Homeland Security Affairs Journal, Volume VII - 2011, 10 Years After: The 9/11 Essays

Homeland Security Affairs is the peer-reviewed online journal of the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS), providing a forum to propose and debate strategies, policies, and organizational arrangements to strengthen U.S. homeland security. The instructors, participants, alumni, and partners of CHDS represent the leading subject matter experts and practitioners in the field of homeland security.10 Years After: the 9/11 Essays. Homeland Security Affairs (HSA) is pleased to present this special collection of essays in remembrance of the ten-year anniversary of September 11, 2001. We chose to honor those who lost their lives that tragic day, as well as those whose lives were forever impacted, by reflecting on the homeland security lessons and achievements since 9/11 and the challenges that lie ahead. Download the full issue. The emergence of homeland security forced the United States to revisit, over the past ten years, some of its founding principles and social values in order to address tough security questions. What are the federal government’s constitutional responsibilities (and limits) to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from events, versus those of state and local governments? What is the appropriate tradeoff between privacy, civil liberties, and security? In a free market economy, how do we engage businesses as active homeland security partners without heavily regulating industry? What are the definitions of war, a prisoner of war, enemy combatant, terrorist, and criminal and how do we bring these people to justice? What responsibilities do individual citizens have for their own safety and the security of their community? In the age of social networking, what is a community and what holds it together? In assembling these essays, HSA invited the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s three Secretaries — current Secretary Janet Napolitano and former Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff — to reflect on homeland security’s past and future. HSA also asked Department of Defense Assistant Secretary Paul Stockton (the founding Director of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security) to pen an essay from the homeland defense point of view. We are grateful that all four accepted our offer. In “Progress Toward a More Secure and Resilient Nation,” Secretary Napolitano states, “Our experience these past ten years also has made us smarter about the kind of threats we face, and how best to deal with them.” Her essay focuses on the strategy of local hometown security as a key to making our communities and the nation safer in the future. Napolitano argues that, “ … more and more often, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers — and their community partners — are best positioned to uncover the first signs of terrorist activity.” Secretary Ridge reminds us, in his essay “Never Any Doubt: A Resilient America,” of the dangers of complacency and that “ten years is enough time to know that in the next ten years, the fight will still be with us.” He also reminds us that as new threats surface, our tools, policies, and security strategies must continue to evolve. “Because after taking fifty years to win the Cold War, while we emerged as the lone superpower, we were also left with a stockpile of weapons, tactics, and diplomatic relationships that were of little utility in the new security environment.” In “9/11: Before & After,” Secretary Chertoff provides an overview of the “new legal architecture for counterterrorism” which required a refashioning of US laws and processes “focused on three elements of the counterterrorism process: intelligence collection, information integration, and terrorist incapacitation.” His analysis includes observations on the legal challenges that homeland security presents in preventing attacks, sharing information and bringing terrorists to justice. Assistant Secretary Stockton’s essay, “Ten Years After 9/11: Challenges for the Decade to Come,” is an invitation to practitioners and academics to work in partnership with the Department of Defense to build on the far-reaching progress that has already occurred since 9/11. Stockton identifies two areas that require specific attention: defense support to civil authorities and “a little-known but vital realm of preparedness: civil support to defense.” HSA also invited faculty from the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security (publisher of HSA) to reflect on areas related to their research and teaching. The ten essays presented here provide insight to a broad array of domestic, international, technological, economic, academic, and social topics that influence how we live and govern. More importantly, the faculty essays help us better understand opportunities for increased security over the next decade. In “Does Homeland Security Exist Outside The United States?” Nadav Morag contends “Homeland security is a uniquely American concept. It is a product of American geographic isolation and the strong tendency throughout American history to believe that there was a clear divide between events, issues and problems outside US borders and those inside US borders.” In answering the question, he examines how other countries have organized their security policies, strategies, and plans. John Rollins provides a transnational perspective on how the US approaches homeland security. As US economic, political, social, and environmental interests become more global, so have security threats. Rollins believes “the US no longer has the geographic or economic luxury of approaching security issues from a domestic or international perspective. Regardless of where a threat emanates from, today’s