Do you think 911 attacks have changed the international system?
September 11 Attacks Changes on International Systems
The September 11 attack of the New York City’s World Trade Center and Pentagon marked a new era in the international political systems. The dramatic change was not majorly because United States’ mainland had came under terrorist attack killing thousands of people, but because of the consequences the attacks had on the international security systems as a result of the U.S. response. The cause of the attacks obviously emanated from the Middle East’s crisis. According to the article by Bhadrakumar in 2011, the crisis had been in the making for several decades, triggered by the festering wounds of the conflict between Israel and Arab as well as the unresolved Palestinian problem.
Thesis statement: The September 11 attacks of the U.S. triggered dramatic changes international security and political systems.
Roots of the Attacks
Other than the U.S. support of Israel, numerous other issues surrounded the crisis in the Middle East, including the globalization disconnect in relation to the good governance and political empowerment’s growing aspirations and the Western countries political, military, cultural, and economic domination of the oil-rich region for more than a 100 years after the Ottoman Empire’s disintegration. The U.S had exerted its control and influence in the Middle East, especially with its support for Israel’s policies and sponsoring pro-West dictatorial regimes. However, the attacks did not stop Americans’ intent to exert authority and control in the region, with President Obama’s endeavors to enhance relationship with Muslims receiving insurmountable barriers (Bhadrakumar, 2011).
International Systems Changes
As numerous writers have observed, the 9/11 attacks triggered substantial changes of the international systems, thus fundamental ideas of national security or military power need to be reconsidered. The conventional understanding of the concept of power in relation to military ability has since changed. The international efforts, led by United States, to combat al-Qaida, with its leader, epitomized the novel dynamics. The attacks led to non-state actors increasingly preoccupying the international security. All attention shifted to capturing or killing the perpetrators of the attacks, particularly counterinsurgency within Afghanistan. Moreover, various international players started creating barriers to terrorists’ activities across the world (Reveron, 2011).
According to Reveron’s (2011) article, the changes of the international security and political systems are facilitated by United States, which has increasingly exercised its authority and control in the war on terrorism. The ethos of America’s foreign policies have sought to minimize insecurity created by various non-state actors, including drug barons, organized criminal groups, armed militias, terrorists, and pirates. Using its foreign policies, U.S. enters any country it believes to be a host of such criminal groups, fights and destroys them before according its support to the local government to establish security systems, thus contribute to international security.
In December 2009, President Obama posited that it is through such approaches that such groups can be stopped from overthrowing their respective governments but strengthen the local government’s security capacities. America has increasingly realized this goal in Afghanistan by developing the country’s national security structures. Such support also includes training security agencies such as the police and the military, equipping them with sophisticated weapons, and providing professional support where necessary. For example, with the help of NATO’s forces, the illiterate and untrained Afghan forces have increasingly become professionals, with more than 350,000 men benefiting from America’s approach. By 2014, United States hopes to make Afghanistan inhospitable for terrorist groups (Reveron, 2011).
The experiences of Afghanistan are not limited to the country or Middle East; The American’s foreign policy emphasizes on both military and security strategies offered or reinforced by United States. Such has been happening since September 11 to almost all militaries across the world. Unlike during the Cold War whereby the peer competitors were the International systems’ primary organizing principles, in the modern times, some weak countries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan have preoccupied the position of strategic thinkers. In the U.S. National Military Strategy of 2011, it was stated, In this interdependent world, the enduring interests of the United States are increasingly tied to those of other state and non-state actors (Mullen, 2011, p. 1).
To wit, America’s preoccupation is more inclined towards potentially failing states such as Pakistan than the BRIC countries’ expansionism. The illegal armed South American groups have become more significant to the U.S. foreign policies than the strongmen hemisphere’s foreign policy. The Philippines and South Thailand have eclipsed the overlapping claims of sovereignty in South China Sea. Thus, the enduring hallmarks of the September 11 attacks relate to preoccupation with failing and weak countries across the world. International systems have changed their perceptions on origins of conflict, believing that instabilities in various countries breed chaos, thus inevitably necessitating the costly military interventions. Consequently, international systems favor the military-to-military contacts kind of support, which encompass equipment transfers and empowerment/training activities, which facilitate avoidance of tragedies. Such has clearly been stated in the 2009 Foreign Affairs which stated, Our strategy is to employ indirect approachesprimarily through building the capacity of partner governments and their security forcesto prevent festering problems from turning into crises (Reveron, 2010, p. 170).
However, some scholars have had different opinions in relation to change of international systems as a result of September 11 attacks. The scholars have argued that although the war on terrorism and measures to increase security heightened in the aftermath of the attacks, international systems have not been significantly influenced by such. One author remarks,
Recent events have not radically changed the various approaches towards the fight against terrorism; the State remains, in fact, the central institution endowed with responsibility for the fight against terrorism’. Indeed, contrary to popular belief, the hand of many states seems to have been reinforced by the September 11 attacks, rather than the contrary (Quénivet, 2005, 569).
Quénivet further posited that the intensity of the war against terrorism does not necessarily imply that states are experiencing increased cooperation. Though United States has embarked on ensuring that all states participate in fighting crime in the society, particularly in relation to terrorism, it has not been successful in uniting all nations to work together or even transform international systems. While analyzing the relationship between NATO and Russia, Moshes (2006) observed that from the contemporary trends, there is no much hope of cooperation between them. He argued that the two only exercise selective cooperation as opposed to strategic alliance. This has always been the case between the two parties, even before the September 11 attacks. Such is the case with many other governments and organizations, which implies that the attacks have not had such an impact on international systems.
The September 11 attacks of the U.S. triggered dramatic changes international security and political systems. In the aftermath of the attacks, the U.S. took a central role in fighting crimes, especially those related to terrorism across the world. It influenced many of its allies and forced many weak countries such as Afghanistan to join its efforts in fighting terrorism. Many countries have helped governments to states that are believed to be host to terrorist groups in fighting such group and enhancing the governments’ stability. The international systems have changed their focus from upcoming world economies to heightening security measures in weak and vulnerable states. However, some scholars have not shared in such opinions: They claim that the U.S. has exerted control on various governments but not led to change of international systems.
Bhadrakumar, M. (2011). 9/11 attacks and the international system. On-line journal of Strategic Culture Foundation, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/09/11/9-11-attacks-and-the-international-system.html
Moshes (2006). International Security Today: Understanding change and debating strategy. SAM paper, 1, 1-225.
Mullen, M. (2011). The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, 2011: Redefining America’s Military Leadership. Washington D.C: Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Quénivet, N. (2005). The World after September 11: Has It Really Changed? The European Journal of International Law, 16(3), 561577.
Reveron, D. (2011). The Imperative of Exporting Security. The journal of international security affairs, 21, 17-30.
Running head: SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS CHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS 1
SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS CHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS 3
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in order to respond to security threats posed mainly by the Soviet Union. Although this fact may be partially true, NATO was actually formed in order to serve the following purposes. NATO was tasked in maintaining global peace and security in collaboration with other Nations across the world. The major role NATO aims to serve involves deterring Soviet expansionism. This translates to forbidding the re-establishment of a nationalist militarism within Europe by ensuring a strong North America is present in the continent as well as encouraging political merges and integration in Europe. Such responsibilities have been carried out in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (NATO 2).
Establishment of NATO
In 1949 April 4 under United Nations Charter in Washington D.C, North Atlantic Treaty parties signed an agreement in various areas of collaboration. They however had to be satisfied that North Atlantic region security measures were highly improved through accession of Republic of Turkey and Kingdom of Greece. This was with regards to the terms and conditions of the treaty, which ought to cater for all member States security and welfare concerns. The treaty was formed under Article 1. The article sought to confirm that the United States of America government on behalf of all the other parties had to hold talks with two nations through invitations in order to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty entry into force Protocol. The nations were expected to be parties to instruments of accession. Article 2 required Republic of Turkey to be a North Atlantic Treaty party. Article 3 written in English and French advocates for deposits in the United States of America government Archives using certified copies of North Atlantic Treaty (Weinrod and Barry 1).
All parties of the treaty agreed that the Secretary General would hold communications and send invitations on behalf of all parties involved in the treaty. United States was required to inform treaty parties’ receipts of each notification and the entry dates for each party that had signed the North Atlantic Treaty. The last agreement involved all parties unanimously agreeing to transmit duly signed as well as certified copies of the treaty. This would be witnessed and undersigned under the present Protocol, which established NATO. This agreement was fulfilled on 16 December 1997 in Brussels where the organization established its initial headquarters. NATO was therefore established under Articles 1, 2 and 3 duly signed by all parties taking place in the North Atlantic Treaty that led to formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Since then, more members have been joining the organization after fulfilling certain conditions set out in the treaty (Weinrod and Barry 1).
NATO Member States
North Atlantic Treaty Organization comprises of twenty eight sovereign member nations and States. Among these member States, twenty five are located in Europe, one in Eurasia and the rest two in North America. In 1949 when NATO was formed, it comprised of the following member States: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States of America. On February 18 1952, Greece and Turkey became the new member States of NATO. Three years later on 1955 May 9, Germany joined the organization. Spain joined in 1982 May 13, which was later followed by Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland in 1999 on March 12 (Beata and Marek 25).
