Homeland Security Watch

I have the good fortune to work at the Naval Postgraduate School with smart people who have lots of ideas about how to improve this activity called homeland security.   This post is the first of what I hope is a recurring series intended to share some of those ideas on this blog.  I’ve asked those who contribute to this series to follow the format you’ll see below.

Today’s post is from Dr. Matthew J. Blackwood,  the Homeland Security Coordinator for the West Virginia Department of Agriculture.  Matt outlines an argument — one that has broad support among relevant educators — in favor of accrediting homeland security educational programs. (That said, the ideas are Matt’s and do not necessarily reflect any organization he is affiliated with.)

As Matt knows, I disagree with him about the need for accreditation and the process he outlines for deciding what counts as quality in homeland security education.  But those disagreements are for another time.  First, a succinct and in many ways compelling case for accrediting homeland security educational programs.

1. What one sentence best describes your idea about how to improve homeland security?

A standard curriculum and accreditation process for under-graduate and graduate programs focusing on homeland security will assure quality control.

2. Describe your idea in more depth

Homeland security requires a broad understanding of numerous related fields; there are no standards for the various programs across the United States. In order to prepare homeland security professionals for these challenges, the colleges must offer a curriculum specifying necessary skills and knowledge. While many institutions may have quality programs of study, prospective students or future employers are unable at this time to ascertain the quality. An accreditation process would establish a consistent method of evaluating the curriculum.

The homeland security accreditation process could model that of the ABET[1] which evaluates engineering programs. This process would accredit programs only—not degrees, departments, colleges, or institutions—homeland security programs would follow a specialized accreditation process that examines its specific curriculum. This approach would be similar to that for architecture, medicine, and engineering programs.

Accreditation would be voluntarily initiated by the institution. The purpose should be two-pronged with both internal and external assessments. When an institution of higher education requests an evaluation of its homeland security program, a self-study process begins to determine whether students, faculty, curriculum, and institutional support meet the established criteria. That document would then be submitted to an agency composed of professionals in homeland security for their review. An on-site visit would audit the program with a final report declaring the status of accredited, accredited with provisions, or denied.

The most important consideration is that professionals must establish the criteria by which the programs are evaluated. These standards should reflect what is deemed as necessary skills for homeland security education. Accreditation is important for many reasons:

· Accreditation helps prospective students choose quality college programs.

· Accreditation enables employers to recruit graduates they know are well-prepared.

· Accreditation gives colleges and universities a structured mechanism to assess, evaluate, and improve the quality of their programs.

3. What problem or issue does your idea address?

Colleges and universities are preparing leaders for the myriad of challenges associated with homeland security. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, many colleges began offering courses and programs to support the homeland security efforts of the United States.[2] Early in the developmental stage there was no agreed upon definition of homeland security and even less agreement related to the courses included in a homeland security curriculum. Working on this problem will address two related issues: (1) establishing a curriculum which offers standard skills for homeland security professionals and (2) developing an accreditation process to evaluate college and university programs. Currently, it is impossible for prospective students to determine which programs offer the proper preparation for a career in homeland security, and it is not feasible for employers to identify a quality program. An accreditation process would establish a consistent method of evaluating the curriculum.

4. If your idea were to become reality, who would benefit the most, and how?

Three groups would benefit from accrediting homeland security programs: students, schools, and homeland security professionals. Students would likely gain the most because they would be guaranteed preparation in the skill sets necessary to succeed in the field. The schools could benefit if the accreditation process were rigorous enough to set them apart from other programs; many programs simply take courses presently offered in other programs and revise them with a homeland security twist.[3] In this respect, the accreditation could be used as a marketing tool and would likely increase their enrollment. Current homeland security professionals and employers would also benefit because accreditation in any profession carries with it status of adequate preparation. Ultimately, accreditation assures that a program has met quality standards set by the profession. All of these groups would benefit if homeland security programs were accredited because the process insures that minimum qualification and standards are achieved.

5. What are the initial steps needed to get the idea off the ground?

The body to fulfill the role of accreditation is the Homeland Security Defense Education Consortium Association (HSDECA).[4] This organization is comprised of academic institutions which offer degrees or certificates in homeland security. Currently, the accreditation process is under development and will begin once approval is granted by the U.S. Department of Education. It is expected that this process “will play a significant role in the cohesion and regulation of homeland security studies across the nation.”[5]

The next step would be to develop a consensus on the standards for homeland security programs. Programs around the country rely on the curriculum established by the Center of Homeland Defense and Security; the University and Agency Partnership Initiative supports this initiative.[6] Members of HSDECA must work together to develop the standards; they will also provide the professionals who evaluate the programs and create the tools necessary to make sure that programs meet the standards.