security professionals need to recognize, respond, and appreciate the near- and long-term transnational implications of risks facing the nation.” One security component that was the focus of much scrutiny following 9/11 is the US intelligence and information sharing system. In “Domestic Intelligence Today: More Security but Less Liberty?” Erik Dahl discusses the reshaping of the US intelligence system over the past ten years and argues “that even though we as a nation decided not to establish a domestic intelligence organization, we have in recent years done just that….” His overview concludes that while progress has been made, “… the development of a vast domestic intelligence structure since 9/11 has moved the balance [between security and liberty] quite firmly in the direction of more security, but less liberty.” Adaptable, creative, risk-taking, and innovative are words that are used to describe entrepreneurs, especially in the technology sector. They are also words that could be used to describe al-Qaeda during the past ten years. Rodrigo Nieto-Gómez looks at the innovation process that drives the technology sector and how the convergence of technology made 9/11 possible. He also explores the difficulties that technology convergence poses for homeland security professionals. “This retrospective distortion creates a security ecosystem where homeland security practitioners feel pressured to try to ‘connect the dots’ every time, instead of adapting to an environment of emerging patterns and mutating dots that cannot be connected.” “If there is any advantage to being at war, it is that it creates conditions for exploring new knowledge and gathering disparate players around the flagpole for support.” Stan Supinski’s essay, “Security Studies: The Homeland Adapts,” examines the development of homeland security education since 9/11 and the influences that have helped to shape its evolution. Supinski highlights some key challenges that remain to be addressed in order for homeland security to achieve academic maturity. The essay by Susan Page Hocevar, Erik Jansen, and Gail Fann Thomas is an example of the maturing of homeland security as an academic area of study. “Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Addressing the Challenge,” demonstrates how scholars have become engaged in theoretical work that can provide the basis for new homeland security policies, plans and organizational arrangements. The authors’ work focuses on identifying factors that contribute to effective inter-organizational collaboration and the factors that inhibit collaboration. This is an area that has proven to be one of the most critical challenges for the homeland security community. Sam Clovis brings education into the homeland security discussion using a different argument. “My intent is to call the attention of my homeland security colleagues to the idea that public education reform must be part of any serious discussion about national or homeland security.” Clovis argues, “A better-educated citizenry will be less dependent on government and more independent in times of crisis … will be more attentive to issues and challenges at the state and local level and more engaged at the national level … will cost less in public funding and will contribute more to the public coffers.” In “How Proverbs Damage Homeland Security,” Chris Bellavita discusses twelve proverbs — or accepted truths — that have characterized the homeland security narrative. He contends that in the haste to establish a homeland security enterprise and create new policies and strategies, many homeland security proverbs may be inaccurate and “distort the homeland security narrative in a way that inhibits the search for more effective ideas to protect the nation.” Bellavita sees an opportunity over the next ten years for academics and strategists “to take another look at the basic assumptions underpinning our homeland security narrative, and identify evidence that supports or refutes the proverbs used to guide strategic direction.” In, “The Post-Tragedy ‘Opportunity-bubble’ and the Prospect of Citizen Engagement,” Fathali Moghaddam and James Breckenridge examine the opportunities that exist for leaders to mobilize the public immediately following a tragic event. “Although great crisis will inevitably invite consideration of many alternatives, leadership must pay special attention to opportunities to engage the public as capable partners in their country’s response to the crisis — calling upon them as citizens with civic duties, as well as rights.” Future generations of Americans will inevitably view 9/11 as a historical event and time period much like the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Vietnam War era. However, 9/11 brought about significant changes to the country and American’s daily lives. These changes are the subject of James Wirtz’s essay, “The Last Days of Summer.” “Instead of remaining an ‘extraordinary’ activity,” Wirtz suggests, “homeland security in the United States is becoming part of everyday life because it is slowly but surely improving the ability of federal, state, local and tribal agencies to prevent and respond more quickly and effectively to all sorts of threats and incidents.” Homeland security is still a work in progress and we as a nation are still working through many important issues that touch on who we are as a nation. One of the true benefits of homeland security is that America gains strength through the process of debating answers, solutions and options. The essays in this special issue provide perspective on the ongoing national homeland security dialogue.Sponsored by the U. S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Preparedness Directorate, FEMA, CHDS is part of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)

