Homeland security in the modern world

Homeland Security

The world has changed in recent decades and the threats to homeland security are redefined, having become more and more unpredictable. The new terrorism practiced by extremist movements, which target civil objectives around the globe, has raised the level of awareness from the part of national authorities, taking into consideration the fact that the number of civil casualties is on a continuous rise. This is why a coherent national strategy for preventing terrorist attacks and reacting to natural and human disasters is essential, especially for a country such as the United States. From this perspective, and in the light of the 911 events, the 2002 Homeland Security Act set the legal basis for the Department of Homeland Security. However, despite all measures taken, emergency managers who conduct the saving operations and the mass scale actions in response to a mass casualty event play an important part. Therefore, in the light of the role he plays in the economy of the rescuing efforts, personal qualities, the resources available at his disposal, along with the support from the authorities are key elements in achieving success in the actions undergone. At the same time however, an important aspect of his entire local strategy is the place this has in the wider more complex national effort and the way this is coordinated at the level of federal, state and local authorities. From this perspective, there have been voiced certain doubts over the capacity of the government to effectively deploy the resources at its disposal in case of disaster or emergency. Nonetheless, it can be said that as the new challenges facing homeland security diversify, a coherent and concerted strategy was needed in order to face up to the threats of the new millennium.

The central role in an emergency management situation is that of the emergency manager. From the start, it is important to notice the fact that in most cases there is a tendency of male predominance in the decision-making positions. An eloquent example is the Department of Homeland Security leadership, obviously dominated by men, starting from Secretary Chertoff to even the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge. Therefore, out of almost 44 officials, only 10% of them are women. (U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, 2006) Ronald Perry points out this fact as being in someway a normal outcome of the male dominated society and of the limited capacity of women to face emergency conditions and tensions. Thus, "the emergency management function is most typically housed in civil defense agencies and fire and police departments- organizations that until recently have been composed almost exclusively of men. (...) the number of female emergency managers has increased considerably in recent years, but the job likely remains one for which men are perceived as better suited than women." (Perry, Tierney & Lindell, 2001)

Despite the fact that there is a general trend dominated by men in emergency management units, certain qualities are considered universal in order to be successful as emergency manager. Thus, according to Thomas Drabek, professionalism, individual qualities and the emergency management activities are essential in the work and performance of emergency managers. (Drabek, 1990)

Professionalism is crucial especially in the conditions of poor resources. For instance, it is important to make use of all means necessary in order to respond properly to an emergency crisis, such as a violent storm that results in massive casualties. In this situation, it may be that medical aid be scarce and that human resources be insufficient. Therefore, it is up to the emergency manager to find adequate solution to solve the issue of medical assistance, to coordinate the services and the communication with all the parties involved, such as hospital personnel, firefighters, police officers, and even the eventual state or federal help. At the same time however, these activities cannot be conducted outside a proper legal framework that attributed the emergency manager with this authority of coordination. Thus, a part of the professional style of the manager also implies a well-prepared background in legal matters, and a full respect for the law. In these conditions, the person not only is in total agreement with the regulations, but at the same time, enjoys the respect and appreciation of those around him who see him as the legitimate leader of emergency management.

Individual qualities are also an element that weights heavily in defining the portrait of an effective emergency manager. For this reason, he must be a good coordinator, have excellent communication skills and ensure that a proper connection is made between all the parties, the public and the private sector. At the same time, however, Drabek points out, "like other public safety organizations, emergency management agencies may stress personal qualities, action styles, and modes of organization that are more compatible with men's perceived gender role than with women's, such as risk taking, aggressiveness, an emphasis on rapid decision making and action and a preference for an hierarchical forms of organization." (Drabek, 2001) Thus, an emergency manager must consider al aspect of the crisis in thorough detail before taking the decision to act, but, at the same time, he must be determined and have rapid line of thought. Taking a medical crisis, for instance, the emergency manager must be able to intervene and coordinate the medical help needed at the sight in such a manner as not to compromise other activities and services from the population. From this point-of-view, the decision to use a percent of the regular medical assistance staff in the detriment of other regular medical assistance must be done taking into consideration all the information available and with due regard to the state of emergency. This is why it is important to have in mind the full operational capacity at one's disposal, and, at the same time, to be well prepared in advance for the eventuality of disaster.

The third element pointed out by Drabek is closely related to the idea of preparedness. Encouraging emergency activities can be rather benefic, not necessarily only when the crisis emerges, but also in the eventuality of a crisis, especially because it increases the awareness among the civil population of the risks and dangers facing them in different situations. At the same time, emergency managers can encourage certain activities that would improve the authorities' responses to hypothetical situations that could become reality. In this respect, a close cooperation with the federal, state and county authorities would ensure a proper channel of communication and improved intervention results.

The Department of Homeland Security is the highest authority that coordinates the activities conducted in respect to the defense of the homeland and of the U.S. citizens. The result of the 911 attacks of the American soil, the Homeland Security Act established almost a political doctrine based on protecting the core values of the American democracy, as president Bush confirmed in the Address to the Nation in November 2001, "the government has a responsibility to protect our citizens, and that starts with homeland security." (U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, 2004) According to its own stated mission, "we, in the Department of Homeland Security, are working to protect our fellow citizens and our very way of life by securing our borders, our airports, our waterways and our critical infrastructure. We are increasing our nation's ability to respond to emergencies. We are protecting the rights of American citizens and enhancing public services." (U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, 2004) Thus, the activities of DHS focus on deterring terrorism, protection of citizens from both outside threats such as international crimes and illegalities, and from internal ones, such as natural disasters and other emergencies. Still, despite the fact that the DHS is the political and administrative response to the tragic events of 2001, it has yet to escape criticism for both its organizational structure and for its methods used in managing operations.

