Strengthening security at home - The Global War On Terrorism

Joint Force Quarterly, Summer, 2002 by Michele A. Flournoy

The events of September 11, 2001, pierced the sense of invulnerability that most Americans had come to expect. Although the feeling of security at home waxed and waned with the perils of the Cold War--from duck-and-cover drills in the 1950s to detente in the 1970s--an expectation of being removed from any direct threat of war became common after the fall of the Soviet Union. As the sole superpower, the United States pursued its interests as a nation at peace. If the Persian Gulf War warned that were still threats around the world, it also reinforced the idea that America would fight its wars far from home. As one Pentagon wag quipped in the 1990s, the Armed Forces only played away games.

In the decade following Desert Storm, some defense analysts began to focus on asymmetric threats that could be directed at the homeland. At the same time the Clinton administration initiated various actions to help Federal, state, and local governments enhance their ability to defend against and coordinate responses to attacks on the United States. But Americans remained either unaware or unconvinced of any threat even after the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

In the wake of the worst terrorist attack in the history of the Nation, homeland security has become the top priority. Before September 2001 there was a growing commitment among many government officials to guard against such threats to the United States. Since then there has been an urgent public demand and an unprecedented political will to do whatever is necessary to enhance homeland security as quickly as possible. Congressional approval to give the President $40 billion in an emergency supplement--twice the sum requested--was indicative of the new mood.

But a year after this wake up call, the United States still lacks a homeland security strategy to manage risk and guide resource allocation. Although Congress is debating how to organize for homeland security, no decisions have been made on which threats require attention, what programs should receive a priority, and how resources must be allocated. Given this policy vacuum, there is an urgent need for an integrated, strategy-driven homeland security program.

Prevention, Protection, Response

Homeland security means preventing, deterring, preempting, and defending against attacks against the United States, and managing the consequences of any attack. Inherent in this definition are three broad-based and enduring objectives that must underpin a new national strategy. The first is preventing attacks. This is central to the open, democratic, market-based American way of life. Prevention involves countering threats before they become manifest as far from the Nation's borders as possible. This can range from efforts mounted with allies to roll up terrorist networks or denying access to weapons of mass destruction to immediate actions inside the United States to prevent terrorists from renting crop-dusters. Prevention is proactive, requiring offensive action to destroy or neutralize threats before an attack occurs. It involves "shaping the security environment to avoid or retard the emergence of threats to the United States," which can only be achieved by action abroad. (1) In this regard, the Departments of State and Defense, allies, and law enforcement agencies overseas play a significant role. In the final analysis, the major element of prevention is detecting threats in advance, with enough specificity and warning to take preventive action.

To deflect attacks, decisionmakers must anticipate the kinds of attacks that might occur and details on their nature, location, and timing. This requires good intelligence collection and analysis and, in most cases, substantial sharing of information across national and agency lines.

Because not every threat can be prevented, the goal must be to minimize the likelihood that the most serious types of attack could be mounted successfully. As the Secretary of Defense said, "Our victory will come with Americans living their lives day by day, going to work, raising their children, and building their dreams as they always have--a free and great people." (2) The fact that Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies have averted such attacks in the past by acting rapidly on specific indications is proof that a degree of prevention is possible.

The second objective of homeland security is enhancing the capability of the United States to protect itself against attack. This includes strengthening defenses against a range of threats that might come from a variety of directions against any number of targets.

Essential to the protection of American citizens is a capability to defeat or neutralize enemy action once an attack is launched. A range of capabilities that includes domestic law enforcement, intelligence, military, and public health organizations will be needed to mount effective barriers to such attacks whether they involve immediate responsive defense against either aircraft or missiles, a rapidly instigated search to find and foil a terrorist cell, or day-to-day security measures to patrol borders and protect critical infrastructure. This aspect of homeland security is particularly complex because of the variety of acknowledged threats, the increasing sophistication of known terrorists, and the ability of subversive elements to adapt their mode of operations to new countermeasures and exploit weaknesses in existing protective systems.