Terrorism and natural disasters: contemporary threats to U.S. homeland security

Global Influences and Major Challenge Facing Leaders in Homeland Security

Although the vast majority of the global population of more than 7.5 billion people want nothing more from life than their fundamental rights guaranteed by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the opportunity to earn a meaningful living in safety and security, a miniscule but growing percentage of this population has made it clear that they are intent to attacking United States interests at home and abroad whenever possible. Against this backdrop of rising manmade threats is the potential for natural disasters to harm the nation’s critical infrastructure and citizenry. Indeed, the scientific community is warning that natural disasters such as hurricanes will become more intensified in the coming years due to global warming. Taken together, it is clear that the leadership at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is faced with a wide array of anthropogenic and natural threats that demand contingency planning and preparation. To determine how leaders are responding to these threats, this paper reviews the relevant literature to identify the respective global influences and major challenges that are currently facing leaders in Homeland Security, followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues in the conclusion. Review and Analysis Just a few decades ago, the world was a far different place. During the Cold War, America’s enemies were well known and their geographical location was pinpointed by nuclear weapons that could destroy them in seconds. In very sharp contrast to the “good old days” of the Cold War, today’s geopolitical landscape is far more complex and threatening. Although many Westerners still do not fully comprehend why other countries want to destroy them, the exigencies of religion and dogma have compelled some members of religious groups to take matters into their own hands in an attempt to effect meaningful change in the world around them. Alas, these trends are not the only troubling issue facing the United States and its allies today. For instance, according to Sanders (2017): From the short-term dramas of pandemics, hurricanes, ecological disasters, and ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks to the decades-long challenges of homeland security, energy independence, the health of our veterans and, at the extreme, great power competition and conflict-virtually everything government does requires the concerted efforts of complex networks that are comprised of multiple actors and organizations. (p. 37) Taken together, the trends should be sufficient to heighten awareness among American policymakers concerning the imminent threat arrayed against them and to their credit, the U.S. intelligence community has sat up and taken notice. Nevertheless, there is also a growing awareness that effecting meaningful change in this environment requires more than just paying attention but rather requires a coordinated and cohesive response. In this regard, Sanders adds that, “There is a realization among senior government leaders, both military and civilian, that the national security challenges they face can no longer be addressed by individual agencies or commands, each narrowly focused on its own specialized authorities and responsibilities” (p. 38). The calls for a coordinated response to the threats arrayed against the United States and its allies are well founded, and there is always the potential for so-called “turf battles” to disrupt any attempts as defense. Indeed, Sanders concludes that, “As those challenges become even more complex and interdependent, leaders at all levels-all with potentially overlapping jurisdictions and diverse areas of expertise-are required to collaborate with one another towards some common mission outcome” (2017, p. 38). The responsibility for responding to the complexity and interdependence of the threats against the West in general and the United States in particular has fallen primarily to the U.S Department of Homeland Security as discussed further below. At present, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has mission and vision statements in place to guide its global responses to threats against the United States. The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to “safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values [with[ honor and integrity” (Mission, 2017, para. 1) and the department’s vision (published erroneously under the title “Our mission”) is to “ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards” (Our mission, 2017, para. 1). In support of the foregoing mission, the stated responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security are based on three primary goals as follows: 1. Prevent terrorist attacks; 2. Prevent the unauthorized acquisition, importation, movement, or use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials and capabilities within the United States; and, 3. Reduce the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and key resources, essential leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks and other hazards (Prevent terrorism and enhance security, 2017, para. 1). In a speech before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2016, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter reported that the five main homeland security challenges facing the country today are Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. Based on these five main challenges, Secretary Ash formulated three main objectives as follows: 1. Destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) infrastructure in Iraq and Syria; 2. Combat ISIL everywhere they emerge around world; and, 3. Help protect the homeland (as cited in Opening statement on \\\\\\\"U.S. National Security Challenges and Ongoing Military Operations\\\\\\\" before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2016, p. 2). The last objective, of course, is the primary responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security in collaboration with the Justice Department, the intelligence community as well as state and local law enforcement authorities (Opening statement, 2016). A study by the American Security Project likewise identified the key national security challenges facing the United States today, including those set forth in Table 1 below: Table 1 Key national security challenges facing the United States today Challenge Description

Helping the Middle East secure its own future This threat includes the rise of ISIL in Syria and Iraq as well as crippling unemployment rates among young people in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) nations which have been estimated at 25% (the highest rate in the world). Moreover, given this demographic group’s rapid growth, it has also been estimated that these countries must create at least 100 million new jobs by 2020 just to maintain this dismally low unemployment rate.