6. Describe the optimal outcome should your idea be selected and successfully implemented. How would you measure that outcome?

The desired outcome of this initiative would address both the creation of a standard list of skills for homeland security professionals and development of an accreditation process to evaluate college and university programs.

HSDECA will serve as the accreditation-body to create a process for evaluating homeland security programs and provide those programs meeting standards with a seal of approval. Schools would voluntarily ask for their programs to be considered for accreditation. This accreditation could be used as a marketing tool in an effort to set their programs apart from other schools. In order for this certification to carry status, the standards need to be set high.

The end-state of the accreditation would be a process that enables students to choose a quality homeland security program, permits employers to recruit graduates who are well-prepared, and gives schools a mechanism to review, evaluate, and enhance the quality of their homeland security programs.

[1] ABET changed its name from the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology in 2005.

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080300696.html

[3] Rollins, J. & Rowan, J. (2007). The homeland security academic environment: A review of current activities and issues for consideration.

[4] Supinski, S. (2009). Homeland Security Education: The CurrentState. Retrieved from: https://www.chds.us

[5] http://www.chds.us/?press/summit08, ¶ 4.

[6] Supinski. S. (2009). Personal Interview. June 9, 2009.

 By Peter J. Brown

Besides its recent decision to terminate the National Applications Office (NAO), DHS/FEMA — along with NGA — has several other satellite-related issues that warrant immediate attention.

The first responders we were in touch with recently use satellite communications (satcom) equipment routinely in their assigned missions, and they want DHS to hear their concerns. It is clear that from the standpoint of satcom operations and training, improvements are in order. By the way, we were also in touch with an MIT-trained professional space systems engineer who served as an instructor for a satcom training course attended by a team of first responders as well.

First, DHS has no single point of contact which handles satcom questions for first responders. Or if one exists, it is not well known.

“Yes, I agree that a single point of contact at the Federal level for satcom questions would be of great benefit,” says one tech specialist who supports a rapid response team on the East Coast.

Second, while satcom appears to be a simple and straightforward solution, these first responders report that there are many issues that make satcom not as user-friendly as it could otherwise be.
 
- High recurring costs restrain or even prevent many first responders from utilizing the equipment.
- Satcom usage fees are increasing — with some service providers — while available bandwidth is being reduced in some instances.
- Teams need to be more highly trained, and more technically proficient in the use of satcom including troubleshooting when higher level satcom activities beyond simple remote Web access are underway. (”I would say that the grasp is getting firmer, but is not as firm as it should be,” says one first responder.) Radio over IP, Voice over IP and video streaming warrant further training.
- Only a finite pool of people tend to have a complete understanding of the entire scope of the communications network end-to-end.
- Many if not all federal agency and DoD satcom systems use firewalls that prohibit first responders from utilizing their systems.
- When NGA makes an effort to provide GIS data to first responders, more often than not, it only supplies low resolution, dated imagery. The ability to access real or near real time imagery is still a major challenge.

The good news is that a terrestrial alternative — Cellular 3G technology — has seen a notable improvement in availability and use over the past year or so.  This includes redundancy - dual carrier service options (AT&T / Sprint) or failover to one if the other is not available in an area. 

Our instructor recommends that response teams should meet with a representative for the service provider(s) to explain specifics of the network, troubleshooting options, etc. Besides providing specific technical resources for troubleshooting in the field, this could greatly assist the team to improve its set up.

By the way, DHS needs to be aware that occasional denials of service due to the high volume of traffic in the aftermath of an emergency are being reported. Perhaps DHS — and the FCC too — needs to sit down with first responders, disaster assistance teams and service providers to establish a WPS or GETS-type high-priority service channel / policy for satcom users.

One first responder reported that he could not get a special category designation, or a “Fair Use Policy” waiver on short notice to override limits on bandwidth usage. This is very restrictive and upsetting for emergency users in particular since a few minutes of video or a bundle of aerial image downloads can quickly exceed the contractual cap in question. Because unexpected service interruptions in the middle of operations can occur for reasons such as unannounced software upgrades too, our instructor thinks it may be useful to develop a guidebook that would walk a team through negotiating their service contracts to avoid similar pitfalls.