DIPL 3450 Comparative Homeland Security

This course will introduce students to homeland security analysis and a survey of how different countries address internal security issues. Homeland security is a uniquely structured American concept, so fitting other nations’ policies and practices squarely into the U.S. model would not succeed. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States embarked on a wholesale reorganization of its internal security and border protection institutions. In parallel, European, and other countries largely preferred to stay with and work within their existing institutional architectures to combat terrorism and respond to other security challenges and disasters, both natural and man-made. Our focus will be on the policies and practices of 10 countries with respect to key areas of homeland security, such as counterterrorism, policing, emergency management, defense support for civil authorities, critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, border security, transportation security, and public health. This course will also briefly explore the military reserve forces of various nations. Since military reserve forces are integral to homeland security and intersect with many of the key areas of homeland security covered in this course, it is important to understand how different nations utilize them. Learning from the approaches of other countries is an important aspect of guaranteeing homeland security, and a comparative assessment serves as an important tool for prudent and effective policymaking. A historical overview is also warranted, because decision making in homeland security is taking place in a radically changed environment compared to the Cold War era. The days when intelligence agencies dealt primarily with a conventional threat that was rather predictable are over. Governments must assess and stay focused continuously on what they should consider integral parts of the dynamically changing homeland security landscape and how they should address the newly emerging security threats. These new threats have become increasingly global and asymmetric, following no rules or calculable timelines. Non-traditional threats pose risks to all countries surveyed, including not only the ones belonging to the democratic world but others as well

Homeland Security Affairs Journal, Volume I - 2005: Issue 1, Summer

Homeland Security Affairs is the peer-reviewed online journal of the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS), providing a forum to propose and debate strategies, policies, and organizational arrangements to strengthen U.S. homeland security. The instructors, participants, alumni, and partners of CHDS represent the leading subject matter experts and practitioners in the field of homeland security.June 2005. We are pleased to present the inaugural issue of Homeland Security Affairs. The primary goal of the journal is to be the academic publication that furthers the discussion and debate of important elements that comprise the nation’s homeland security system. Homeland Security Affairs is meant to encourage relevant research and commentary by academics and practitioners and provide an outlet for the growing body of knowledge that addresses the diversity of homeland security issues and challenges. This first issue features articles by the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security and its partners. Future issues will include works from scholars and practitioners from around the country and abroad. Homeland security as a discipline in the United States emerged out of necessity from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Unlike other professional disciplines which have evolved and matured over decades and in some cases centuries, homeland security is on the fast track. This inaugural issue features articles centered on the relatively new concept of prevention. The country is still discovering what a national prevention strategy needs to entail. Over the past decades, emergency management professionals have continued to develop and refine response plans, systems and capabilities to incorporate lessons learned from natural disasters and events like the Oklahoma Murrah Federal Building bombing and first World trade Center attack. This response framework provided the vehicle and focus for billions of dollars in federal grant funding sent to local and state first responders following 9-11. However, there was no such framework for coordinating and funding “first preventors.” Over the past four years, local, state, and federal government, private sector and military officials have been asked to assume new prevention roles and responsibilities. We are just now beginning to see prevention best practices emerge at the local and state level. For example, prior to 9-11, intelligence and information sharing organizations were not commonly found in municipal and state agencies. A recent study conducted by the National Governors Association reports that more than a third of the states have or are in the process of establishing intelligence “fusion centers.” In what will be a regular Homeland Security Affairs column entitled “Changing Homeland Security,” Chris Bellavita examines the challenge of public complacency as the attacks of 9-11 become more distant. Historically, we have learned from natural disasters that the public and politicians are most willing to commit resources and pass legislation in the months immediately following a disaster. The more time that passes after the disaster without a new event occurring, the more likely the urgency and support for increased spending and legislation will diminish. In a separate article, “What is Preventing Homeland Security,” Chris Bellavita explores why four years after 9-11 the nation’s homeland security system is still designed around response rather than prevention. One reason for this could be that it is difficult to measure successful prevention measures. The public is familiar with response operations which are well covered by the media. But in most cases, prevention happens behind the scenes and is invisible to the public. This makes it difficult to maintain long-term financial and political support. In “Measuring Prevention,” Glen Woodbury repels the argument that prevention is immeasurable. The security of U.S. borders continues to challenge government officials. Homeland security has caused Americans to look at the issue of border security from a new perspective that goes beyond traditional immigration policies. Robert Bach’s article, “Transforming Border Security: Prevention First,” looks at the fundamental shifts in U.S. border policies required to achieve a true border strategy centered on prevention. Homeland security is not a single well-defined discipline but rather the integration of several — e.g. law enforcement, public health, fire, agriculture, utilities, military, etc. Individual local, state and federal agencies as well as industry all have a role in homeland security that requires officials to rethink traditional policies, strategies and business models. Jose Docobo’s article, “Community Policing as the Primary Prevention Strategy for Homeland Security at the Local Law Enforcement Level” presents one model for addressing the challenge of terrorism prevention in law enforcement. David Longshore in “American Naval Power and the Prevention of Terrorism” puts forth a military model and examines its relevance to local jurisdiction terrorism planning. There are countless potential terrorist attack scenarios. Public and private sector leaders recognize that they cannot plan for every type of attack, yet we as a country must be prepared. Thomas Goss recommends one approach to preparedness planning in his article “Building a Contingency Menu: Using Capabilities-Based Planning for Homeland Defense and Homeland Security.” Goss suggests that changing the question “who is the threat?” to “what could the threat do?” will allow exploration of a broader range of eventualities than is encouraged by either threat based or scenario based planning. Homeland Security Affairs is committed to publishing quarterly issues that contribute to the growing body of knowledge from which homeland security as an academic and professional discipline are evolving. We encourage our readers to further the national discussion on the topics presented. We welcome reader feedback through “letters to the editor” at www.hsaj.org and the submission of articles presenting alternative viewpoints, models and approaches as well as research in new areas. The editors and staff would like to thank the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Domestic Preparedness for sponsoring the journal. The views expressed in Homeland Security Affairs represent the personal views of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.Sponsored by the U. S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Preparedness Directorate, FEMA, CHDS is part of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)

