issues associated with homeland security strategy, definitions, and missions, in light of the potential for more significant events to occur similar to the 9-11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. Many observers assert that these outstanding policy issues result from the varied definitions and missions identified in numerous national strategic documents. Additionally, they note that these documents do not consistently address risk mitigation associated with the full range of homeland security threats. From this perspective, one piece missing from these documents is a discussion of the resources and fiscal costs associated with preparing for low risk, but high-consequence, threats.
KEY TERMS
Homeland security strategy—the overarching plan for dealing with all hazards that focuses on shared goals and responsibilities for protecting and defending the homeland.
Specifically, Congress may choose to consider a number of options to address the apparent lack of a consensus regarding definitions, missions, and priorities by requiring the development of a clearer and more comprehensive national homeland security strategy. One of these options might be a total rewrite of the national homeland security strategy. This option would be similar to the Bush Administration’s issuance of national homeland security strategies in 2002 and 2007. Such a strategy could include a definitive listing of mission priorities based on an encompassing definition that not only includes DHS specific responsibilities, but all federal department and agency responsibilities. A strategy that includes priorities could improve Congress’s and other policymakers’ ability to make choices between competing homeland security missions. This option would also be a departure from the current administration’s practice of including national homeland security guidance in the National Security Strategy.
Another option would be to build upon the current approach by requiring the administration to develop the National Security Strategy that succinctly identifies homeland security missions and priorities. Alternatively, Congress may determine that the present course of including national homeland security guidance in the National Security Strategy is adequate, and may focus strictly on DHS activities. This option would entail DHS further refining its Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and the 2012 Strategic Plan.
It has been argued that homeland security, at its core, is about coordination because of the disparate stakeholders and risks.41 Many observers assert that homeland security is not only about coordination of resources and actions to counter risks; it is also about the coordination of the strategic process policymakers use in determining the risks, the stakeholders and their missions, and the prioritization of those missions.
Without a general consensus on the physical and philosophical definition and missions of homeland security, achieved through a strategic process, some believe there will continue to be disjointed and disparate approaches to securing the nation. From this perspective, general consensus on the homeland security
concept necessarily starts with a consensus definition and an accepted list of prioritized missions that are constantly reevaluated to meet the many risks of the new paradigm that is homeland security in the 21st century.
Chapter Summary
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the term “Homeland Security” entered America’s lexicon. While the Office of Homeland Security stood up and was later replaced by the Department of Homeland Security, those working in the field, at all levels of government and academia, have attempted to create an acceptable definition of what homeland security encompasses. The desire is to avoid the “all things to all people” problem and to reach a shared, unified definition. However, definitions have greatly varied for a number of reasons. The first set of definitions appear to have developed based on the bureaucratic structure moving from civil defense in the early 20th century to emergency management in the late 20th century. This was then further refined in the wake of 9-11. Another set of definitions is related more directly to how quickly the homeland security response occurred after 9-11 and are rooted in the contemporary post-9-11 responses. Yet another set of definitions draws upon strategic documents, some on the missions and goals of homeland security, while still others emphasize specific areas of focus or attention. In all, while there does not yet appear yet to be a consensus on the definition, there are common themes that appear throughout these varied definitions.
