Homeland security Forum Post (303W3)
dqbnez
hlss303l.docxWeek Three– The Six Strategic Challenges
Every four years, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required by law to issue a review to the United States Congress. This review is a self-appraisal by DHS on the progress of its efforts in addressing those issues that threaten the nation. The 2014 review is the second such appraisal presented to the Congress (the first produced in 2010). These quadrennial assessments provide excellent insight concerning the progress this Federal entity feels has been made (or lack thereof) regarding our nation’s overall homeland security efforts. Of course, the underlying, determining factor regarding these reviews are the underlying threats and hazards that DHS believes the nation currently faces, as well as those that might present themselves in the near term. This week, we will be looking at the six challenges that DHS believes will determine the greatest risk factors to the nation over the next few years. Before delving into the specifics of this topic, it would be beneficial to first examine the current missions that have been established by Department of Homeland Security. These areas of focus determine how DHS, as an agency of the federal government, views risk. As listed in this Review these five basic homeland security missions are:
· The prevention of terrorism and the enhance of security
· The securing and managing of the nation’s borders
· The enforcement and administration of the nation’s immigration laws
· Safeguarding and securing cyberspace
· Strengthening national preparedness and resilience (2014, p. 6-8)
As has been stressed a number of times thus far, our nation’s homeland security efforts require more than just the federal government can offer, but state and local governments have their roles, as does the private sector and the public at large. Granted, DHS has a uniquely federal and national view. From this position, DHS is charged with unique responsibilities, has assets available at its disposal not commonly available to other levels of government. However, DHS has the latitude to use some of these assets to assist other levels of government as well. In addition, DHS engages in threat and hazard assessments dealing with the entirety of national interests. While these interests bear directly upon all American communities, each locale will have its own, more narrowed view and perspective regarding those issues of immediate concern. Conversely, as would be expected (and justifiably so), they are less concerned about others.
In addition to the five missions noted earlier, the department has identified six “prevailing challenges that pose the most strategically significant risk” (DHS, 2014, p. 28). In studying these challenges, one can easily see a direct correlation between them and these missions. So as we contemplate these challenges in this week’s discussion and written assignments, remember to consider them from the perspective of the entire homeland security enterprise. How do the risks manifest themselves at different levels of government? How will different levels of government prioritize them? Lastly, how will they be perceived by the private sector, and what can the private sector do, or is willing to do, to contribute to meeting these daunting tasks?
The six strategic challenges as seen by the Department of Homeland Security (2014) are
· Terrorism
· Cyber terrorism
· Nuclear terrorism
· Biological concerns
· Transnational criminal organizations
· Natural hazards
Note that terrorism, based upon its multi-faceted nature, is a major concern for DHS and resides on this list in various forms and applications. Yet, concerning all of these issues, it is imperative to understand that homeland security is not about ensuring absolute security against all threats. Attempting to enact and enforce this sort of security is simply not feasible; based upon personnel, finances, and other limited resources. In addition, a host of other issues, such as those related to constitutional civil liberties and privacy, have an impact upon our nation’s ability to initiate and carry out actions that might be needed to address these challenges as well. Instead, homeland security is about risk management; identifying those threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the nation, vulnerability, consequences, and the identification and initiation of those actions that seek to prevent them from occurring or prudent measures regarding protection, mitigation, response and recovery (DHS, 2013). Therefore, to gain a fuller understanding of the application of these activities, it is imperative that a closer look be taken regarding these identified challenges.
