Terrorism Scope and Direction the 911 Commission

Terrorism

Scope and Direction

The 911 Commission Report focuses on the specificities of the September 11 terrorist attack and the nature of Al Qaeda as a threat to domestic security. Its scope is narrower in focus than either the National Security Strategy or the National Strategy for Counterterrorism. The National Security Strategy (2015) is the most generalized of these three documents. Issues like climate change, poverty, health, and the economy comingle in the National Security Strategy (2015), which presumes that security requires a multifaceted and complex approach. The National Strategy for Counterterrorism (2011) is more focused than the National Security Strategy (2015), but broader than the 9/11 Commission Report, because it addresses threats from all regions of the globe, including domestic terrorism. In terms of overall direction, these three documents reveal the commitment of the United States government and its various institutions to protecting the interests of the nation and its allies. The 9/11 Commission Report reads more like a narrative, as it includes anecdotes and journalistic reporting directly related to the terrorist attacks. Because it is more detailed and specific than the National Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the 9/11 Commission Report centers on the psychological repercussions of terrorism and how to better prepare for future attacks. The National Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Counterterrorism likewise address preparation for the future, but within a more proactive and less reactive framework.

Strategies to Address Terrorism Threats

The 9/11 Commission Report offers a thorough approach toward the type of terrorism represented by September 11 and Al Qaeda. Terrorism is framed in terms of the unique challenges posed by non-state actors. One of the core strategies is remaining vigilant because terrorism is relatively amorphous and less predictable than traditional forms of warfare. Therefore, responses to terrorism threats do not resemble responses to other types of conflict. Other strategies to address terrorism threats include monitoring the financial operations of known terror networks, and using intelligence strategically to recognize the political, social, and financial alliances between known terror groups and their supporters. Financiers of terrorist organizations therefore fall under the rubric of threatening bodies. Strategies to address terrorism threats also include partnering with key allies, especially those with shared interests. Even those whose interests sometimes clash with the United States may share strategic counterterrorism goals. Shared intelligence and resources can promote a sound counterterrorism program. Finally, addressing terrorism threats requires strong national defense strategies. Crisis response remains a critical component of counterterrorism, as the anticipation of and immediate alleviation of a crisis promotes resilience and confidence. The government promotes a "culture of resilience" in the Strategy for Counterterrorism. One of the major strategies outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report in particular is the creation and maintenance of responsive and responsible government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency. Technology is a core component of the counterterrorism effort. Increased use of surveillance, and other techniques that would have previously been considered invasive have become integral parts of the counterterrorism arsenal.

Development and Progression of Homeland Security

Since September 11, both domestic and foreign policy related to homeland security have changed dramatically. The Department of Homeland Security was designed to pool government resources under a common umbrella with the express intent of building resilience and responsiveness capabilities. Since September 11, the role of the government and especially its counterterrorism intelligence agencies like the NSA has shifted and become more overbearing. Executive orders have become more frequent, testimony to the changing role of the presidency in the new balance of power. The role of executive orders has in large part been a response to the relative disorganization and scattered leadership in the past (The 9/11 Commission Report, n.d.). In many cases, lines have been crossed to allow for the erosion of civil liberties in overt ways. Many Americans have come to accept the need for a more intrusive approach to national security, so long as the core goals of the counterterrorism strategy are reached (The 9/11 Commission Report, n.d.).

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, even prior to the September 11 attacks, homeland security remained a priority for agencies like the Department of Defense and the CIA. The 9/11 attacks brought to light the unique parameters of trans-national terrorist networks and non-state actors. Homeland security required novel strategies requiring deft use of intelligence gathering techniques and technologies that needed to be focused and specific. Thus, the Department of Homeland Security emerged as the logical solution to some of the organizational and administrative failures of the past.