Security After 9/11: Strategy Choices and Budget Tradeoffs

The White House issued a National Security Strategy document in 2002 that stated the nation's new foreign policy and national security policy goals. Are the choices it identifies the right choices, and how best should resources be allocated to reach those or alternative goals? This briefing book includes data and analysis of these topics by analysts from several research organizations, intended to help expand and deepen public debate on these issues

Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America

In response to a congressional mandate and in consultation with Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), the National Academy conducted a review of S&T's effectiveness and efficiency in addressing homeland security needs. This review included a particular focus that identified any unnecessary duplication of effort, and opportunity costs arising from an emphasis on homeland security-related research. Under the direction of the National Academy Panel, the study team reviewed a wide variety of documents related to S&T and homeland security-related research in general. The team also conducted interviews with more than 200 individuals, including S&T officials and staff, officials from other DHS component agencies, other federal agencies engaged in homeland security-related research, and experts from outside government in science policy, homeland security-related research and other scientific fields.Key FindingsThe results of this effort indicated that S&T faces a significant challenge in marshaling the resources of multiple federal agencies to work together to develop a homeland security-related strategic plan for all agencies. Yet the importance of this role should not be underestimated. The very process of working across agencies to develop and align the federal homeland security research enterprise around a forward-focused plan is critical to ensuring that future efforts support a common vision and goals, and that the metrics by which to measure national progress, and make changes as needed, are in place

Task Force Report on Streamlining and Consolidating Congressional Oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Nearly a decade after the 9/11 Commission issued its report on the greatest act of terrorismon U.S. soil, one of its most significant recommendations has not been acted upon. The call for consolidated Congressionaloversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is, in the words of Commission co-chair Thomas H. Kean, "maybe the toughest recommendation" because Congress does not usually reform itself. To underscore the importance of this reform, The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands and the Aspen Institute's Justice and Society Program convened a task force in April 2013, including 9/11 Commission cochairs Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, former DHS officials under Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and members of Congress (Appendix). While the failure to reform DHS oversight may be invisible to the public, it is not without consequence or risk.Fragmented jurisdiction impedes DHS' ability to deal with three major vulnerabilities: thethreats posed by small aircraft and boats; cyberattacks; and biological weapons."I think we've been distinctly less securefrom a biological or chemical attack than wewould have been had we had a more rationaland targeted program of identifying the most serious threats," said former Sen. BobGraham (D., Fla.). As the 9/11 Commission Report noted: "So long as oversight is governed by current Congressional rules and resolutions, we believe that the American people will not get the security they want and need."Earlier work by policy groups such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution attests to the consensus that consolidated oversight of DHS is needed. Among the concerns: More than 100 Congressional committees and subcommittees claim jurisdiction over it. In 2009, the department spent the equivalent of 66 worky ears responding to Congressional inquiries.Moreover, the messages regarding homeland security that come out of Congress sometimes appear to conflict or are drowned outaltogether. As former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff noted, "When many voices speak, it's like no voice speaks."The task force recommends that:DHS should have an oversight structure that resembles the one governing other critical departments, such as Defenseand Justice.Committees claiming jurisdiction over DHS should have overlapping membership. Since a new committee structure cannot be implemented until the 114th Congress is seated in 2015, the task force also recommends these interim steps toward more focused oversight:Time-limiting subcommittee referrals to expedite matters of national security.Passing, for the first time since formation of the department in 2002, an authorization bill for DHS, giving the department clear direction from Congress