Terrorism
At the upper most level, this threat can only be addressed in an effective manner by employing a partnership of various Federal entities that each has their own areas of expertise and specialized resources to bring to bear upon this primary challenge is relates to homeland security. Whether it is DHS, the Departments of Defense and Justice, or a myriad of others, their unique capabilities in regards to intelligence, defense, and a host of other areas of expertise must be utilized in a coordinated manner. Obviously, The Federal government is in a distinct position to prevent acts of terrorism from taking place within the United States, where government at the state and local levels has decreased assets and the legal tools that might be needed to carry out such preventive measures. Yet, this in no way decreases the tremendous impact, and level of responsibility that these lower levels of government possess. In fact, they are expected to implement whatever capabilities they have to not only identify potential acts of terrorism, but to take appropriate actions to prevent them from taking place; implementing them in an acceptable and expected manner. Given this difference in assets, legal tools, and responsibilities, it seems logical that these various levels of government will look at the threat of terrorism in different ways in terms of prioritizing resources for prevention and mitigation efforts. This difference also carries over to the private sector, as these private corporations may participate in strategic level intelligence gathering measures. They may take part in partnering programs with federal agencies, such as we seen in the airline industry. At the local level, private businesses may be involved in formal awareness programs, such as the “If you see something, say something” campaign, where employees can be educated on how to identify and forward information related to suspicious behavior. Lastly, private sector organizations can be a tremendous aid in forwarding emergency responders and emergency management personnel while they seek to carry out their mitigation measures as well (DHS, 2014).
Cyber terrorism
Again, at the national level, the threat of cyber terrorism is engaged through a partnership of a number of federal agencies; and to some degree, private industry. The prevention of cyber terrorism is predominantly a federal level responsibility. Whether cyber terrorist acts are conducted by terrorist groups or by foreign governments, the mixture of possible actions are found within the spheres of diplomatic, military, intelligence, or economic legal purview of the federal government. Other types of response, such as when a cyber terrorist act interferes with transportation, energy, or others related our nation’s critical infrastructure are found largely within the sphere of local government and the private sector. Prevention in this area requires a strong and ongoing partnership between these homeland security practitioners. Obviously, the private sector’s interest in cyber terrorism is significant as many attacks would be against privately owned aspects of the nation’s infrastructure, or against a corporation itself (DHS, 2014). To address these issues a number of programs have been initiated such as “Stop. Think. Connect.” This and others offer some common-sense approaches to cyber security and provide various tools that can be implemented in a variety of settings. Considerations of probability and consequence may be couched in different terms at the local level. Hence, a detrimental occurrence impacting a specific segment of infrastructure can come from a number of causes, of which cyber terrorism is just one. Yet, based upon the interdependent and interrelated nature of these various sectors, the impact could be felt on both a local and remote basis.
Nuclear terrorism
The effort to prevent the entry of an illegal nuclear device, or legally prohibited components of such a device into the United States is primarily a federal responsibility. All communities, of course, bear responsibility for being attentive to those actions and activities that might be deemed as suspicious. However, such vigilance must be assertive and proactive; rather than in a more secondary, reactive sense. From a local perspective, this comes into play by detecting the movement and use of illegal materials after federal efforts to prevent their entry have failed. The occurrence of a nuclear attack would constitute such a catastrophic event that while initial first responder action would be local, it would quickly escalate to federal control of the overall incident. At the local level, unless a community is within close proximity to a nuclear power plant, nuclear terrorism is unlikely to figure prominently in its emergency operations or mitigation plans, but rather seen as a sub-component of acts of terrorism in general. Of course, there are some exceptions to this general rule. Cities with special strategic, political, economic, or symbolic values that make them more likely targets of terrorist attacks will assign greater degrees of risk to the threat of nuclear terrorism. As it relates to the private sector’s involvement in these situations, it is largely regulated in terms of possession, manufacturing, transport, sale, storage, etc. of related materials.