In 2004 March 29, Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined NATO as full member stakeholders with equal responsibilities. Five years later on April 1 2009, Albania and Croatia were admitted in the organization. This was during NATO’s fiftieth anniversary with regards to the treaty signed in Washington D.C. The two States were accepted in the organization after a meeting was held in Bucharest, which ratified their applications. Ninety percent of the other member states voted in favor of the two nations joining NATO based on their historical support. This included offering over fourteen thousand strong armed forces and financial assistance to be injected in the organization after the two nations would be admitted. Until 2012, NATO comprises of twenty eight member States (Beata and Marek 10).
Roles of NATO
NATO has been involved in disaster management, rescue missions, military operations and humanitarian assistance for a long period of time since it was formed in 1949. As soon as the organization was formed, it emphasized on ensuring populace domestically and internationally were protected and secured due to numerous threats from Soviet Union involving nuclear weaponry. In 1951, a civil defense committee was formed in order to oversee security and protection from disaster management as well as mitigation measures. This committee has been involved in several disaster management and assistance missions including rescuing populace from North Sea Floods in 1953. In 1958, NATO established a council in order to oversee, formulate, and implement procedures necessary during the organization’s rescue missions (NATOCEP 7).
The following are some of the disasters NATO has been involved in since its formation. The Arno Floods in Florence and Pisa were experienced in 1966. NATO responded to this disaster through provision of humanitarian help such as food, helicopters in order to rescue people, tents for the homeless and medicine for people who had been hurt. An earthquake in South East Turkey resulted in NATO responding to this calamity. Ambulances were sent in order to ferry and attend to hurt population before arriving to health care facilities, field kitchens where a group offering assistance prepared meals for the disaster stricken. In addition, trucks were provided in order to rescue properties, tents, electric generators for lighting at night, foodstuffs and specified forms of medications (NATOCEP 8).
NATO in partnership with United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) took part in ensuring Resolution 1325 was formulated and implemented. This resolution aimed at ensuring women and children are protected during conflicts. This is mainly because the two groups have suffered for a long period of time during war conflicts and disasters and left out during peace missions, talks and procedure formulations. Other roles and tasks besides humanitarian assistance include military operations. This was actually the organization’s first roles after its formation during the aftermath of Cold War. NATO set base in Kuwait after Iraq invaded the country in a shocking development. A military taskforce was established and deployed in conflict and war-torn regions. Being a military operation, NATO engaged in airstrikes as it perceived it as the only way through which Yugoslavia would end the war conflicts. NATO also deployed sixty thousand troops in a peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia as part of its mandate. Coupled with Dayton Agreement signed on November 1995 and United Nations peacekeeping mandates, peace was restored in conflict stricken areas and regions, which ended the NATO operations in various parts of the world (Weinrod and Barry 3).
Recently, NATO has been tasked with fighting terrorism especially in Iraq and Middle East areas. NATO is tasked with ensuring safety is restored in regions involved in terrorism activities especially Arab and Muslim nations including Lebanon and Kosovo. NATO has been able to send peace keeping units to Lebanon and Kosovo in order to prevent a second civil war initiated by the local militias. Unlike its military operations where fights, force and airstrikes were utilized in order to restore sanity and peace, NATO was required to preserve terror countries until a new, sovereign government and administrative body takes control. NATO is therefore offering help and co-operation while overseeing independence, civil peace, freedom, sovereignty are achieved as successes stories for other nations in Middle East, Iraq and religious States involved in terror activities (Manuela 1).
For more than six decades, common values, sense of vulnerability and heritage has been the main core of NATO’s strength. Integrated multinational command structures, political consultations, co-operative habits, operational success stories and interoperable equipment have cemented the organization’s strengths. The following are the factors ensuring and improving NATO is strong by providing a solid base for current and future functions. NATO comprises of twenty eight member States that are sovereign as earlier stated. However, they each ensure the organization remains unified under a clear vision guaranteeing its survival. The main vision being to remain integrated and unified, as a group has enhanced the organization’s capability in adapting to newly formed and implemented strategies. Building a cohesive alliance has enabled the organization’s defense mechanisms are maintained (Hans 46). As a result, NATO’s interests, roles, new realities, values and military abilities have remained focused and ready to undertake new challenges presented from any region domestically and internationally. The degree of stability NATO has within Europe has therefore historically remained strong (Hans 46).
Besides its clear visions and unity, NATO’s commitment in ensuring security and protection is achieved has been due to its unified strategies, concepts, commitment and operational capabilities enhancing the organization’s effectiveness and efficiencies. NATO’s operations include air, sea and land operations. In addition, its roles include stabilizing conflicts, restoring public safeties, protecting from further loss of lives, properties and preserving resources. Although NATO’s operations in Afghanistan still generate heated debates of its effectiveness, its solidarity to member states such as United States ensured peace was restored. Iraq security troops were trained by NATO in order to support United States’ peacekeeping efforts. It therefore ensures member states are unified, supported and co-operative in order to provide maximum assistance. Thus, engagement through effective and efficient operations that will result in success stories lacking indigenous capabilities has been the forefront mission of NATO (Hans 47).
Military and civilian (humanitarian) operations carried out by NATO have been through crucial institutional reforms and restructuring. In order for such a big organization to carry out missions on land, air and sea and ensure the operations are successful, the commands, structures, military backbone and operational concepts are at par. Technical, intelligence mechanisms, assessing strategic crises, specialized, excellent institutional reforms and revitalizing NATO’s symbols and alliance are some of the factors that have streamlined and increased the organization’s agility in fulfilling its roles while dealing with future challenges and issues (Hans 47).
Due to global trends such as inadequate global governance strategies, shifting political powers from West to East, presence of new actors that are empowered in a polycentric world have posed a great challenge to NATO operations. In addition, proliferation of weapons and deadly conflicts mainly in the Middle East and strategic surprises with regards to cyber conflicts, NATO’s weaknesses have been revealed. Reduced defense ability from NATO in the European region has been termed as the greatest weakness NATO has to address. For a long time, NATO has been able to respond to European’s military threats, thus, Europeans conserving their defense resources. United States’ global responsibility is not part of European’s responsibilities as they rely on NATO. During NATO’s operations in Libya, European Air Forces were able to identify with their inability to successfully carry out such missions (Hans 49).
NATO requests for a two percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in order to fund its defense operations have not been successful. United States expenditure on defense however exceeds four percent of the GDP underscoring the importance of military expenditure (Carl 7). More so, it offers seventy two percent of NATO’s overall defense budgeting plans. This translates to a reduced European defense, thus, decreased defense sustainability and increased security hollow gaps. Besides Europeans, Britain and France are also hugely affected by these weaknesses within NATO. As a result, their economies and securities are deteriorating while Europeans providing little commitment in stimulating the Alliance’s capabilities and requirements (Hans 50).
Due to the above financial crisis within NATO, the organization’s cohesion is under threat. Coupled with euro crisis, European Union resentments have increased where austerity measures have been imposed by Germany. Their domestic crisis has reduced the amount of concentration NATO provides internationally. Defense cuts have therefore been massive with Britain threatening to secede from the European Union. Such an act by Britain, which is referred to as democratic backslid and exhaustion of stability will prompt other groups in withdrawing their support during crisis management operations leaving the inadequately funded NATO to handle. In January 2012, United States Strategic Guidance sought to rebalance and restructure its forces in Asia and Middle East. Europe translated this move as pivoting away from the alliance thus, losing defense abilities. Should NATO’s abilities reduce and member States start to doubt each other, this will translate to false expectations from disintegrated union. Consequently, NATO’s roles in future operations will neither be effective nor efficient, thus, a failing NATO organization (Hans 51).
Five European nations are the locations within which United States nuclear bombs are stationed. NATO’s nuclear doctrine is therefore at these locations. Questions and doubts however have been arising with regards to how these nuclear weapons are useful, modernization plans will be carried out, European nation’s abilities in delivering these weapons and NATO’s deterrence and defense mechanisms. There lacks a long term NATO consensus with regards to the organization’s abilities in controlling and using nuclear weapons that it does not have ownership of (Hans 52).
NATO’s operations have always relied on its partnerships with other organizations and nations. These partnerships were however established in a historical era that has been overwhelmed by technological and global changes and trends respectively. The organization is therefore currently unable to coordinate with European Union due to the alliance frictions between the two, thus, a reduced relationship between NATO and Russia. NATO’s weaknesses are increasing when it continues to maintain frictional relations with other member states and partnering nations and organizations (Hans 52).
Necessary Changes in the Statutes and Operations
NATO’s operations have been majorly dependent on its military wing virtually in all operations the organization has been engaged in across the world. These operations have been highly criticized in both style and execution. In addition, the statute structure of NATO has been questioned in various instances by both member States and non-member States. As earlier indicated, the structure and composition of the organization is majorly inclined to developed European countries locking other potential developing European countries. This status has widely undermined the global operations of the organization especially when NATO requires a global perspective in its activities. The weaknesses discussed above necessitate the reformation for the organization, which are paramount to smooth operations. Among the changes that ought to be instituted in the organizational level to ensure inclusivity of all members plus their activities. The following section discusses major institutional reforms both political and legal, which should be considered to ensure effective operations of the organization (Weinrod and Barry 25).
