Current Strategies and Paradigms of Homeland Security

When confronted with the threat of the escalation of terrorism since the 9/11 attack, the U.S. strategy has been to take the offense in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that either support terrorism, or harbor and support terrorist groups.  The strategy for homeland security has thus been partially focused on preempting terrorism before it has a chance to occur.  This threat-based counter-terrorism strategy has three elements:  stopping terrorists we know about, trying to stop terrorists we don’t yet know about, and discouraging people from becoming terrorists.  The challenge has been to learn which state supported and non-state supported terrorists are as a prerequisite to understanding the threat.  At the same time, gaining an understanding of U.S. vulnerabilities and eliminating or reducing them, has also been the approach for defending the homeland, regardless of the identity or the intent of the bad actors.  Making a potential attack too risky or forcing a potential terrorist to consider a target of significantly lower ‘value’ may thwart a potential attack, or certainly a more serious one.

Accomplishing the above goals of taking the initiative to the terrorists while reducing vulnerabilities has required a comprehensive security strategy – a National Strategy for Homeland Security (2007) that includes elements of mitigation, prevention, protection, and response. In reaction to natural disasters, specifically Hurricane Katrina, it applies an all-hazards approach. 

Trying to find the center of gravity in the strategy for homeland security has resulted in a strategic cycle from prevention to recovery.  Preventing an attack from occurring through diplomacy and other policies to reduce or eliminate factors which spawn terrorism, through the effective use of intelligence regarding a potential threat, and the use of law enforcement against the potential acts are initial, yet difficult, steps.  Beyond that, there is a need to protect critical infrastructure, such as airports, airways, water supplies, bridges, and key buildings at all levels.  At the same time, there is a need to respond to any attack in order to minimize loss of life and limit further damage to infrastructure.   This approach to decision making has become so important that it is part of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), in which assumptions and variables are discussed.

The evolving organization of participants involved in some aspect of homeland security is an aspect of the U.S. form of governance.  The Department of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of National Intelligence, the National Counter Terrorism Center, and the U.S. Northern Command are all new participants at the federal level in a homeland security strategy centered on prevention, protection, mitigation, repsonse, and recovery.  Although all agencies are charged with strategic thinking, the Department of Homeland Security has been given the lead and has set about that responsibility with great energy.  By comparing the 2010 with the 2014 QHSR and beyond, reviewing this lesson's readings, we can see shifts in orientation and overall policy emphasis.