Countering cyber terrorism Although countries such as North Korea and Pakistan are rattling their nuclear sabers, the less well publicized threat of cyber terrorism represents an equally significant challenge to homeland security.

Identifying effective ways to respond to Russian leadership’s regional hegemonic efforts The growing influence of the North American Treat Organization (NATO) and its encroachment on Russian borders has compelled the Russian leadership to respond with military incursions into Ukraine and increased cooperation with countries aligned against the West.

Climate change Notwithstanding some critics’ charges that climate change is a hoax being perpetrated by the scientific community to generate fear and funding, most scientists agree that the world is warming and rising sea levels threaten low-lying coastal regions in the United States.

South Asia The ongoing armed clashes between the nuclear powers India and Pakistan over territorial claims to Kashmir and the continuing instability in countries such as Afghanistan pose significant threats to regional stability that could have global impacts.

Source: Adapted from Hamill, 2015 Beyond the foregoing global threats, Tidd and Morton (2017) suggest that due to their geographic proximity, Latin America and the Caribbean are the areas that are the most compelling threats against the United States today. Despite the seemingly innocuous and relatively benign aspects of illegal immigration into the United States, Tidd and Mortan (2017) argue that the importance of the potential threat represented by the countries immediately South of the United States has been overlooked or disregarded for far too long. As Tidd and Morton emphasize, “This is important despite the fact other regions often figure more prominently in U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy. Given our shared values, culture, geography, heritage, and history, security challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean often become security challenges for the United States” (2017, p. 12). Further exacerbating this threat from Latin America is the sorry state of these countries security infrastructure, making them especially vulnerable to the types of natural disasters and uncontrolled disease outbreaks that routinely devastate America’s southern neighbors. As Tidd and Morton point out, “In addition to the threat posed by transregional and transnational threat networks and extremist organizations, Latin America and the Caribbean are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks” (2017, p. 13). In fact, nuclear-equipped North Korea, Pakistan and Iran continue to pursue dangerous nuclear ambitions which threaten the regional security interests of their neighbors and the larger international community, and the outcome of these trends remains unclear but not understudied. The research to date concerning the motivations behind the emergence of these threats has also been mixed. In some cases, it appears that no matter what initiatives the United States has implemented, the outcome has been less than optimal in terms of reducing external threats to the nation’s security. This situation is due in large part to the unfathomable but powerful forces represented by religious extremists who believe in their heart of hearts that America is the source of all of their problems and these problems will not go away as long as the United States and its democratic ideology exists as a superpower. Certainly, it would be unreasonable to suggest the America is responsible for taking care of the entire world, but those who are bent on destroying the U.S. apparently share some grievances that must be faced. As Tidd and Morton conclude (2017), “Uneven prevention, management, and response capabilities in the region--coupled with underlying challenges such as poverty and weak governance--amplify the impact of disasters, extend human suffering, and exacerbate existing developmental challenges” p. 14). While the United States has the longest unprotected border in the world with Canada, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the nation’s porous borders with Latin America are no longer tenable in an era of international terrorism. In fact, the potential for unrest or dissension in the countries south of the United States is regarded as more severe than the threats posed by Islamic extremists because of their potentially destabilizing effects. For instance, Tidd and Morton add that, “The gap between public expectations and governmental performance frequently manifests itself in social protest. The potential exists for violent demonstrations; a downward turn in the most at-risk countries has the potential to compel a regional response for U.S. engagement” (2017, p. 14). From an international relations perspective, the civil government of the United States has a fundamental responsibility to protect its citizenry and provide for the common defense. Not surprisingly, the U.S., together with most modern nations, subscribes to the realism perspective. The realism perspective in international relations maintains that the world is a dangerous and hostile place and it just makes good sense for nations to place their own interests above those of other countries (Donnelly, 2009). This ideological approach, though, has been countered by the leadership of rogue countries and non-state actors that threaten the interests of many Western countries, most especially the United States. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it became painfully clear that the price that has to be paid for this type of hegemonic national strategy is truly severe. This is not to say of course, that the United States and like-minded allies has foregone their commitment to helping the international community develop economically and socially pursuant to liberalism policies, but it is to say that simply throwing money at this problem is not going to help. Moreover, the sheer complexity of the threats arrayed at the West make formulating optimal responses extremely difficult As Roberts (2009) emphasizes, “One classic problem in government is resistance to change-the inability to recognize new circumstances and to react. How does one best organize and coordinate the various agencies that play a role in homeland defense?” (p. 49). Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security is just one amongst an amalgamation of federal agencies that have been tasked with protecting the nation’s borders and interest abroad. What has become especially apparent is the extreme level of hatred that is directed against average Americans who have little or no clues concerning why people from other countries harbor such resentment and hatred for them. In this regard, Berger (2014) notes that, “The views that impact approval and support of violence aimed at civilians are found to be shaped by hostile perceptions of American culture, the domestic political status quo, and U.S. antagonism of Middle Eastern political systems” (p. 783). Since its founding, American leaders have prized the two oceans separating them from the rest of the hostile world, but in the age of information where transportation is no longer a constraint, the potential for international or domestic terrorists to exact their revenge for whatever misperceived grievances they may have becomes increasingly salient. For example, Boyce (2016) points out that, “The impediments of terrain are by no means final or determinant. Indeed, the United States continues to invest tremendous resources toward the twin objectives of persistent surveillance and operational control across the great expanse of its land and maritime borders” (p. 245). This observation serves to underscore the potential threat that Mexico and the countries of Latin America represent to the nation’s interests. During World War II, President Truman recognized this threat of foreign influence in Mexico and Latin America but the demagoguery being issued from the White House today suggests that a 30-foot tall wall will solve these problems. Unfortunately, even a thousand-foot wall along the U.S.-Mexican border (and even a similar wall along the Canadian border) would not be able to keep out all of the terrorists that want to harm this country. Surveilling the porous borders with Mexico and Canada is not only impracticable, it is essentially impossible. Here again, though, and notwithstanding the imminent threat that the country’s porous borders represent, the multifaceted and complex threats faced by global leaders today make it clear that the status quo is no longer viable and something else must be attempted but the question remains concerning how to counter threats from individuals who are willing to strap on a dynamite vest. As Boyce (2016) points out, “The US/Mexico border is far from the only site where the United States is presently pursuing an expansive (and, indeed, virtually omniscient) surveillance capability” (p. 246). One of the negative consequences of this increased surveillance, of course, has been a diminution of the civil rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights (Boyce, 2016), an outcome that indicates the terrorists have won by compelling changes in the way of life or ordinary American citizens. Countering these types of threats, though, is an exceedingly complicated enterprise that demands state-of-the-art intelligence gathering and analysis, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that a line in the sand must be drawn somewhere at some time. In this regard, Boyce (2016) notes that: The US National Security Agency has explicitly stated its objective to collect and monitor all digital communication, at all times, everywhere in the world. Similarly, there has been a move within US military and intelligence communities toward wide-area persistent surveillance, intended to detect, identify, and track all moving objects across an ever-widening area of observation. (p. 247) In response to the security challenges, the Department of Homeland Security’s Border Patrol has implemented numerous high-tech solutions to monitor the nations’ borders, including the initiatives set forth below: · Integrated Computer-Aided Detection System known as ICAD I (1989-1994); · ICAD II (1994-1998); · The Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) 1998-2004; · The America\\\\\\\'s Shield Initiative; · The Secure Border Initiative network (2006-2011), and. · The Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (2011-present) (Boyce, 2016, p. 248). It remains unclear, however, how well these surveillance initiatives will actually defend the nation from those who seek to exact revenge for whatever misguided reason. Conclusion The research showed that the threats arrayed against the nation’s interests are not only complex, they derive from both anthropogenic and natural sources, and both of these sources have become more intensified in recent years. While many of the citizens of third world states remain marginalized, the United States has made substantive efforts to address these global problems over the past half century, but this investment in liberalism has only resulted in heightened animosity. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that unless and until a perfect world emerges, these threats will not go away anytime soon.