Terrorism, Insider Threats and Homeland Security
Although terrorism, insider threats and homeland security are not new concepts, they have all assumed new important and relevance in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. In response, the U.S. government has implemented a number of strategies that are designed to provide protections against threats to the national security. To determine the facts about these initiatives, this paper reviews the literature to describe the functions of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and its implications for critical infrastructure security. In addition, a discussion concerning the reasons private sector enterprises need to understand and create protocols for insider threats is followed by an assessment of the potential of terrorism and the measure the U.S. can take in the event domestic or international threats are identified. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues are presented in the conclusion.
Review and Discussion
The functions of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and Critical Infrastructure Security
The need to develop mechanisms to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure has long been recognized by U.S. political leaders. In fact, former U.S. president John F. Kennedy established the National Communications System in 1962 to ensure the federal government would be able to communicate effectively during emergencies following the Cuban missile crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war (Hart & Ramsey, 2011). This initiative was followed by the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1979 which was tasked with ensuring civil defense protocols and risk reduction for earthquakes and hurricanes (Hart & Ramsey, 2011). The importance of these initiatives became increasingly apparent following the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building attack...
These and other high-profile international terrorism incidents prompted the U.S. government to take stronger measures to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure. In this regard, Hart and Ramsey report that, “In 1996, President Clinton established the Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. The work of the commission resulted in the definition of eight critical infrastructure sectors in Presidential Decision Directive 63 in 1998” (2011, p. 37).
These initiatives were all intended to provide layers of protection for the nation’s critical infrastructure, but their effectiveness was called into question following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. By 2006, the need for heightened protections for the nation’s critical infrastructure resulted in the passage of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan which was revised in 2009 and again in 2013. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the current version of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan is:
. . . streamlined and adaptable to the current risk, policy, and strategic environments [and] provides the foundation for an integrated and collaborative approach to achieve the vision of [a] Nation in which physical and cyber critical infrastructure remain secure and resilient, with vulnerabilities reduced, consequences minimized, threats identified and disrupted, and response and recovery hastened. (National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 2018, para. 2)
The National Infrastructure Protection Plan approved in 2013 conforms with the requirements of Presidential Policy Directive 21: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience and was developed through collaboration between key stakeholders in the public and private sectors (National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 2018). The fact that no other September 11-type terrorist attacks have taken place on…