Otherwise, one first responder points out that DHS, FEMA and NGA also need to do a better job of addressing the satcom “culture gap” or what is simply the fact that in the field, federal agency employees and local first responders have completely different needs.

“We just need basic information in a one or two shift operation, and we need to have the complete response quickly in the first request cycle, and not after 3 requests have been made and 36 hours have passed,” says one first responder.
 
While first responders are well versed in IP and even IPv6, cybersecurity is not a top priority. In fact, our instructor reports that in one 6-hour session, “I don’t recall cybersecurity ever being brought up; rather, the team seemed mostly concerned about physical trailer security. In other words, they didn’t want people to enter their trailer and steal their equipment.”

DHS might find this observation troubling.

Finally, with this year’s “Amateur Radio Week” drawing to a close this past weekend, this satellite guy want to salute all the members of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) who contribute so much of their time as volunteer communications personnel in emergency situations large and small. These people ensure that vital ham radio services are available on short notice whenever needed. They are truly the finest kind of first responders.

  Geography of the Afghan-Pakistan militant nexus from the BBC

Pakistan’s plan — hope? — to isolate Baitullah Mehsud has unravelled.  Over the last few days two other warlords have decided to leave the sidelines and join the fight against the government in the FATA.

Hafiz Gul Bahadur in North Waziristan and Maulvi Nazir in South Waziristan have each renounced previously negotiated peace-deals with Islamabad.    (Read more from the BBC.)  The tribal leaders have initiated attacks on Pakistan’s military forces still  massing for operations against Baitullah’s tribal heartland in South Waziristan. (Read more from LongWarJournal.)

This strategic set-back for Pakistan could, however, offer some tactical benefits to the 4th Brigade, 25th Infantry Division  deployed immediately across the border from North and South Waziristan.  Both Bahadur and Nazir have used their peace-deal with Pakistan to deploy more forces into Afghanistan.  The leaders are reportedly calling these resources home for battle against the Pakistan army.

Read more on recent operations in Eastern Afghanistan from LongWarJournal and  Stars and Stripes.

Read more on the new US strategy in Afghanistan from Reuters.

UPDATE: USA Today is reporting that a US soldier is missing and may have been captured in Eastern Afghanistan.

Despite the end of flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, the incidence of H1N1 continues to increase.  Over 1 million Americans are now estimated to have the virus. Several jurisdictions, including Washington D.C. and Wisconsin, are seeing an unusual number of cases of summer flu linked to H1N1.

In the Southern Hemisphere, the H1N1 virus is displacing the former seasonal strain.  Late yesterday the Buenos Aires region joined four other Argentine provinces in declaring a health emergency.  Schools  have been closed and other social distancing tactics are being implemented. Argentina’s response to the virus has been delayed and complicated by a national political campaign that concluded with an election on Sunday.  (More from the Buenos Aires Herald)

The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy has released a helpful round-up of good practice guidance for pandemic preparedness.  The Pennsylvania Department of Health is offering workshops to help businesses prepare for pandemic.

Every Friday the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention update US laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 at its FluView website.

UPDATE: Good late Wednesday overview of the situation in the Southern Cone from the Associated Press.

Late last night the Associated Press reported, “The Obama administration is developing plans to seek up to 1,500 National Guard volunteers to step up the military’s counter-drug efforts along the Mexican border…”

Chris Bellavita addressed this issue in a Saturday post.   Back in March I gave it some early attention.

The AP report continues, “The plan is a stopgap measure being worked out between the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department, and comes despite Pentagon concerns about committing more troops to the border — a move some officials worry will be seen as militarizing the region.”

The good news here is that the Pentagon is reluctant.

“Senior administration officials said the Guard program will last no longer than a year and would build on an existing counter-drug operation,” according to the AP report.  ”They said the program, which would largely be federally funded, would draw on National Guard volunteers from the four border states.”

The key phrase here is, “which would largely be federally funded.”

The Governors can deploy their State militias on their own authority.  But when they do, it is also on their own dime.  While I haven’t read the words, there is an implication that border state Governors want the National Guard federalized under Title 10, so they don’t have to pay the costs.

During most of American history — the Civil War being the most dramatic exception — the federal military enterprise on American soil has been exceedingly small.  Until World War II our most significant military forces consisted of either naval bases or state militias or federal troops being prepared for overseas operations.