Command restructuring ought to be instituted to ensure unnecessary hierarchies are shed off to ensure services are commanded and controlled from a central location more effectively. For instance, when NATO was involved in Yugoslavia, the numerous command and control stations undermined the easier success and speedy end of military. By the time military operation was over in Yugoslavia, NATO had lost more than 21 soldiers, a situation that was attributed to poor coordination and command. In addition, the same scenario was witnessed in Afghanistan when NATO was involved in military operations to onslaught Taliban militia. Numerous casualties for the organization personnel were inevitable as well as attributed to poor coordination and lack of clear command. When command restructuring is conducted in the legal approach, NATO air, sea and land command operations will be effective and manageable. Finally, command restructuring helps improve on nerve center as well as military backbone for the organization. For example, when the Iraq war was undertaken by NATO led by United States, command structuring was well adhered to controlled by United States, hence immense success in the Iraq war. Though casualty numbers were high, the magnitude of the war was also high hence a plus to the legal approaches adopted by NATO in the war (Weinrod and Barry 33).
The second legal approach that should not be underscored is the creation of Allied Command Transformation in individual member constitutions to enhance collaboration and coordination at various missions undertaken by NATO. Since the organization is a multinational as discussed earlier on, thorough military coordination and partnership is inevitable. For instance, through allied command transformation program, French Generals have been placed on United States soil for coordination where essential new concepts of operations have been developed. This legal perspective allows the organization to establish certification centers used for excellence improvement of the organization. In this legal approach, individual nations are allowed to establish specialized and technical institutions to improve on NATO performance in global assignments (Hans 51).
In political approaches, NATO ought to be an organization that shares intelligence briefs across member countries. This ensures proper handling of global security challenges as opposed to being handled by a single nation. For example, United States had declared war on Syria especially when allegations that chemical weapons were deployed against civilians. With all its machineries, US was convinced that the Assad government was committed to atrocities of crime against humanity by deploying chemical weapons. However, other NATO member States had a different opinion from their own intelligence gathering which delay military action against Syria. If structures for intelligence sharing were in place, US could not have carried out unilateral decision based on its own assessment but rather consulted with NATO member States who had different intelligence reports. For proper management of staff and operations of the Organization, Defense Planning Process ought to be restructured and reformed to confirm with the current state of affairs (Hans 53).
Human resource has evolved so drastic that the traditional structures of the organization are outdated. These changes would ensure the Secretary General has the powers and structures to manage the staff effectively for proper organizations of Human Resource Management. This has been the greatest challenge with NATO staff especially when tasked to undertake international assignments. For example, NATO has been accused of human rights violations while dealing with Taliban Militiamen. The structures in place from political, legal and institutional were not adequate to punish individuals involved in such crimes. The Secretary General did not have adequate powers to investigate and recommend prosecutions for the same. When such political and legal approaches are implemented in restructuring NATO, the organization shall be revitalized with greater agility ready to face future challenges (NATOCEP 63).
Beata, Gorka and Marek, Madej. NATO Member States and the New Strategic Concept: An Overview, The Polish Institute of International Affairs Report, 2010.
Carl, Ek. NATO Common Funds Burden-sharing: Background and Current Issues, Congressional Research Service, 2012.
Hans, Binnendijk. Perspectives on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, perspectives on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Edition, 2013, 43(1): 45-55.
Manuela, Paraipan. A New Role for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), World Security Network, 2004.
NATO Civil Emergency Planning (NATOCEP). NATO’S Role in Disaster Assistance, Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Co-ordination Centre, 2001.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A Short History of NATO, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2012.
Weinrod, Bruce and Barry Charles. NATO Command Structure Considerations for the Future, Center for Technology and National Security Policy: National Defense University, 2010.
Mass Shooting in the United States
Mass shootings have been on the rise in the United States with at least two being reported in the past month. The sole reason or what drives mass shooters to commit these merciless acts has remained unclear as psychologists suggest that it is mental and emotional disorders that compel them to act so violently. Other analysts blame the menace on American gun control policies that have let large numbers of powerful guns to flood the market and let many American citizens to own guns they have no idea what to use on among other possible causes.
Schulman argues in his Wall Street Journal editorial What Mass Killers WantAnd How to Stop Them that it is public attention as the sole purpose that motivates mass shooters to commit these heinous acts. He posits that Whereas the other types of mass murder usually occur in multiple incidents or in a concealed manner, (gun) massacres occur as a single, typically very public event. He further defends his position by citing other writers who write that mass killers are hardly insane either legally or ethically as it is commonly assumed but they are often organized individuals who plan their moves meticulously and ritualistically well in advance. They appear composed, courageous, and calculating while in the act. He also points out that mass shootings follow a definite regular pattern that is they are always young men who get into a public area full of people and shoots at several key targets but later shoots indiscriminately and finally he dies by either killing himself or being killed by the police.
Shulman’s argument appears valid but a critical mind might ask what can make a young man crave for attention so much that he is willing to take his own life and other’s lives just to get it. This is further complicated by the fact that he is almost guaranteed to die in the event by being killed or killing himself and so being dead, he does not benefit much in any way from the public attention that he has worked so hard for. This point is what makes the insanity theory appear to be more relevant in explaining the motivation for mass shooter’s actions. Logically, a person who is mentally, emotionally, and morally upright cannot pick a gun and start shooting indiscriminately just for public attention. Even if achieving public attention is a motive, it must have been triggered by some underlying psychological disorders or an emotional need that is not met otherwise the individual would be suffering from gross insanity. Thus public attention per se cannot be rationally cited as the sole motivator for mass shooters.
Shulman states in his editorial that Their purpose is essentially terrorismminus, in most cases, a political agenda. The public spectacle, the mass slaughter of mostly random victims, is meant to be seen as an attack against society itself. If this is actually the case, then mass shootings can be equated to terrorism and a mass shooter’s motivation would be the same as a terrorist’s motivation. Terrorists are known to commit their acts for the purposes of revenge not merely public attention though public attention can be sought to spice up the event. The role that media coverage plays cannot be dismissed as a non-contributor in mass shootings and general terrorism acts as perpetrators would often but not always want their horrendous act to be known by many people but it plays a peripheral role rather than the sole purpose of the act, which is normally a revenge mission of some sort. Thus, mass shooters can be said to be motivated by the need to pay back the society for some evil it did to them in past life, such as mistreatment as a child.
As a way of stopping or reducing mass shootings, Shulman has proposed several measures that should be taken by the media supposedly to deny them the attention they crave for. These measures include hiding the shooter’s name and face, avoiding to report about their biography, avoid publishing any photos or videos of the event and avoiding the story all together while telling a different story. But a common problem with these counter measures is that they are all reactive and none is proactive to the mass shootings problem. One would have to wait until a mass shooting occurs to implement these measures so they cannot be said to be a way of stopping mass shootings as such. The best practice to curb the menace would be to take proactive steps that would identify potential perpetrators well in advance then neutralize them either by counseling or denying them access to guns. Another obvious cause that cannot be overlooked is the easy availability of guns. As a means of maintaining their popularity, politicians have avoided implementing stricter gun control measures and therefore guns remain easily accessible even to people who should not have them. This alone rationally has contributed to mass shootings to a higher degree than the need for public attention as Shulman argues.
Shulman in his editorial What Mass Killers WantAnd How to Stop Them has proposed that the way to stop mass shooters is to deny them media coverage and thus public attention. However, doing this alone would be far less than enough. A combination of measures, such as implementing proper gun control laws, community policing, and counseling potential mass shooters would be the most appropriate proactive measures to curb the menace otherwise denying them attention would only be a reaction not a control measure.
Schulman, Ari N. What Mass Killers WantAnd How to Stop Them The Wall Street
Journal, 4 November 2013. Web. 10 November 2013;
The author claims that by allowing government agencies to obtain the personal information of all citizens in order to monitor terrorism activities, the Patriotic Act encroaches into people’s private lives. This is because the act gives the federal bureau of investigation (FBI), criminal intelligence authority (CIA), and other government agencies the exclusive rights to use whatever means available to obtain information regarding the activities and plans of terrorists. This has made it possible for the agencies to employ surveillance tools in order to access the private information of individuals.
To support this claim, the author argues that there are other ways that can help monitor terrorism activities that do not involve breaching the right to privacy of citizens. In his opinion, he feels that a comprehensive literature search can provide the most recent and relevant information on terrorism activities and how to counter them. Such information can easily be obtained from government databases, magazines, newspapers, books, journals, and other online databases. The author also adds that such sources are very credit-worthy, authentic and provide the most reliable information1.
I find this article very relevant to my research question in that, although s/he does not mention it, the author has given me insight on how both actions can help in intercepting and obstructing terrorism activities without necessarily encroaching into the private lives of citizens. In this digital era, I strongly feel that nations should take advantage of the internet age to help their economies grow, improve the living standards of their people, and provide a secure environment for every citizen. Terrorists find the internet a reliable and efficient way to plan and execute their activities even from far away areas. Homeland security measures aim at striking a balance between the safety of the public and civil liberty infringements for example discrimination, invasion of privacy and other actions that may restrain an individual’s freedom .
The need for this balance is that people cannot be truly free unless they have a reasonable degree of safety and they cannot be completely safe if they are not freed from the insecurities of having people constantly pry into their personal lives. Hence, to be secure, they should be willing to sacrifice a bit of their civil liberties2.