National Security Pedagogy: The Role of Simulations

This article challenges the dominant pedagogical assumptions in the legal academy. It begins by briefly considering the state of the field of national security, noting the rapid expansion in employment and the breadth of related positions that have been created post-9/11. It considers, in the process, how the legal academy has, as an institutional matter, responded to the demand. Part III examines traditional legal pedagogy, grounding the discussion in studies initiated by the American Bar Association, the Carnegie Foundation, and others. It suggests that using the law-writ-large as a starting point for those interested in national security law is a mistake. Instead, it makes more sense to work backwards from the skills most essential in this area of the law. The article then proposes six pedagogical goals that serve to distinguish national security law: (1) understanding the law as applied, (2) dealing with factual chaos and uncertainty, (3) obtaining critical distance—including, inter alia, when not to give legal advice, (4) developing nontraditional written and oral communication skills, (5) exhibiting leadership, integrity, and good judgment in a high-stakes, highly-charged environment, and (6) creating continued opportunities for self-learning. Equally important to the exercise of each of these skills is the ability to integrate them in the course of performance. These goals, and the subsidiary points they cover, are neither conclusive nor exclusive. Many of them incorporate skills that all lawyers should have—such as the ability to handle pressure, knowing how to modulate the mode and content of communications depending upon the circumstances, and managing ego, personality, and subordination. To the extent that they are overlooked by mainstream legal education, however, and present in a unique manner in national security law, they underscore the importance of more careful consideration of the skills required in this particular field. Having proposed a pedagogical approach, the article turns in Part IV to the question of how effective traditional law school teaching is in helping to students reach these goals. Doctrinal and experiential courses both prove important. The problem is that in national security law, the way in which these have become manifest often falls short of accomplishing the six pedagogical aims. Gaps left in doctrinal course are not adequately covered by devices typically adopted in the experiential realm, even as clinics, externships, and moot court competitions are in many ways ill-suited to national security. The article thus proposes in Part V a new model for national security legal education, based on innovations currently underway at Georgetown Law. NSL Sim 2.0 adapts a doctrinal course to the special needs of national security. Course design is preceded by careful regulatory, statutory, and Constitutional analysis, paired with policy considerations. The course takes advantage of new and emerging technologies to immerse students in a multi-day, real-world exercise, which forces students to deal with an information-rich environment, rapidly changing facts, and abbreviated timelines. It points to a new model of legal education that advances students in the pedagogical goals identified above, while complementing, rather than supplanting, the critical intellectual discourse that underlies the value of higher legal education

The Federal Cybersecurity Workforce: Background and Congressional Oversight Issues for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security

[Excerpt] This report examines congressional oversight of two strategies undertaken by Congress and the executive branch to strengthen the federal cybersecurity workforce: (1) initiatives to define and identify the federal cybersecurity workforce, and (2) hiring and pay flexibilities applicable to cybersecurity positions at DOD and DHS. This report focuses on DOD and DHS because of their key roles in federal cybersecurity and because the majority of hiring and pay flexibilities for cybersecurity professionals authorized by Congress apply to DOD and DHS

Better Auditing for Better Contracting: Eight Recommendations to Reform the Defense Contract Audit Agency and Other Federal Government Audit

Examines why the DCAA's audits of government contractors sometimes fail. Proposes reforms to strengthen oversight, including giving auditors authority to subpoena contractor records and shifting from limited to risk-based audits and random checks

China, Europe, and the Pandemic Recession: Beijing’s Investments and Transatlantic Security

Given the depth and breadth of the pandemic-induced recession in Europe, private companies in need of capital and governments looking to shed state-owned enterprises may be tempted to sell shares, assets, or outright ownership to investors with liquidity to spare. Of greatest concern is the role that China might play in Europe, building Beijing’s soft power, weakening allied geopolitical solidarity, and potentially reprising the role it played in the 2010s, when its investments in Europe expanded dramatically. More specifically, there is concern over China’s investments in infrastructure and sensitive technologies relevant to American and allied military operations and capabilities. Whether Europe is prepared and able to parry Beijing’s economic statecraft is somewhat unclear, given varied attitudes toward China and the patchwork of investment screening mechanisms across the continent. Regardless, the outcomes will have significant implications for US security and for the Defense Department specifically. In support of US European Command (EUCOM) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) assembled an interdisciplinary team to examine these issues and offer actionable policy recommendations for military leaders and decisionmakers on both sides of the Atlantic. Study sponsors (nonfunding): United States European Command, United States Department of Homeland Securityhttps://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1945/thumbnail.jp