Since World War II the size of the federal military establishment has, of course, skyrocketed.  But throughout this period the focus of the military has been on far-flung foreign adversaries.  Unfortunately domestic tranquility and the common defense now encourage looking closer to home.

The Associated Press reports, “Defense Secretary Robert Gates has expressed concern that tapping the military for border control posts is a slippery slope and must not be overused.” 

A slippery slope to where?  He does not say (or at least the AP does not say).  But history tells again and again of the danger to free institutions when military power is focused on issues of domestic security.   

In the case of the United States this is certainly not a clear and present danger.   Our current slope is very slight and firmly rooted with a military ethos and a political culture that ensures civilian authority.  

But boots-on-the-ground tend to erode any slope, no matter how gradual or well-rooted.  We have invested a great deal in the technical and intellectual competence of our professional military.  As an institution and as individuals, they are great problem-solvers.

Out of respect for our ancestors sacrifice – and our grand-children’s hope –for freedom, we should be very cautious regarding which problems we ask the military to fix.

As the sun rises over the Atlantic the readers of HLSwatch are heavily concentrated around Washington D.C. 

By about 1:00 pm the rest of the continent begins to outnumber our beltway readers.  This afternoon there are two pieces from Sunday’s  Washington Post that I want to be sure the beyond-the-beltway crowd don’t miss (and I assume most of the early morning crowd has already read).

Robert McCartney is a columnist for the Post’s Metro section.  The human side of the Metro crash is well-captured in his piece, “Co-workers Proud of Train Operator’s Courage.”

Also in yesterday’s paper is “When Fail-Safe Fails” by Charles B. Perrow, emeritus professor of sociology at Yale and author of Normal Accidents and The Next Catastrophe. 

Some key assumptions of each author are in tension.  I don’t presume to know which is closer to the truth in this particular circumstance.  Depending on context, each have important implications for prevention and mitigation.

UPDATE: A Monday story in the Post is headlined, “Metrorail Crash May Exemplify Automation Paradox.”

The White House is inviting your input on future treatment of classified information.  The following is from this morning’s White House blog:

We are very interested in receiving your comments on how classified national security information policy should be revised. I am Martin Faga, Chairman of the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), which is an advisory committee established to promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant U.S. national security decisions and activities. 

On May 27, 2009, the President signed a Memorandum ordering the review of Executive Order 12958, as amended, ”Classified National Security Information” (pdf). The review of the Order is to be completed within 90 days. On June 2, 2009, the National Security Advisor asked the PIDB to assist in this review by soliciting recommendations for revisions to the Order to ensure adequate public input as the review moves forward.   

In response to this request, the PIDB will first solicit recommendations through this blog. We expect to receive thoughtful comments that further the discussion of policy in four areas: declassification policy, a National Declassification Center, classification policy, and technology issues and challenges. We will begin today with declassification policy and allow commenting on this topic for three days before moving on to the next topic. 

PLEASE ACCESS THE DECLASSIFICATION POLICY FORUM

It would be great if you would copy-and-paste what you write in the DPF in comments to this blog post.  The resulting discussion on HLSwatch could contribute to the overall effort.

This week Pakistan’s military will intensify military operations in South Waziristan. There are plenty of targets.  But on Sunday the Islamabad government made clear that at the top of the list is Baitullah Mehsud (seen above).

Baitullah is accused of assasinating Benazir Bhutto and has claimed responsibility for a series of attacks across Pakistan.  In April he threatened “the heart of American  power… Not in Afghanistan, but in Washington, which will amaze the entire world.”  The United States has offered a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture or killing.

In early 2008 a terrorist cell in Spain — operating under the direction of Baitullah Mehsud — was captured by Spanish police before they could complete an attack on the Barcelona subway system.  Scotland Yard has reported Baitullah is behind plans to attack targets in Britain.

A Pashtun tribal leader and veteran of the successful Afghan insurgency against the Soviets, Baitullah is thought to command a force of roughly 20,000 fighters concentrated in his tribe’s South Waziristan heartland.  He assumed particular prominence in the Mehsud tribe following the July  2007 death of Abdullah Mehsud.  In late 2007 Baitullah was a co-founder of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)  or Taliban Movement in Pakistan.

Claiming close relations with Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, Baitullah — still under age 40 — is considered one of the most important rising figures in terrorist networks.  He does face inter-tribal and factional competition, but Baitullah has demonstrated a ready ability to take on (and out) any rivals.  Some also suspect the tribal warlord of being well-connected with senior leadership in the Pakistani intelligence services.