The article has supported me in getting an answer to my research question by helping realize that after all, the Patriot Act is not as bad as many perceive it to be. If it can undergo a few amendments and if only people could open their eyes to the serious nature of terrorism and at the same time embrace the importance of technology, the Act can greatly help in the interception and prevention of terrorism. Some of these amendments may include restricting surveillance to either only those individuals that are proven suspicious through their actions, conversations or the suspicious activities in which they engage. Such suspicions can be confirmed through the literature searches aforementioned by the author to validate the fact they are engaged in terrorism and their lives should be under surveillance. The act can greatly enhance the investigative powers of the CIA and FBI that can stop future attacks and prevent unwarranted harassment of innocent citizens2.
In conclusion, I did get insights from the article however; it left me wondering how a one-sided approach to terrorism can help in controlling it. I believe that homeland security can make us much safer from terrorist attacks if we are all willing to strike a balance between our freedom and our safety because not even our freedoms or civil liberties can protect us when the terrorists strike. There is a need for amendments to the Act in order to establish the degree to which such freedoms can be curtailed and ensure that the benefits of being secure outweigh those of civil liberties.
Strossen, Nadine. Terrorism’s Toll on Civil Liberties. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 9.75 (2004): 365- 377. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J146v09n03_07#preview
Legal Information Institute. 6 USC Chapter 1- Homeland Security Organization. Cornell University School of Law. 2013. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/
Nadine, Strossen,. Terrorism’s Toll on Civil Liberties. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 9.75 (2004): 365- 377.
Legal Information Institute. 6 USC Chapter 1- Homeland Security Organization. Cornell University School of Law. 2013. 1 http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/
Disaster Response Time
This project focuses on the area of border patrolling and their contribution to criminal justice and disaster response time. The project will also focus on the effect of border patrols on high crime rate and levels of violence and recidivism. There is also the contribution of poor border patrolling services to poor morale and working equipment, which leads to civilians complaining of harassment and abuse within and outside their homes.
Border patrolling is among the most sensitive political and social issues in the United States. The US has an agency that deals with federal law enforcement called the United states Border Patrol (USBP) .This agency has a mission of detecting and preventing illegal immigrants or aliens who include terrorists t together with terrorist weapons smuggled into the United States. The agency also prevents illegal trafficking of immigrants into the United States. Most of these immigrants include young children and women who are then used in drug trafficking and prostitution.
This agency is within the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and is one of the key components in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Border Patrol plays a very significant role in security, being the largest agency in law enforcement. Its role is to task over 21000 agents to guard the borderlines of the whole country. It is currently being led by Michael .J. Fisher, its Chief Officer from 2010. The priorities of the Border Patrol agency have been changing. The Immigration Reform and Control Act that was introduced in 1986 which focused on employers who hired illegal aliens in order to control illegal immigration.
Jobs that were offered by these employers were believed to be the main attraction and a contributing factor to most illegal aliens coming to the United States. Interior enforcement was increased in businesses through “employer sanctions” inspection programs. These programs were started in several border areas including Northern California. These programs were not as effective as it was anticipated and so the authorities resulted to denial of social benefits to illegal aliens and taking away green cards and criminalizing the holders of these cards. Authorities were expected to questions any individual who was thought to be in the country illegally. Communities were also sensitized on the effects of illegal immigration and they were to corporate with the police and other authorities.
There was the proposition 187, which drew national wide attention to immigration and illegal aliens in the U.S. The Hold the Line operation program introduced emphasized on capturing immigrants in the open deserts upon detection, before they got to the cities and urban areas. This was deemed a great success with a significant reduction in crime and immigration, although the illegalities were seen to be shifting to other areas. This approach was also tried in the Sandiego sector, where many new agents were hired and deployed. Landing mats were also used by the military as a form of defense in the border. Eventually there was the election of a modern triple fence line that runs throughout the border.
Border patrol in the United States started as early as 1904 with mounted watch guards in the Immigration Service patrolling all borders in order to prevent crossings that were illegal. The patrolling services then were illegal and they took place only when there were enough resources to permit the security guards in their job. The inspectors were known as “mounted guards” and they were mainly in the state of Texas to as far as California. They later came to be known as the Texas rangers. Their main job was restricting the inflow of immigrant. Most of the immigrants were Chinese.
In 1915,”Mounted inspectors” were authorized by congress to officially take the task of border patrolling. These officers had inspection stations assigned to them. They mostly patrolled on horseback, and others had automobiles, boats and motorcycles .Their main target was Chinese immigrants who eluded the National Origins Act and the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, they had a more authority and were more officiated. The United States Army also patrolled the borders sporadically as part time service during their military training sessions along the borders. They forwarded their patrolling reports to the Immigration stations along the borders. The Texas Rangers were particularly effective in their services at the borders and they were given official assignment from time to time.
In 1924, the Border patrol was formed under the Department of labor. Its main assignment was along the U.S Mexico and the U.S- Canadian border. In 1927, the gulf coast was also put under its jurisdiction where crewmen from other countries were thought to delay their departures or disappear just before their leaving time. These crewmembers were then left in the country and they became illegal immigrants. By 1932, the Mexican border patrol unit had its own station in Texas and the Canadian border operated from Detroit in Michigan. The later had more service men because of an increase in liquor smugglers in the time of prohibition.
The onset of World War II in 1940 saw an increase in border patrolling and the doubling of staff. The Immigration and Neutralization Service, which held Border patrolling was moved from the department of Labor to the Justice Department. During the reign of Fidel Castro in the 1960s revolution and the Cuban Missile crisis, border patrol was intensified along the Gulf coast and the eastern parts of Florida.
Issues dealing with Iran, Pakistan and the Middle East peace process have also been significant in their contribution to border patrolling and Border patrol policies. Iran is a country classified by the US department as a sponsor of terrorism. It was added to the list of other countries believed to sponsor terror acts in the January 1984. This country has severally been named as the most active state sponsor of international terrorism. In the 2010, Iran was named as the largest sponsor of terrorism worldwide. Iran, which is an Islamic republic, has throughout the years been involved in material, financial and logistic support for various terror and militant groups in the Middle East and Central Asia (Byman, 2005). This has had a direct effect on the international effort of enhancing and promoting peace, subsequently threatening economic stability in the Gulf region, hence undermining the growth of democracy.
Since Iran declared itself as an Islamic Republic in 1979, the government of this nation has continuously been accused of funding, providing weapons, equipment, training, and aiding terrorist’s by giving them sanctuary. The US State Department describes the country as highly active state terrorism sponsor. The country is described by the western nations as a country that has for a long time been used as the central banker for most the terror groups in the crucial regions, such as Lebanon, through Hezbollah in the Middle East and other regions in the larger Middle East (Byman, 2005). There are also concerns about Iran seeking more support from the southern region of the country. For over the past few decades, Iran remains, as the top country in the world, involving most vicious terror groups the world has ever known.
The Iranian government supports terrorism by provision of weapons, finances, and training to members of major terror groups. From 2003, Iran is stated to have been providing money, training, as well as weapons to some Shea militias, who operate in the neighboring Iraq, and the Taliban in the adjacent Afghanistan. The government of Iran has constantly kept a closer relationship with most of the terror group in the larger region of the Middle East.
Iran has been actively involved in supplies of weapons such as missile warheads and submachine guns, which are usually common for most terrorist organizations. It is not clear on whether the government of Iran has been directly involved in the training of some of the terrorist group in the Middle East. In addition, there is no clear evidence about training of terror group members, although most of the terror groups in the Middle East are commonly found in the area around Iran (Martin, 2011). Several of these terror groups train in Iran since the government of Iran does not have strict laws on curbing terrorism in the region, an aspect that portrays the nation that is committed to curb the international security and war on terrorism
In the there was a remarkable reduction in the rates of crime along the U.S Mexican border but also throughout the U.S. These rates fell with a margin of thirty-four percent while within the United States; crime fell with a margin of 30 %. These steep decline in the crime rates along the border could have been attributed to the beefed up and aggressive border patrol and enforcement which had risen by three hundred and thirty one percent during the same period. However, the illegal immigration numbers also were high rising with one hundred and twenty one percent. The crime reduction also had to be differentiated depending on the nature of the crime. While crimes related to property and those that are violent.
Border Patrolling was transferred to the department of Homeland Security in 2011 after the September 11 attacks. Its roles were increase to include, preventing terrorism and terrorist weaponry from penetrating in the United States, Its traditional roles of preventing ,detecting and detaining illegal immigrants, most of whom were in the illegal trades of prostitution, human and drug trafficking, who evaded the entry ports which are designated. 2012 saw border patrolling employ over 21,000 staff, with the Mexican border having over 18,000 and over 2,000 situated along the Canadian border. The Mexican border is particularly sensitive due to drug trafficking and illegal weaponry.
Currently there are Border Patrol Checkpoints, which are within one hundred miles of a national border, either Mexican or Canadian. The tasks of the agencies were strengthened to include investigating and seeking information on suspected immigrants and aliens, detaining them for questioning and removing them from the country even through deportations. They were also charged with enforcing of law and order and providing security both within and along the borders. These also included the patrolling and checking of all U.S ports where entries and exists are done into the country, this help in aligning their patrol with the Customs and border protection.
The Livermore Sector of Border patrolling which included California, Dublin was closed in 2004 and its roles handed over to the U.S Enforcement authority in the Immigrations and Customs.
The main job that is entailed in the borderline patrolling is the conducting of investigations on criminal and other investigations programs; it also includes the holding up of wanted criminals until action is taken on them. The border patrol officers are also assigned the duties of cooling down and controlling major disturbances and chaos along the borders. The agencies also protect the life of people leaving along border regions together with the properties in their homes and businesses.