On the one hand, the creation of a structure that would enable the coordination of all efforts conducted at state level in areas such as information gathering, emergency responses, and other activities related to the citizens and their lives, was overall, a necessary change, demanded especially by the inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The department, as part of the executive branch now deals with and coordinates all sorts of activities, from border control to winter warnings. In theory, this bureaucratic organization would give coherence to actions taken at the federal level and thus a better use of funds. Yet, what prevents the Department from acting successfully is exactly this bureaucratic apparatus. There are indeed too many department components that are designed to do similar jobs and do not have very clearly distinct attributions and missions. For instance, the Science and Technology Directorate, the segment in charge of research, may appear to be doing similar work as other agencies and components of the executive in charge of information gathering, while the Office of Intelligence and Analysis is engaged in similar activities of identifying and assessing current and future threats to the nation. It may be that a more flexible, less complicated and reduced organizational structure would be more useful in accomplishing the goals set.

On the other hand, the Department in itself was projected to deal with a large number of aspects surrounding homeland security. The arguments supporting the idea were focused on the principle that the citizens must be protected from foreign threats, such as terrorism, and they must be given the help needed to face the treacheries of nature. In aiming to accomplish the latter, the Federal Emergency Management Directorate was established. Even if it somewhat enables smoother and more effective assistance in case of natural disasters, it merely coordinates the efforts and it does not replace the actions taken at local or state level. Therefore, the decisions taken in crisis situations must pass yet another test and must receive approval from yet another decision making body before action is taken in the areas affected by floods or other natural catastrophes. A similar fact can be presented even in the case of the DHS as a whole.

Ashton Carter points out that, aside from creating a single agency with new independent structures, that would not rely on other governmental support, the DHS has little other merits. Even more, its existence, according to Carter, is slowing down the decision making process, as "the problem of interagency coordination would not be eliminated but only complicated by the introduction of this new agency. Aggregating functions such as customs, immigration, border patrol, and coast guard into the new agency might be efficient, but it can hardly be said that this entity should have the lead in homeland defense or that its creation eliminates the inherently interagency nature of responding to catastrophic terrorism." (Carter, n.d.) Therefore, the department, it can be argued, has had limited success in delivering on its promises from the Strategic Plan.

Most importantly however, the DHS, and especially FEMA, are faced with a lack of autonomous resources that could be dispatched without endangering the services in other sectors. In the case of an attack with WMD that would inevitably result in mass casualties, seeing that there are scarce medical resources, these would have to be sent in different locations that would need their intervention.

In such instances, there are several questions arising. On the one hand, there is the matter of assessing the level of gravity in each situation and of giving priority to only the truly serious ones, leaving others without any help. On the other hand, even in the eventuality of insuring discriminatory assistance to those in need, there would not be enough resources. Joseph, Macintyre and DeAtley argue that indeed the medical system is somewhat flawed and that "incorrect assumptions are being made about existing medical capabilities to treat mass casualties. In reality, hospital surge capacity and specialized medical capability across the United States has never been more restricted. While the public and the political communities assume that the healthcare systems are adequately preparing for terrorism incidents that would generate catastrophic casualty loads, the medical community is struggling just to maintain its everyday capacity." (Joseph, Macintyre & DeAtley, 2001) Thus, even if there are the specifications that would allow the deployment of rescue personnel in different emergencies, the reality on the ground cannot cover those necessities. Given these fact, any legal procedures demanding for these resources have little relevance for the resolution of the emergencies.

One of the most important factors that determined the creation of the DHS was the eventuality of new terrorist attacks, similar to those of 2001. Consequently, the Homeland Security Act focuses expressly on the issue of protecting the land and its citizens from any possible threats. Aside from these declarative ideas, measure have been taken to insure that stricter rules at the borders are respected, immigration laws were drastically adjusted, while overall control of citizens and businesses has increased. All these measures however, tend to enter in conflict with some of the core values of the American democracy, which have inspired along the years the democratic constitutions of numerous countries. Firstly, the measures taken in order to secure the borders, both those on land and at sea, tend to infringe the freedom of movement, or at least slow it down. Secondly, in relation to immigrants, stricter control would, on the one hand, prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country, but, on the other hand, cause distress and discomfort for those foreign travelers subject to scrutiny by immigration officers. This is obvious in their behavior especially taking into consideration that even the employees at the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement have become more suspicious and more sensitive to any aspect out of the ordinary. Therefore, it can be that too little attention to certain information have caused the failure of the Secret Services to prevent the 911 attacks, but, at the same time, too much control over the civil life of the citizens can as well become a threat to the integrity and democratic freedoms the U.S. stands for.

Despite any eventual discomfort the authorities may cause, the issue of terrorism is a matter of national security indeed. The U.S., through its aggressive policy towards undemocratic regimes, has created for itself and its citizens numerous enemies that have little regard for the human life, as they consider death to be a privilege and an honor, especially when this occurs in the struggle against Western oppressors. Taking this into consideration, and the imminent threats posed by authoritarian regimes such as the Iranian or the North Korean one, it is only natural that action be taken in order to prevent a replay of the 9/11 events. This however cannot be achieved outside well-coordinated structures, which can offer both logistical support and financial aid for undergoing the necessary activities to prevent any tragedy. Therefore, taking into account the massive casualties of 911, the emotional impact and the political significance, I personally believe that terrorism has become the greatest threat to the national as well as homeland security. Concerning the national security, military capabilities are best suited to address it, while the latter demands a more profound and complex response, which would enable a consistent cooperation between all the sectors of the executive, as well as engaging private partners and the civil society.