More information:

Baitullah Mehsud: Who is He? (DAWN, Pakistan)

Pakistan’s Most Wanted: Baitullah Mehsud (Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency)

Profile: Baitullah Mehsud (BBC News)

Waziristan operation to focus on Baitullah Mehsud (LongWarJournal)

Taliban Commander Baitullah Mehsud (TIME)

Following are a few Homeland Security events for the coming week.  For more information  access the embedded links.  Please use the comment function to identify other events you would like to bring to readers’ attention.  If you are attending or monitoring any of these events, please use the comment function to report out to the rest of us.

Congress is taking an Independence Day recess. 

Monday, June 29

DHS Chemical Sector Security Summit opens in Baltimore. Continues through Wednesday.

11:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C.  Heritage Foundation hosts the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the World at Risk panel discussing WMD proliferation and terrorism.

Tuesday, June 30

11:30 am (eastern) Washington D.C. The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosts a briefing on “Learning to live to live in a world with the  H1N1.pandemic.”

Wednesday, July 1

9:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C.  The Carnegie Endowment and WorldPublicOpinion.org host a discussion on “Pakistani Public Opinion on the Swat Conflict, Afghanistan, and the U.S.”

12 noon (eastern) Washington D.C. The Henry Stimson Center will host a briefing on “Preventing Catastrophic Terrorism.”

Thursday, July 2

2:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science will host a panel discussion on H1N1 pandemic.

9:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C.  The American Enterprise Institute hosts two panel discussions and releases a new report on presidential succession and continuity of government.

Friday, July 3

Saturday, July 4

Two-hundred thirty-third anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence at Philadelphia.

When is a “food fight” better described as using the dialect to develop policy?

Spencer Hsu’s “Pentagon, DHS Divided On Military’s Role at Border” outlines some legitimate policy differences between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security over the military’s role in domestic security.

The debate goes to the heart of the military’s role, which has expanded since the 2001 terrorist attacks, with an increasing commitment of troops and resources to homeland defense, particularly to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe. The deployment of new troops to the [US - Mexican] border [to help counter narcotics efforts] would represent a mission the military has not traditionally embraced.

Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership is quoted briefly in the article:

“What we’re seeing … here is a move toward reframing where defense begins and ends…. Traditionally the military looks outward, but looking outward has begun a lot closer to home, and it may involve looking just across the border.”

Last October, Bert wrote a substantive strategic analysis of this topic: “New Requirements for a New Challenge: The Military’s Role in Border Security.”  The article is available here, and is worth reading if this is a homeland security-related issue you follow.

From a process perspective, Hsu’s article provides an example of the role metaleadership plays (at least implicitly) in the way the Obama administration treats wicked problems:

A senior White House national security official said the president is comfortable with the disagreement and “wants to see the kind of creative tension and full-out debate that major policy decisions engender.”  The official added, “It’s the president’s view that . . . frankly, that kind of debate among two Cabinet officers like Secretary Gates and Secretary Napolitano, both of whom he holds in high regard, will inevitably lead to a better policy.”

Tossed the right way, food fights can nourish.

I find it challenging to consistently track all-hazards (or, what I think is a better framework, “all-risks”).  

My own interests and expertise push forward specific concerns.  The  unfolding events of each day push forward other concerns.  I am most often surprised by those risks that fall in-between.  I don’t  so much mind making a conscious choice and losing the bet.  Being surprised is a  bigger problem.

So I try to keep on my intellectual radar a wide range of threat-capabilities, more than specific threats.  For example, the threat of losing electric power, regardless of cause, is usually toward the top of my list.  The cascade of second and third order effects of losing power exposes a wide range of vulnerabilities.  I might be able to reduce or mitigate those vulnerabilities in advance.

I am not trying to – could not — capture all possible risks, even for  just the last few days. But what are the most important risks  not referenced below?  How do you define important?  What would you take off the list and why?