The officers also team up and support local communities and their law enforcement authorities in the control and elimination of crime and violent behavior. There is also the research role of collection, gathering, analyzing, and dissemination of criminal intelligence, which could help in suppressing all facets of organized crime, gang groups, and cartels in any given area. The agencies also help in areas where local authorities are suspected to collude with the gang groups and illegal immigration system, or where the local authorities are unwilling or unable to control such crimes and maintain law and order within their jurisdiction.
They can conduct investigations of misconduct or any other behavior that is alleged on other departments or their personnel. The agencies can also support in court records where they have evidence or information, they also act as court officers in maintaining court order, protecting and preservation of exhibits or any form of evidence that might need their protection during proceedings and upon request. They also have the roles of protecting officials either elected or otherwise at any time when they are given directives, including when the officials are attending public functions.
Despite creation of various disaster management plans, the battle for disaster response is far from being won due to various obstacles that impede effective application of disaster management policies. No disaster resembles the other.
It is extremely difficult to react to an emergency without a well-reviewed plan. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the spirit of preparation, readiness, and professionalism was required to spread from military to other agencies that were charged with disaster response (Farrell, 2005). However, this did not happen. Sometimes the government may be faced by financial strains, and when a disaster occurs, the disaster management body may fail to react on time due to lack of funds. Lack of proper communication between the disaster management teams and the government may hinder immediate response. Natural disasters are quite numerous at societal level, where technologically superior societies are well placed to handle them, but some societies are not technologically advanced to handle such disasters.
Border control in has significantly reduced and California is no not at the greatest risk of illegal entrants. This has led to a shift in focus to such areas as Arizona, particularly in the areas of Nogales, which is currently the most sensitive and largest patrol station in the borders of the United States). The patrolling strategy of deterrence used in the areas of San Diego was employed and have been implemented.
Another national wide strategy was updated in 2005 with the goal of implementing operational control of borders. This strategy had several objectives, which included:
Recovery of weapons and any terrorism equipment, which could be in the hands of terrorists, they also were to apprehend the criminals and terrorists.
They also were to prevent illegal entries through improved vigilance and enforcement. They find out about smugglers, human traffickers, drug traffickers, and other organized criminal gangs and cartels. They get information and apprehend them in case they have enough information. They also use technology, which is smart to bring down crime in the community around the borders so that they assist in improving security and life standards within the community.
The Iranian Quads are alleged to provide training to the Taliban in the neighboring Afghanistan. The training commonly is done in small units and tactics, explosives, small arms, small tactics of a given unit, along with indirect fire weapons like the mortars, rockets, and artillery. In 2006, Iran is said to have arranged a large shipment to various Taliban members. The shipment included small arms and their respective ammunitions, mortar clouds, rocket propelled grenades, plastic explosives, and 107-millimeter rockets (Martin, 2011). Iran is also believed to have shipped a huge number of weapons to the region of Kandahar, as the Afghanistan aim at achieving an increase in its influence, in the country.
There have been many terror groups in Iran. Most of these terror groups train or live in this country since it does not have strict guidelines in relation to their acts. The government of Iran has in the past supported a number of terror acts, both in the Middle East, and other places across the world. This is the reason that, even up to date, Iran is considered as a state that sponsors terrorism. In 2010, the Jundallah, which is a terrorist group based in Iran, was engaged in various attacks within the country of Iran.
This rightly showed that these terror groups’ conducts their operations limitlessly, striking even in their host countries. The Al-Qaida is also believed to have their affiliates based in southern Iran (Tabarani, 2013). Al-Qaida is a ruthless terror group that is responsible for the world’s most deadly attacks. For instance, the Al-Qaida is well known for the September 11 attack in New York, in the United States.
Finally, although there are many speculations about the role of the Iranian government in terrorism, most of these speculations assert that Iran rightly promote most acts of terror. In 2012, Iran finally came out clean on the issue of supporting international terrorism. This came through the Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who stated that the government of Iran would sponsor any group or individual that intended to work against the Israeli. This shows Iran government’s support for holy war, as they were despising the Zionists or Israel (Cook et al, 2009). Iran claims to be a regional power in the Middle east; hence, it seeks to rule the entire region through supporting the various terror groups in the vast area.
Abou-bakr, A. J. (2013). Managing disasters through public-private partnerships. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Byman, D. (2005). Deadly connections: States that sponsor terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge
Cook, A. H., Rawshandil, J. & Palgrave Connect (Online service). (2009). The United States and
Iran: Policy challenges and opportunities. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coppola, D. P. (2011). Introduction to International Disaster Management. Burlington: Elsevier Science.
Farrell, Lawrence P Jr. (2005). Preparation is key to disaster response. National Defense, 90(624), 6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213307494?accountid=1611
Martin, G. (2011). Essentials of terrorism: Concepts and controversies. Los Angeles, LA:
Protecting Persons Affected by Natural Disasters: IASC Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters (November 2006). Brookings. Retrived on 19 October 2013 from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2006/11/natural-disasters
Tabarani, G. G. (2013). How Iran plans to fight America and dominate the Middle East.
Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
DISASTER RESPONSE TIME 2
Running head: DISASTER RESPONSE TIME 1
Homeland Security Discussion
Firstly, the lack of effective supervisory in checkpoints is one of the lapses that led to ease of the hijacking operations. The security checks have well screening systems that would allow the passage of any attacks by Al-Qaeda. Another lapse includes the lack of strictness in handling suspects. The three attackers had been selected by security checkpoints, but only their bags were held in the airplane. These gave them the ease of entering the airplane to the business seats. Therefore, the lack of effective supervisory security checks in the airport terminals lead to lapses in the security of the airport. In order to promote attack prevention, there should be certain steps to be undertaken to address the lapses in preflight security. Firstly, the airport should be equipped with advanced imaging technology and well trained detection officers. The deployment of well-trained detection offers and improve technology will assist in capturing any security breach in order to prevent any attacks (Castro, 2012). The lapses can be minimized by ensuring proper checks of the preflight security documents. The checks on the regulating document assists in promoting preflight security control.
I think the development of AlQaeda should have become a concern to the United States when it started to form international links. In the late 1990s, the Al-Qaida undertook international terrorists in the United States and the Kenya Bombing in 1998. At this stage, the U.S government officials should have taken much effort to hamper the development of the terrorist group. AlQaeda had contacts from different countries as well as their continued training and recruitment. Therefore, the United States should have been concerned when AlQqeada started forming international linkages.
Castro, R. (2012). Corporate aviation management. Illinois: SIU Press
HOMELAND SECURITY 2
Running head: HOMELAND SECURITY 1
Proposal for United States National Security Policy
National security is an important concept in promoting the wellbeing as well as the survival of any given state through enhancement of economic strength, political diplomacy and military projection. While this concept has particularly been important in the United States, it gained significance at the verge of Second World War when the need to enhance the US security became a major priority. Although the concept initially revolved around enhancement of the military strength, it now integrates a boarder spectrum of facets, which range from non-military and economic security intended to promote the wellbeing of the national society (Scott, 2011). In the attempt to accomplish this requirement, the United States has for a long time been playing a role changing the international system through partnering with like-minded countries in order to establish a safer and prosperous environment for the American people.
According to Jensen (2010), the US has thus been actively involved in extended operations in various countries including Iraq and Afghanistan in the attempt to enhance international stability while securing the US national interests. While it is obvious that global security has continually been exposed to cases of threats, the need to promote the wellbeing of American people has demanded for the establishment of a set of elements upon which the United States’ national power must rest upon. The main purpose for this paper is to present a strategic plan through which the current as well as the emerging threats to the United States’ national security can be addressed (Acharya, 2011).
The Need to Reform the US National Security Strategy
Although the end of Second World War and the era of Cold War allowed the US government to adopt a consistent chain of national security strategies to address the fairly uniform traditional threats that prevailed during the communist era, subsequent threats were ushered in by the 9/11 attacks among other security-related events. They indicated the dire need to reform the national security system in order to establish a new strategy that could address the traditional as well as non-traditional threats that would face the United States. According to Jensen (2010), the United States has for a long time lacked a comprehensive system for promoting its national security despite the fact it has continued to enjoy a non-contended global position.
While major challenges for the US national security can even trace their roots from the Cold War era, the country has been lacking a comprehensive approach through which its national security environment can be managed in order to be able to take care of its future challenges and opportunities. Studies indicate that the United States is currently involved in a wide range of conflicts, which are bound to transform its role in promoting international security. There is however, no strategic plan from which strategic guidance for protecting the country’s national interests can be derived. The current United States’ administration has done a comprehensive job in communicating its overall goals and objectives relating to its national security through an array of documents. The documents however do not emanate from any stern strategic plans, which indicate the dire need for strategic transformation (Scott, 2011).
Although the American people can still feel the impact of the September 11 attack, United States has made minimal efforts in establishing a comprehensive plan through which the wide range of current as well as the future threats and opportunities that are prevalent in the modern security environment can be enhanced. This explains the fact that a well-articulated plan for enhancing national security is important as it can help to describe the United States’ commitment in the post-September 11 world. According to Acharya (2011), different institutions that are concerned with the United States’ national security have made significant attempts to establish a suitable strategic planning to address this concept but the efforts have ultimately been streamlined towards meeting the interests of individual agencies, which explains why developing a new national security strategy is important.