Biological concerns
Biological incidents may be naturally occurring, accidentally caused, or inspired and carried out through acts of terrorism. Prevention and containment related strategies are prominent at the federal level, and are seen in many states as well. A pandemic is considered to be a low level risk in most local communities; while viewed a higher risk in larger municipalities. Animal and plant-related diseases and their ability to spread are increased due to both the accessibility of crops and animals on farm lands, as well as the ever-increasing movement of these animals and associated products on both the domestic and international fronts. As it relates to the threat of extremists and terrorists focusing their attention towards our nation’s food supply and employing biological agents, this is something that has not gone unnoticed, as it has been recognized that there exists “great potential to cause costly economic losses in the supply chain for implicated foodstuffs, create public panic, and lead to a public health crisis with considerable mortality and morbidity (DHS, 2015, p. 5). So obviously, this overall issue represents a major concern for the United States.
Transnational criminal organizations
Many local communities have a particular interest in these organizations; based upon their location, demographics, history, and other factors. However, actions related to this challenge for most local communities will be realized via participation in state and/or urban area fusion centers. As would be expected, larger cities will generally have an increased interest, and may be manifested in specialized law enforcement divisions used to detect and combat such organizations. Some states will have similar interests and take related actions. Unlike many of the other strategic challenges examined so far in this lesson, this one has more of a joint (federal, state and local) appearance to it in terms of protection and law enforcement response (DHS, 2014).
Natural hazards
This strategic challenge certainly has a federal component to it; which is directly proportional to the magnitude of the event. But by in large, it is largely a local responsibility. Preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural disasters is accomplished most often at these levels through join efforts of government, emergency responders, non-government organizations, and ordinary citizens. As these disasters exceed the scope and capability of local assets, requesting state and/or federal assistance will be expected. Yet even here, the response will generally (not always) remain locally controlled, and long term recovery will be largely a local effort as well. For the most part, when there is federal involvement, it is either policy, training or financially driven, and rendered in the mitigation and recovery phases (DHS, 2008). Federal involvement also comes in some structurally related measures such as dams, management of waterways, and some other critical infrastructure related management.
Based upon what seems to be ever-increasing incidents of large-scale natural hazards, this challenge is most definitely a national level risk. This is due to their high probability of impacting any region across the country, the severe consequences of many of these events, their cumulative effects and consequences, or a combination of all of them. Local communities, of course, will analyze and rank risks specific to their own unique situations. By acknowledging the local nature of natural disasters, the federal government has purposely taken a mentorship/guiding and support role to state and local levels of government. It is a leadership role as well, but a significantly one than what it takes for other strategic challenges, such as terrorism (DHS, 2008).
The private sector’s involvement and interest in this particular challenge is significant and almost too varied to adequately describe ere. Since the private sector makes up much of our local community’s employment and has a direct impact upon overall economic viability, as well as the goods and services that all aspects of society depend upon, much is expected from it. At the very least, private sector organizations must develop basic emergency planning procedures as they relate to their employees, facilities, and operations. Yet, it is hoped that robust, business continuity planning efforts are carried out to ensure that their essential services will be maintained in the midst of a critical incident. To that end, a number of programs have been initiated to serve as aids for the private sector. One is the Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program (PS-PREP), a voluntary program that seeks to aid organizations in becoming more resilient. Another is Ready Business , which is a sub-component of DHS’s overall Ready campaign. It should be noted however that with the exception of certain sectors, such as the healthcare industry, there are no laws requiring businesses to engage in such planning. When such planning does take place, it is not regulated, though there are some private industry standards and federal guidelines. Therefore, it is imperative that government works hand-in-hand with its private sector counterparts in carrying out these planning initiatives.
In conclusion, it is worth repeating that when considering the six strategic challenges DHS has identified, a broad-based perspective must be taken concerning how they must be addressed. Remember what we have learned in our previous lessons; our national homeland security system as a whole is based upon the whole community concept. To look at homeland security or to look at these six challenges from only the perspective of the federal government would hinder us from acquiring a full understanding of the risks facing our nation.
References
Department of Homeland Security (2008). National incident management system. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Department of Homeland Security (2013). National infrastructure protection plan (NIPP), partnering for critical infrastructure security and resilience. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Department of Homeland Security (2015). Food and agriculture sector specific plan. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
