Since September 11, 2001, the threat of terroristic attacks has caused many leaders at the local,
state, and federal levels of government to develop strategies for all phases of emergency
management regarding terrorism and other disasters.
Mitigation
The terrorist attacks from September 11, 2001, demonstrated the importance and need to perform
risk assessments on potential targets. Assessing terrorism targets are composed of three factors,
which are the targets threat, the targets vulnerability and the consequences of a successful attack
(Chatterjee & Abkowitz, 2011). The difficult task, at the federal level, is to determine what
targets are considered risks. In 2006, a list of over 77,000 targets were identified as potential
targets with an emphasis on local and regional targets (Chatterjee & Abkowitz, 2011). The list
drew criticism as to the number of targets on the list, as a result, the Department of Homeland
Security narrowed the list to 600 critical sites (Chatterjee & Abkowitz, 2011).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a guide for state and local
governments that provides a framework for coordinating terrorism management activities. The
guide was integrated with state and local agencies all hazard approach when dealing with
emergency management, the city of Seattle, for example, used a five-point scale as to determine
a targets threat probability (Chatterjee & Abkowitz, 2011).
In order to be effective, mitigation strategies need proper risk analysis prior to their
implementation (Thons & Stewart, 2019). For new construction of buildings and bridges,
counter-terrorism measures can be conducted during the design phase of construction, for an
example, a bridge or building could be designed to withstand an explosion (Thons & Stewart,
2019).
Preparedness
Many have argued that the preparedness phase is the most important phase in emergency
management. For this section of the discussion post, I will look at a cities responsibility for
preparedness regarding to a terror attack. Cities, townships, and other local municipalities are an
effective component to preparedness phase. They are the first responders who respond to an
attack, and they provide counter-terrorism information to the higher levels of emergency
management. Preparedness for a terrorist attack, at a basic level, is like that of any disaster. The
issue facing leader within local governments is the fact that terrorist attacks are intentional and
strategic, which could have a higher infrastructure and financial impacts (Gerber et al, 2005).
Being prepared for terrorist attacks involves a process of planning, training, and acquiring
resources needed to support actions needed in an emergency (Perry & Lindell, 2003). Having a
plan is important, but it does not make for an efficient response. Planning is an ongoing process,
which is constantly changing, therefore local governments should always conduct threat analysis
for potential targets, determining what resources are available, continuing reality-based training
since training is perishable, and coordinating with surrounding agencies to maintain preparedness
(Perry & Lindell, 2003).
Response
The response phase to a terrorist attack, is again like any natural disaster, the only difference is
that terrorist attacks are intentional and targeted. The response phase at any level require
collaboration between all levels of government. The federal level issues mandates and provides
funding, while state level can assist local governments implement the mandates, and provide the
framework for emergency management (Hu, et al, 2014). The local government facilitates
collaboration between other local agencies, coordinates with profit and not for profit
organizations, and allocates resources needed for the response and recovery efforts. (Hu, et al,
2014).
The Boston Marathon bombing provides a great example of local government’s response to a
terrorism attack. Agencies from across the region collaborated to build disaster response
networks, which allowed for effective communications during the response. The local
governments were prepared through strong planning, training and reaching out to the community
members to actively be involved in the response phase (Hu, et al, 2014).
A differing response from a terrorist attack, is the fact that it is a crime scene. Natural disasters
do not need evidence collection or witness statements to determine the cause. Local law
enforcement, with in reason, needs to be aware of potential pieces of evidence and observers
who can provide information prior to the attack.
Recovery
Successful Recovery efforts from a terrorist attack, due to the scale and nature of a specific
targets, involve the local government organizations providing resources to victims in order to
reduce vulnerability, restore basic services, such as health care facilities, education, and
transportation, and to re-establish social, political, and cultural institutions (Gotham &
Greenburg, 2008).
Prevention
Although there have been many terrorist attacks on the United States since September 11, 2001,
there have been many more potential attacks that have been prevented. In 2015, the Department
of Homeland Security provided seven capabilities of prevention, which include information
sharing, planning, interdiction, screening, forensics, public awareness and warning, and
operational coordination (Department of Homeland Security, 2015).
With strong prevention strategies, resources and efforts by local, state, and federal levels of
government can be significantly impacted.
Reference
Chatterjee, S., & Abkowitz, M. D. (2011, January 14). A Methodology for Modeling
Regional Terrorism Risk. Wiley Online Library.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01565.x?
casa_token=BvycZn3zjpcAAAAA%3AO-zAM_Og0plKd7OO0KeoWIYwH3MbHB2f7X4a-
Voz15cxEFZlN_0CUz6BTfcyV474QdyjcZwkqsNRZpnv.
DHS (Department of Homeland Security), 2015. National Preparedness Goal. Washington, DC:
U.S. Available at https://www.fema.gov/media‐library‐data/1443799615171‐
2aae90be55041740f97e8532fc680d40/National_Preparedness_Goal_2nd_Edition.pdf (accessed
date April 22, 2021).
Gotham, K. F., & Greenberg, M. (2008). From 9/11 to 8/29: Post-disaster recovery and
rebuilding in new york and new orleans. Social Forces, 87(2), 1039-1062.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0131
Hu, Q., Knox, C. C., & Kapucu, N. (2014). What have we learned since september 11, 2001? A
network study of the boston marathon bombings response. Public Administration Review, 74(6),
698-712. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12284
Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2003, December 12). Preparedness for Emergency Response:
Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process. Wiley Online Library.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2003.00237.x.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