Investigations conducted by various congressional committee members relating to failures by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States further justifies the dire need to transform the prevailing United States’ national security Strategy. According to Robert (2004), the significant failure by different institutions to curb the September 11 terrorist attacks as well as the high rate of the US intelligence in estimating the number of Iraqi destructive weapons portrays the dire need to transform the US national security strategy in order to counter the current security threats being faced in the United States. The US has as well failed to establish a fully inclusive national security strategy, which demands for a strategic transformation through integrating certain structural reforms in order to build a rational security strategy that can enhance the integration of major strategic pillars characterizing the US power and influence. While it is obvious that the US security strategy has remained dominated by significant dissonance of the current crises, there is a dire need to establish a transformed strategy through which various national security threats being experienced in the United States can be addressed (Wollack, 2010).
Major Threats Posing the Greatest Danger to the US National Security
Investigations by the US Intelligence indicate that America has continued to experience a wide range of threats that continually pose a significant level of danger to its national security. Although these threats are important in that they challenge the wellbeing of the American people as well as the overall national interests, the current Obama Administration has ranked these threats on basis of the degree of dangers that they pose to the country. Among the most serious threats posing the greatest danger to United States include:
Cyber warfare is among the leading threats being faced in the United States, and these pose a significant level of danger as pertains to the wellbeing of American citizens. According to James (2002), technological advancement has continued to influence every aspect life in United States, which includes supporting major government operations, business processes as well as professional and personal ventures. While it is obvious that these technologies are interrelated, the growing ability at which cyber criminals can manipulate and destroy important cyber structures has continued to threaten the wellbeing of individual citizens as well as the broader national security. While cyber technologies have continued to be ubiquitous around the world, their users only adopt them to accomplish lawful professional as well as personal goals. Cyber criminals as well as terrorists have however continued to adopt these technologies to spy and support their destructive organizational objectives. According to Robert (2004), a major threat posed by cyber warfare emanates from the fact that cyber criminals can use cyber technologies to manipulate data, deny access to crucial services as well as launch attacks that can pose a significant level of danger to the American citizens.
Wollack (2010) explained that criminal entities employing cyber technologies to accomplish illegal missions often undertake various approaches to oppose United States’ national security as well as the economic interests. Despite these developments, there have been little efforts inclined towards overhauling the cyber security department, which exposes the American people to great dangers related to cases of cyber threats. Although the United States was able to engage in fruitful agreements relating to nuclear disarmament at the verge of the Cold World War, no similar efforts have been made as pertains to cyber threats. This might have been attributed by the fact that cyber attacks, unlike the nuclear weapons, have attributed to less visible negative implications as cyber crime relating to intellectual property as well as manipulation of important data and information seems to have escaped the knowledge of legal authority, the public and the media. It is however obvious that most cyber attacks directed towards the United States’ government as well as private systems have caused greater harm than merely extracting important information from the systems.
According to Scott (2011), authorities bestowed with the responsibilities of investigating into varying intrusions directed into the United States’ computer networks have discovered various software materials that could be used by cyber criminals to destroy official infrastructural components. This indicates that United States has continued to face great danger of virtual explosives that can be activated to erase security software on computers thereby allowing hackers to manipulate computer networks with greater ease in the future.
The US computer networks are equally weak by design, which has been attributed by its extensive use of far-reaching supply chain. Flaws can thus be implemented into the software as well as the hardware system at any point of network development including production. According to James (2002), the introduction of Commercial Off-The-Shelf software by the United States’ Department of Defense ushered in the development of major failures into the US network systems, which intensify with rapid increase in the use of the COTS products. The current administration has equally been unable to safeguard the country’s cyber connections since other countries do not use extensive computer as the US does, which indicates the fact that United States continues to attract a significant attention of cyber criminals. While the country uses computer networks to coordinate the economic, communication, and military systems, cyber criminals would thus diversify their attention to the US rather than other countries including Korea and Afghanistan in accomplishing illegal organizational objectives. The high level of network connections thus explains the fact that United States will need to invest in a well-developed security strategy that can enhance quality defense for its national cyberspace, which can further pave way for an effective platform through which other potential threats can be addressed before they strike a basic network.
While the current counter-terrorism strategy employed by the Obama Administration has proven to be counterproductive and self-defeating, terrorism has proven to be a major threat that is bound to pose the greatest danger to the American people. According to Wollack (2010), most international terrorist affiliations use United States as a prime target as they pursue to exhibit their operational capability to attack a wide range of targets using simple as well as complex methods. Although most Americans perceived terrorism to be an event that can only take place in distant lands where most Americans would rarely visit, the September 11 attacks changed these perceptions, as this ushered in constant wars between the US government and al-Qa’ida. While consistent counterterrorism attacks that lead to the killing of Osama Bin Laden attributed to the intensity of the Al-Qa’ida operations, the intensity of threats posed by such operations evolves from the realization of the fact that these groups may collaborate with other international terrorists in order to share harmful tactics that may cause greater negative impacts to the Americans.
According to James (2002), the tireless effort by the United States to counter cases of terrorism has rendered constant attacks on United States to be a major transnational strategy among members of Al-Qa’ida located in the Arabian Peninsula, which rendered this group to continue enhancing the tactics, techniques and processes intended to enhance terrorist attacks upon the west. The Al-Qa’ida Homegrown Extremists have equally proven to be developing strategies that would enhance more regular attacks against the west, which will particularly be perpetuated by the rapid spread of the jihadist propaganda, including the various print materials that the US has continued to spread among the global citizens. Although there have been extreme cases of senior personnel losses among the Core Al-Qa’ida group, members of this group have continued to uphold the strategic goals that were set during the initial attacks against the United States, which further portrays the significant level of gander relating to potential terrorist attacks that the United States has continued to face. Historical evidence equally indicates the fact that terrorists among other international criminal groups have continued to converge in various significant ways, which constantly violate the US national interests. A study carried out by Stephen (2005) showed that the integration of international organized crimes with terrorism are often linked with severe cases of kidnapping as well as human smuggling, which further explains why this poses a significant level of danger to the American people. While most terrorists seek to extract huge amounts of resources from the American people, they often kidnap American citizens in order to ask for huge ransoms to be able to undertake an array of criminal activities. Increased cases of human smuggling have as well intensified the level of threat posed by the growing cases of terrorism as smugglers continue to violate the degree of the US national sovereignty.
Advancement of weaponry employed in mass destruction is among the core elements characterizing the severe threats posed by the rapid growth in terrorism. According to Wollack (2010), rapid technological advancement have rendered to rapid development of nuclear weapons, and these have equally continued to pose great danger to the American people. While nations as well as states may be discouraged from using nuclear weapons as a way of preventing cases of retaliation, terrorists that do not have a specific land or territories may not be deterred. The ability of most terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons has thus continued to pose a significant level of threat to the United States. The intensity of this threat emanates from the fact that most Soviet States have a huge supply of nuclear weapons as well as the fossil substances, which explains a significant probability for most terrorist groups to acquire these weapons.
According to Stephen (2005), most terrorists have access to major weapon storage areas particularly in the Soviet Union and Pakistan. The former Soviet nations have a huge supply of nuclear weapons as well as other loose nuclear substances that are often stored in open civilian sites around the world. The growing number of terrorist groups operating in these regions significantly intensifies the level of threats posed to the American people as terrorists can easily get access to these weapons and cause lethal attacks into this country. Although the US government has undertaken an array of relevant interventions in the attempt to address this threat, bureaucratic obstacles have violated these efforts, which have rendered the attempt to control terrorist activities to get out of hand (Scott, 2011).
Policy Proposals to Address These Threats
In order to promote the overall wellbeing of the American people while promoting the overall national interests, United States ought to adopt a rational national security strategy that can effectively address the various threats faced by the US.
Policy Proposal to Address the Cyber Warfare Threat
In order to secure the United States cyberspace, United States should adopt an improved national security strategy that can help to address the traditional as well as non-traditional cyber threats being faced by the country. The US government should particularly pursue to develop a front line protection against modern cyber threats through promoting shared situational awareness relating to cyber connections vulnerabilities, threats as well as the operations taking place within the Federal government. It should as well seek to defend its cyber space against the full range of threats through promote the US counterintelligence capacities which intensifying the safety of supply chain for critical information technologies. It must further seek to intensify the future of the cyber security through enhancing the attainability of quality cyber education, coordination as well as research and development among members of the Federal Government while seeking to establish suitable strategies to curb hostile or illegal activities within the cyberspace. In order to enhance the attainability of these objectives, United States should as well adopt certain major capabilities within the Federal Government. These should include sufficient funding within the legal system, intelligence and defense departments to support major activities ranging from crime investigation, gathering of intelligence, evaluation and collection of important information to enhance the establishment of cyber security (Stephen, 2005).
To ensure that the US cyber space is well safeguarded, the US government should seek to manage the country’s network connection as a unified network that has the most trusted internet connection. The Trusted Internet Connections would thus be managed by the Department of Homeland Security, which would ensure that a central security solution that includes a significantly reduced access from varying external points is enhanced. The government should as well develop an intrusion detective process through which unauthorized users of the US cyberspace can be identified. Such developments can include the implementation of signature-based detective devices that can enhance the identification of possible traffic attempting to access the Federal Government’s cyber systems (Bunn, 2001).
