Political Context of Homeland Security
As already discussed, the realm of homeland security is an area of great complexity, posing a challenge to all policy makers. How to think about and manage it are questions that have presented a challenge since the origins of the nation. Although a structure, or a national strategy for Homeland Security, (the U.S. Constitution) has been in place for 222 years, it is arguably a complicated plan, which, by intention, does not lend itself easily to implementation. At the same time, the U.S. form of governance has many attributes that result in vulnerability such as federalism, limited government, government with the consent of the governed, inefficient government, deliberative government, decentralized government, states’ rights, individual rights, with many disparate points of sovereignty as well as a large private sector, and a political process with many factions.
It is thus perplexing to engage in long term visionary strategic thinking by a representative government with the body politic choosing to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while public servants, most of them derivative of the electoral process, request funds for programs, in an annual process, to spend on policy initiatives which are hopefully designed to advance the greater good by promoting the general welfare, or providing for the common defense!
When a serious threat to the national interests of survival, prosperity and preservation of those values enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights presents itself via a man caused or natural incident, the many instruments of statecraft (diplomatic, military, economic incentives and sanctions, information/intelligence) are brought to bear in an attempt at resolution, although the outcome frequently devolves into one of conflict management. That often results in a new status quo, which can be tolerable as long as it does not upset the free flow of persons and ideas and allows for returning to the previous lifestyle. There may be a few attendant inconveniences, but not a significant loss of individual freedom! In this fashion, the U.S. homeland security strategic environment has evolved into an iteration of strategies and organizational approaches, with a goal of zero incidents, but at the same time with the necessary assumption of risk. The real ‘new’ norm has become a state of existence of greater awareness not only of the likelihood of a disaster but also of the requirement to be resilient when it occurs. One of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission was that there was a lack of imagination which contributed to the inability of the system to foresee the incident. Since then, there have been additional examples of unpredicted actions from shoe and underwear bombers to the planned mixing of liquids. Each circumstance has resulted in a response from the entities charged with protecting that speific venue.
The evolving organization of participants involved in some aspect of homeland security is a unique aspect of the U.S. government. The Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Advisor, the Director of National Intelligence, the National Counter Terrorism Center, and the Northern Command are all recent participants at the federal level in a homeland security strategy centered on prevention, protection, response, and recovery.
These diverse entities are responsive in their creation and mission to what we are trying to protect: our citizens, our borders, our infrastructure, our communities, our national landmarks, the rights and freedoms referenced in the Constitution and exercised in the American way of life with its economic system and standard of living.