Help with writing assignment

HM501: Homeland Security, Policies, Principles, Procedures and Plans

Unit 1 DQ

Topic 1: Reflecting on the Reports and the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security

After reading these reports, are you surprised at the level of information that was known and the predicted threats? Within the context of these reports, what should the government have done differently to be prepared for the 9/11 attacks? And was the creation of DHS the right response to the 9/11 attacks and are they the correct response for the future?

Topic 1: Student Response #1 (Respond to the below Student with helpful comments)

Carly Adams

The amount of information known about the events that were going to unfold is not surprising. Nor am I surprised that the agencies did not share their information with other agencies. Information sharing is one of the major problems in the federal government. If the agencies had proper information sharing than the act could have been handled differently. Without information sharing things are missed, like all the red flags that were there before 9/11. If shared properly the flags could have been linked together. DHS was needed in a way. There needed to be a department that handled all the hazards that happen in the US. At the time DHS was created it was politically developed. If politics where taken away of the development it probably would have had a better start than everyone involved not knowing who was incharge.

Haddow, G. D., Bullock, J. A., & Coppola, D. P. (2021). Introduction to emergency management. (7th ed.). Elsevier.

Bullock. J. A., Haddow, G.D., & Coppola, D.P. (2018). Homeland Security: The Essentials. (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.

Topic 1: Student Response #2 (Respond to the below Student with helpful comments)

Scott McNutt

Hello Everyone, 

 

After reading the reports and digesting the information, it comes as no surprise to me that there was known information and predicted threats. The information and intelligence appeared to be present, but there was a significant lack of communication among agencies and levels of government. Over the years before 9/11, Islam extremists would make numerous threats and warnings about their intent to kill Americans and destroy the country. There were various measures that the government could have done differently to prepare for an event such as 9/11. One of the most apparent deficiencies was the lack of preparation—the 9/11 Commission. (2004) indicates that the United States Congress was slow and ill-prepared in addressing acts of terrorism leading up to 9/11. Another item that the government could have done differently had a more complex security system overseeing visas and passports to foreign citizens. Security concerns of a person before 9/11 were not a concern to the United States unless the individual was identified as someone on a watchlist. I believe the creation of the DHS was the proper response to the attacks on 9/11 and the correct answer for the future. It is unfortunate for an event like this to prompt action, but the DHS was needed to manage, prevent, and mitigate acts of terrorism properly. The creation also established a better communication system with various agencies and jurisdictions and improved interoperability. It was the correct response to the future to better prepare and equip the United States for any potential future events and to identify enemies and threats. 

 

References

 

Bullock, J., Haddow, G., & Coppola, D. P. (2018). Homeland security: The essentials 

 

Topic 2: Threats and Hazards

Threats, man-made hazards, and natural hazards are very different, yet DHS has authority to deal with all three of these. In what ways is it good for DHS to be dealing with “all-hazards/threats” and in what ways is this structure bad?

Topic 2: Student Response #1 (Respond to the below Student with helpful comments)

Carly Adams

Hazards can cause loss of life and property. DHS oversees all hazards. Having one department in charge of planning, mitigation, response, and recovery can cause more resources to be utilized. With one department they deal with all types of disasters all the time. This gives them the knowledge of what recourses are needed for which type of event. This also gives them knowledge on what works when and what does not. Limiting the people involved so they are all under one department can make it easier to share information and get things done. If multiple departments are involved the information sharing can become obscured. 

DHS should not oversee all the hazards can be a bad thing because when DHS was created under Bush it was politicized. DHS was not thought out strategically and thought about which agencies could actually apply valuable imput in the hazard process.

 

Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., & Coppola, D. P. (2018). Homeland Security: The Essentials. (2nd ed). Butterworth-Heinemann.

Topic 2: Student Response #2 (Respond to the below Student with helpful comments)

Josh Moskaitis

"In general, the all-hazards approach to emergency management is a highly effective one. It is cost-effective, provides an excellent framework for responding to disasters, is hands-on, and encourages cooperation between non-profits, businesses, communities, and various levels of government" (Gregory, 2015, para. 10). 

Using an all hazards approach can be helpful or harmful depending on the scenario. It can be cost effective because it splits the cost between all agencies involved. It also works to help consolidate resources from all responding agencies into a more singular plan, getting everyone on the same page and implementing a structured ICS chain of command. 

Some weaknesses however would be that you cannot always treat all hazards the same. Protecting against terrorism is different than protecting against natural disasters. We can look at it like predictable versus unpredictable. Plans cannot always be static, they have to be dynamic, meaning they can always change. 

It is easy to get tunnel vision when looking at an all hazards approach sometimes, but it can also be extremely beneficial. When it comes to span of control, this often gets overlooked. Delegation of responsibilities can mean the difference between successful completion of a task and a complete failure. Some incidents may require an IC to manage more than they are used to but that is where putting experienced people in charge makes the difference. 

Gregory, P. (2015, June 01). Reassessing the effectiveness of all-hazards planning in emergency management. Retrieved from  http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1050/2/reassessing-the-effectiveness-of-all-hazards-planning-in-emergency-management