Policy Proposal to Counter the Terrorist Threat
To counter the severe level of threats posed by the constant cases terrorist attacks, the US government should adopt a transformed strategy that can boost its national security. While this strategy ought to build on the previous approach through which the traditional threats had previously been addressed, it should adopt a reformed approach that can allow the non-traditional terrorist threats to be effectively addressed. The US government should thus ensure that the national values are cherished not merely to accomplish the dire need to meet certain rights but because they are crucial in perpetuating the national security. These should including respecting individuals’ rights, liberty and privacy, perpetuating transparency, and committing to the rule of law (Bunn, 2001). These can particularly be achieved through establishing a strong legal framework through which counterterrorism activities can be carried out in order to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice. The US government should as well build strong security partnerships to ensure that the counterterrorism goals are effectively met. While it obvious that United States cannot single-handedly counter cases of terrorism threatening its safety and interests, it should build liaison with the key partners to share the burden of building international security (Wollack, 2010).
The partners should engage in all activities inclined towards counterterrorism, which ought to include intelligence sharing, combined training and operations that drift from fighting radicalization to boosting community resilience. The US government should equally ensure that counterterrorism equipments and skills are applied appropriately to ensure that they address both the traditional as well as non-traditional threats. While it is obvious the Al-Qa’ida activities as well as the affiliate members continue to evolve, the US government should ensure that the tools as well as skills used for this purpose are appropriate and that they comply with the US laws, values and strategic objectives (Robert, 2004).
Hypothesis of Possible Reactions by Committee Members
It is obvious that committee members from both parties will accept that cyber attacks and terrorism are major threats that pose greatest danger to the United States, and thus they require greater attention compared to other types of threats. This is particularly because the impacts of these threats have been evident across the region, where they pose severe implications to individual citizens and as well as the overall national security. Members of the president’s party are bound to agree of the dire need to increase government spending in order to establish relevant tools that can help to effectively address cases of terrorism and cyber attacks. Members of the opposition party may however disagree with this decision since they might perceive this as bound to contribute to serious budget constraint. Members of the president’s party agree to the fact that both the cyber attacks and terrorism need to be given equally attention as they similarly cause severe effects to members of the public as well as the government institutions. However, members of the opposition party may not agree to the fact that cyber attacks should not be given equal attention as terrorism. While it is obvious that most impacts emanating from cyber attacks may not be as apparent as those emanating from terrorist attacks, members of the opposition party may argue that countering terrorism should be given priority.
While the US has continued to face a wide range of threats that pose great danger to its national interests, the prevailing national security strategy has not been sufficient in addressing these threats as it has only perpetuated the wellbeing of private agencies. This indicates that there is a dire need to transform the prevailing strategy in order to ensure that both the traditional and non-traditional threats are effectively addressed. Cyber attacks and terrorism have proven to be major threats that pose the greatest danger to the US. Technological advancements have particularly contributed to significant advancement in cyber related crimes as well as evolved terrorist attacks. Addressing the impact of these threats should thus be based on transformed tools and capabilities to ensure that operations intended to counter these activities are relevant. Although members of the committee from the president’s as well as the opposition parties may agree to the fact that terrorism and cyber attacks are important threats posing danger to United States, members of the opposition party may argue that terrorism ought to be given priority since its impacts are severe. It is however obvious that both threats are important, and as such, they should be given equal attention.
Acharya, U. (2011). International Lawlessness, International Politics and the Problem of Terrorism: A Conundrum of International law and U.S. Foreign Policy, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 40(2): 25-40.
Bunn, M. (2001). The U.S. Strategic Posture Review: issues for the New Administration, Strategic forum, 177(178): 123-130.
James, J. (2002). Our New National Security Strategy: America Promises to Come Back, Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers.
Jensen, E. (2010). Cyber Warfare and Precautions against the Effects of Attacks, Texas Law Review, 88(7): 80-99.
Robert, R. (2004). The Changing Face of National Security: A Conceptual Analysis, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.
Stephen, C. (2005). Terrorism: National Security Policy and the Home Front, Carlisle Barracks, PA, Strategic Studies Institute.
Scott, S. (2011). State Responsibility for Cyber Attacks: Competing Standards for a Growing Problem, Georgetown Journal of International Law, 42(4): 80-95.
Wollack, k. (2010). Assisting Democracy Abroad: American Values, American Interests, Harvard International Review, 32(3): 23-40.
PROPOSAL FOR US NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY 13
Running head: PROPOSAL FOR US NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY
BORDER AND COASTAL SECURITY, PORT SECURITY, INTELLIGENCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Is Current Immigration Policy Seriously Treated As A National Security Issue? How Was It Treated Prior To 9/11?
Prior to 9/11 attack, the migration policy was mostly viewed in terms of strict control on the US trading partners because illegal immigrants would enter into the US on the pretext of trade. According to Andreas, efforts to reform the immigration policy were greeted with fierce political exchange. The policy, however, changed after the 9/11 attacks, and focus shifted to the fight on terrorism, and this is an indication that the current immigration policy is treating national security seriously.
Since 2001, there has been an increased funding owing to the creation of the homeland security, which has cost the government $589 billion since 2001 to 2011. Deportation has also increased, and the government spends about $12 billion on custom and border protection. In 2001, about 18,000 criminals were deported, but in 2012, about 91,000 criminals were deported and this is an indication that the government has put tight measures on security. In addition, the immigration policy has allowed local police officers to act as immigration agents, whereby they share the fingerprints of any criminal caught with the immigration department to ascertain the nationality of the suspect.
The Meaning of Open, but Closed Borders
Open borders do not put restrictions on the movements of the people and goods across it, whereas closed border restricts entry of people and goods, and has gates or fences that are closed to restrict entry. An open, but closed border is, therefore, a border that is open to the entry of the people, but has put some high demands that must be met for one to attain the entry permit.
The Customs Border Authority
The Customs border authority entails exercising powers established under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by the Custom and Boarder Protection (CBP) body. The CBP has the authority to search any luggage entering the US, and also has the authority to interrogate anyone believed to be an alien, as well as the authority to arrest.
The Functional Equivalent of the Border
The functional equivalent of the border is the criteria established by the Supreme Court in relation to the border search. It outlines how passengers and cargo in an international airport are searched and also how a point or station near the border points can be searched for any alleged immigration deals. In this case, the functional equivalent of a border can be seen as the act of an international airport receiving flights from other countries.
Border Searches under the Fourth Amendment
Under the fourth amendment, border searches must be reasonable, whereby the searches or seizure conducted by an agent of the government must be reasonable, and must be supported by a warrant.
Andreas, Peter. Border Games: Policing the U. S. -Mexico Divide, Second Edition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.
The Effects Of Global Transportation System On Port Maritime Operations
Transportation is one of the four cornerstones of globalization. The global transport system connects one point to various parts of the world. There are various modes of global transport, but the water transport is the leader, especially in cargo transport. The global water transport system has revolutionized the port maritime operations. In the first place, the maritime technologically transformed as a response to globalization. The energy system of powering water vessels has been transformed from oars to the use of petroleum energy, and other forms of energy, and this accounts for most of the port activities. Globalization of the transport system has put pressure on the port security. Chances of illegal goods and terrorists entering the country through the port are high, and this has forced the maritime operators to put security as top on their list of priorities. Pressure on the workforce has also increased because cargos come from various parts of the world, and this has led to 24-hour operations at the port.
The Meaning of Economic Dependency on Maritime Transportation
The economy of the US relies on the health of the ocean. In this case, the ocean provides a number of economic activities, including fishing, engagement in the boating industry, ocean transport, tourism, and recreation. For every six jobs in the US, one is related to the maritime industry. In addition, voluminous goods are transported through the ocean, and this forms the bulk of the US international trade. Six sectors of the economy rely on maritime activities, and contributes approximately $223 billion to the US GDP. In this case, it means that the economy of the US depends on the marine transport sector.
How The Maritime Transportation Security Act Of 2002 Affect The Port Security Operations
The maritime Transportation Act of 2002 improved the security operations in the US. The Act gave the Department of Homeland Security the mandate to secure all the ports in the US. The Department of Homeland Security implemented regulations, which prevents people from having unescorted access to the facilities and vessels, which are secure. This Act also allows individuals without escorted access to use biometric credentials as a proof of identity. In addition, Transportation Workers Identity Credentials (TWIC) were created and this was issued to all workers who qualified.
Progresses And Challenges 10 Years After The MTSA
Maritime security has collectively improved because of various programs that have been implemented by the US custom and Boarder Protection after the Maritime Transport Security Act (MTSA) was implemented. Security programs have been implemented and focuses mainly on four areas, including vessels and port facility security, security planning, security of the international supply chain, and information sharing. As a result, a number of maritime security strategies and plans have been implemented. For instance, the coast guard procedures are in place and they perform an annual inspection of the facilities at the port. In addition, plans have been put in place for quick security response to domestic port insecurity.
The DHS has also had some challenges since MTSA was implemented. Among the challenges include difficulties in collaborating and partnering with other security agents, difficulties in managing and implementing the security programs, lack of resources and funds to effect some programs, and lack of quantitative means for performance measures.
Christopher, Kenneth. Port Security Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
Events That Have Had Profound Effects on the US Intelligence
The intelligence system of the United States has evolved from an amateurish attempt to spy on the colonial armies in the current sophisticated form of intelligence spying. Nathan Hale made a breakthrough into the intelligence system by attempting to spy on the British soldiers, but he was crude in his attempt because the technology had not developed and a number of strategies were not placed. Before 1880s, during the early year reconstruction, little focus was placed on intelligence, apart from the efforts of the Union Forces who were spying on the forces of the South. During the reconstruction period, the intelligence became essential in creating peace as well as strengthening the union. Further development of the intelligence was experienced until the times of the World War I.
