Thinking About Homeland Security Policies and Programs

Homeland security policy and programs are based on certain factors---intelligence, threat information, inherent risk situations, probable attack scenarios, prior experience with terror groups, Presidential preferences and the emergence of new threats to the homeland never before assessed.  Some would favor a homeland security policy framework in which the intent of the malicious actor is assessed along with the presumed authenticity of that intent.  In turn, that intention is then analyzed in light of capabilities or access to means to do harm and actually deliver on the intentions and threats.  At the same time, the degree of vulnerability is considered which entails levels of security and assumptions of risk.  Not all potential targets reflect the same level of risk.  Finally, an evaluation of all of the aforementioned when combined analytically equals the actual threat, or degree of danger.  Once the danger is identified and anticipated, a response in the form of mitigation, prevention, or protection can be considered, as well as proper response and recovery plans.   This also depends heavily on knowing when the actual threat will manifest and what the specific target is.   Too often, however, we cannot fathom an enemy’s intent, and we are materially ignorant of his capabilities as well as our specific vulnerabilities.  One famous political leader has said, “terrorists only have to be right 1% of the time, while we have to be vigilant 100% of the time.” 

As we ponder the array of strategic issues which DHS must address and resolve—consider these challenges  

• Homeland security  vs. national security vs. international security—what balance makes sense?
• Looking at DHS components' strategic plans and goals, which ones deserve highest priority?
• How to best devise strategy, overcome faulty assumptions, deal with unknowns and black swans?
• What does layered defense really mean?
• What mechanisms and insights are crucial for crisis management?
• What is the proper role of the private sector in homeland security?
• What is the collaborative role of the Defense Department when working with the states and DHS?
• What strategies will be adequate to deal with evolving terror threat tactics in the future?
• What planning schemes seem most effective against likely risk, and specific threats?
• What is the proper role of domestic and foreign intelligence?
• What further steps--if any--can be taken to reduce the risks of future terrorist attacks?

The principal risk challenge of tomorrow's threat environment is knowing where and when a future terror attack will take place.  This is complex and difficult because we seldom can predict with accuracy what will happen in a few days.  Nevertheless, our national approach is to discern the intent of any hostile party, assess its capabilities and interdict or prevent the execution of an attack.  If there is hostile intent, and there is perceived or known access to weaponized elements or other offensive instrumentalities, the likelihood of an incident is then measured against the vulnerabilities of the targeted nation or individuals.  If there is a real likelihood that the actor is able to engage in a malicious act and the target is vulnerable, the question becomes how much risk is tolerable?  The same thought process must be applied to potential natural disasters as well.  However today we must also contend with the radicalized homegrown violent extremist [HVE], the disaffected insider and foreign agents dwelling among us in quiet and low key situations which some regard as ‘sleeper cells’. In addition, we must be vigilant about those who have slipped inside the country illegally and who are awaiting the opportunity to attack.

So this poses several challenging dilemmas which will confront DHS and national security experts in the years ahead. Those include: 

• Will there be another massive high casualty attack on one of our cities?
• Will there be a series of small-scale attacks against soft targets?
• Will terrorists prefer a cyber attack over a more conventional armed attack?
• Will the United States adopt an armed targeted retaliation policy for future terror attacks?
• Will the United States have to sustain and support an allied coalition indefinitely to defeat or neutralize terror groups?

Whether the actor is man or Mother Nature, the statement made by President Bush in the July 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security focusing on risk (although his focus was on terrorism) rings true today: Because we must not permit the threat of terrorism to alter the American way of life, we have to accept some level of terrorist risk as a permanent condition. We must constantly balance the benefits of mitigating this risk against both the economic costs and infringements on individual liberty that this mitigation entails. No mathematical formula can reveal the appropriate balance; it must be determined by politically accountable leaders exercising sound, considered judgment informed by top-notch scientists, medical experts, and engineers. Again, how much risk is the homeland security strategist willing to accept?