During the world war I, President Woodrow Wilson rejected the spies as part of the US intelligence strategy. However, as the war progressed, the British wooed Woodrow into accepting the spies as part of the intelligence strategy, and this was used throughout the period of the World War I. At the start of the world war II, President Roosevelt made some attempt to strengthen the intelligence unit. He appointed Donovan to head the newly formed nonmilitary intelligence unit. He also borrowed a number of strategies from the British to strengthen the intelligence community. Although this was a big step towards the development of the intelligence community, there was no proper coordination between the nonmilitary intelligence unit and the military. During the world war II, the weakness of the US intelligence system was exposed when Pearl Harbor was attacked on 7th December 1941 by the Japanese. The attack indicated lack of organization, coordination, and exchange of information among various organs of the intelligence community. As a result, the government created the Office of Strategic Services and this helped in coordinating information among various intelligence organs. This further led to the creation of the central intelligence group that pushed for the enactment of the national security Act of 1947.
During the period between 1948 and 1950, the CIA was improved immensely, whereby its internal format was restructured and expanded to coordinate the intelligence services. During 1970s, further reforms were made despite some turmoil. During 1980s, a number of spy cases were recorded, but this was a decade of expansion of the CIA and the entire intelligence community.
During 1990s, there were few intelligence activities by the CIA, but the FBI increased its spying and introduced new technologies. In 2001, the intelligence system completely changed, and a new era of fighting terrorism commenced. An internal review of the CIA was made, and it was discovered that top officials had failed. The government strengthened its intelligence forces and new technologies of spying emails and other private communication was initiated. In addition, all entry points, including the airports and ports were closely monitored. External intelligence systems were also strengthened, whereby some members of the US intelligence community have been strengthened. Today, hardly an enemy’s plan can escape the eyes of the US intelligence community.
FAS.ORG. “The Evolution of the U.S. Intelligence Community-An Historical Overview.” FAS.ORG. 1996. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/int022.html (accessed January 11, 2014).
Tobosaru, Nicolae. “Evolutions of The U.S. Intelligence community after September 11th 2001.” Supplement Geostrategic Pulse 133 (2012): 1-12.
Andreas, Peter, Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide, Second Edition, (2009, Ithaca: Cornell University Press) 12.
Andreas, p. 28.
Andreas, p. 34.
Andreas, p. 41.
Andreas, p. 40.
Christopher, Kenneth, Port Security Management, (2009, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group) 11.
Christopher, p. 17
Christopher, p. 19.
Christopher, p. 28.
Christopher, p. 51.
FAS.ORG, The Evolution of the U.S. Intelligence Community-An Historical Overview, 1996, derived from: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/int022.html (accessed January 11, 2014).
Tobosaru, Nicolae, Evolutions of The U.S. Intelligence community after September 11th 2001, Supplement Geostrategic Pulse, vol. 133, 2012, p. 5.
FAS.ORG, par 8.
Tobosaru, p. 6.
What the United States ought to do to counter terrorists
In the United States, countering terrorism has become one of the top national security priorities. There are a number of resources that have been allocated to counter terrorism in the country and especially after the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked on 11th September2011. One of the strategy that should be enforced, which has been in place is military action, which includes toppling the Taliban and pursuing the Al Qaeda. For a long term success, the United States should ensure that all areas are covered, which include intelligence, diplomacy, covert action, enforcement of law, foreign aid and economic policy (Fisher, 2007, p. 77). This strategy should be in coalition basis, which includes partnering with Muslim nations in its implementation and development. The other counter terrorism strategy should include the defence system. Good choices should be made on the allocation of resources. Planning may not have as much effect as allocating resources would. Therefore, America should clearly define the responsibility of their defence.
Role of law enforcement community on terrorism
The law enforcement community must do everything in relation to the available recources to counter any future plan to attack the United States. Therefore, there should be a keen watch out to every member of the society and the leaders from these communities in order to combat terrorism.
Fisher, U. (2007). Deterrence, Terrorism, and American Values. Retrieved on 3rd December 2013 from http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=3.1.4
HOMELAND SECURITY 2
Running Head: HOMELAND SECURITY 1
Homeland Security is the effort made by a nation to prevent terrorism attacks by ensuring that less of these attacks occur and minimize the level of damages incase its occurrence. Homeland security has been experiencing lots of challenges and the operation becomes harder to handle and control.
Cyber-attacks are one of the main challenges that the Homeland security face. The need for increased cyber attack defense is therefore necessary since the potential enemies’ tools of destruction are broadly available and the vulnerabilities of the systems are myriad and well known and a single act could inflict damage in multiple locations at the same time without the attacker having physically being in that nation (Bennett, 2007, p. 10).
Nations should also increase the level of aviation security and border security. Non-citizens of a country do most terrorist attacks and they could perhaps get enough support from citizens of the country and better screening devices. The increase of aviation and border security would help the homeland security department to know of people coming into their country either as a tourist or for business matters where they will reside and for how long. With this information, some terrorist attacks could be easily be terminated by the security teams.
Foreign communities in the country should also be focused on a lot since as much as a country shares and interconnects critical infrastructure like the railway, a terrorist would not need to gain access in a country to attack another nation’s infrastructure (Bennett, 2007, p. 11). However, for terrorism attacks to happen they are normally planned for a long period in most cases. With a good understanding of suspicious peoples’ whereabouts would help to know of any ongoing illegal or harmful activities.
Corruption is also a major challenge to Homeland security. For most attacks that happen perhaps in social amenities, buildings, or even assassination plans people, especially citizens of that nation tend to be bribed with large amounts of money or fixed assets to give information or participate in such attacks. These attacks usually happen with a lot of support from persons perhaps from different governments and nationalist of that country. However, people should be educated on the effects of corruption and the effects of a terrorist attack to the country, the citizens, and the world. This will help curb a number of terrorist attacks plans.
Food defense is also a threat to homeland security since foods can be intentionally contaminated for purposes of terrorism for instance the dilution of a valuable commodity or other harmful intent (Painter, 2013, p. 19). Food borne outbreaks could sicken a large number of people in a country therefore protection of food supply especially imported foods should be highly be considered by the homeland security department.
Poor preparedness for terrorism attacks is also a challenge to homeland security. A quick response to the attack by the civilians and the disaster management teams will prevent much loss of live, more destruction and reduce the chances of a complete attack strategy. Terrorism preparedness also includes educating the public on dos, don’ts incase terrorism attacks take place, and this would help reduce cases of posttraumatic cases.
Chemical facilities should be a great concern to the Homeland security department since most chemical substances can be used to create explosives for terrorism attacks. The Homeland security department should set rules and regulations on disposals of such chemical substances by companies that use such facilities in their operations and control the level of such substances being imported to the country.
The homeland security department team should beef up transit and cargo security. Numerous attacks in the past have taken place in public means of transports such as trains that carry a large number of people in a day. Security personnel should be allocated at all stations and in trains or any other public service transport facilities to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks in them. A large number of cargo containers arrive in the U.S on a daily basis. The homeland security therefore should ensure enough security in the clearing centers and ensure that thorough inspections are made to all containers arriving in the country to ensure that there are no harmful substances into the country.
Freedom given to the people in accordance to the constitution is also a major challenge since one can go anywhere they want in the country and not knowing about a person’s where about becomes a major challenge to know what such people are up to. However, the homeland security department can ensure that there are enough of their security personnel in all parts of the country to ensure that even outsiders are able to be located easily regardless of the physical location.
Communication connection is also an important factor the homeland security department should focus on. This is for strengthening vertical communication sharing, protecting the critical infrastructure, and establishing overall information sharing (Kenyon, Lawlor and Lilie, 2004, p. 75). Information security is therefore a major aspect to curb terrorism attacks.
Asymmetric threats are a challenge to homeland security and it is the exploiting of the enemy’s weakness and ignoring the strength (McIntyre, 2001, p. 15). Terrorist attacks are asymmetric since they target the civilians who have no training to defend themselves on this attacks and not the army.
Technology is also a factor the homeland security department should make sure has and up to date. Technology has become a major invention in the worlds operations lately. With the best and up to date level of technology, terrorist attack plans would be terminated due to the easy way to get information or detect explosive devices for instance the satellite.
International relations also could be a challenge to the Homeland security department and should ensure the governments has good international relations with many different countries in the world and these would bring support for each other’s country in case of such attacks been planned. Terrorist attacks are sometimes seen; as political and other governments would tend to support, a country to be attacked either financially or even lay out strategies for the attack. Therefore, a nation with good international protection would be protected by those nations they have this good relation with and the level of terrorism attacks would reduce.
Bennett, B. T. (2007). Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism: Protecting critical infrastructure and personnel. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Interscience.
Kenyon, H. S., Lawlor, M., & Lilie, C. (2004). Breaking down barriers to homeland security. Signal, 58(9), 75.
McIntyre, D. (2001). Homeland security: What is to be done. Military Technology, 25(12), 12-21
Painter, W. L. (2013). Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 113th Congress: Congress Research Service.
HOMELAND SECURITY 5
Running Head: HOMELAND SECURITY 1