NATURAL RISKS

Three dead in Chicago heatwave

Thunderstorms spawn tornadoes and watersprout

House passes climate change bill

Boehner promises climate bill will cause bureaucratic nightmare

A tropical wave has formed south of Cuba

US rate of H1N1 infection increases

US swine flu vaccination program considered

H1N1 spreads across Southern Hemisphere: Australia, Brazil, and South Africa

Swine flu vaccine: the race is on

ACCIDENTAL RISKS

Leaky dam increases flood risk

Utility device sparks wildfire

DC Metro control system fails test

Safety board can’t investigate ammonia leak

Chemical leak sends five students to hospital

INTENTIONAL RISKS

House committee passes Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act

Dems moving to gut chemical security bill

Military command is created for cyber security

Pakistan bombs Taliban in Waziristan

Islamabad urges US to stop drone attacks inside Pakistan

Calderon says Mexican democracy is at stake

Pentagon, DHS divided on military’s role at border

People on terrorist watch list allowed to buy guns

Shift possible on Terror Suspects’ Detention

CROSS-CUTTING

House passes DHS appropriations bill

Johnson testifies on I&A mission and budget

… The Knight of the Holy Grail, Frederick J. Waugh, Renwick Gallery

As I walked out of a breakfast meeting yesterday morning, a bright young thing scurried up beside me and asked, “What was that really all about?”

We had been introduced just before the meeting convened. It was not clear to me if he was an intern or just-hired GS-zero-something. (He has now confirmed he is a full-time federal contract employee. This is his first job out of a Masters program.)

“Whaddya mean?”

“What’s the back-story? Who’s really trying to do what?” he said.

It had been a typical Washington D.C. event.  A private sector group had hosted a meeting that mixed a few civilian and uniformed feds, with a few civilian and uniformed non-feds, with some academics, and a couple of hard-to-define gad-flies. 

I belong to the last category.  A gad-fly’s principal value is biting a horse on its rump in order to prompt a gallop, preferably in a specific direction. But sometimes any movement is better than nothing.

“Aaa… what do you think?”  I worried that my sub-text alert system was malfunctioning.  I had not perceived much of any agenda, hidden or otherwise. The apple strudel, crisp on the outside with a warm fruity interior, had struck me as the most substantive aspect of the meeting. 

My younger colleague proceeded to spin an impressive web of connections and potential conspiracies.   Drawing on evidence from Politico, graduate studies in a security field, this blog, and — most impressive to me — some serious familiarity with Ludwig Wittgenstein, he framed the breakfast coffee-klatch as having the potential to change the world as we know it.

I am a child of the Quantum Era, I know everything is connected. I believe in emergence. This may be the only thing in which I deeply believe.

Maybe it is a gad-fly’s  aversion to webs that kept me some distance from the young man’s description of the reality we had each just experienced.

A similar attraction and dissonance skipped along my synapses this morning as I read for a third time the collection of  “voices from the homeland” that Chris Bellavita posted yesterday. (Please scroll down, those comments  are separated from these by only one wretched post.)

Do these people inhabit the same planet? 

Imagine for a moment breakfast with essayist number 2 (if we do have enemies, we should try to figure out why they are mad at us) and essayist number 3 (we should hold suspected terrorists longer than other people even though it may go against the constitutional right of that person) and essayist number 15 (most people don’t realize the consequences of being under full Sharia law).

There’s a discussion that should distract me from the strudel.  Maybe we should wait for dinner where  something stronger than coffee can be offered.

Unfortunately these diverse realities seldom sit together over a meal. Instead they collide in the more rarefied confines of dueling essays, snarky blogging, television commentary, or Congressional hearings… where, most often, value is generated by finding or causing a new fracture rather than cultivating enhanced commonality.

Yesterday, fortunately, my 10:30 appointment had canceled.  I was able to listen, ask, and comment in private.  It was already hot and humid, so we slipped into the Renwick Gallery where we whispered about our individual perceptions of threat, vulnerability, motivation, and purpose.  The painting above dominates the Grand Salon.

We did not always agree.  My young friend is predisposed to see intention where I tend to perceive randomness.  But it was a worthwhile 40 minutes.  At least a young man, just beginning his career, felt as if someone was listening.  An older man nearing the close of his career was flattered to be asked his opinion.

Reality is hard to know with any certainty.  The best we can do is to listen to one another — really attend to one another — and then respond with  whatever experience, judgment, and insight we might have.  Earnest is not bad.  The issues are serious.  But humility, especially with a bit of humor, is probably even more worthwhile.

As elusive as the grail.

Yesterday the Senate unanimously passed a measure that would triple non-military assistance to Pakistan (S. 962).  The House passed similar  legislation on June 11 (H.R. 1886).  A conference committee will now seek to resolve differences in the legislation, especially in regard to tougher House provisions for financial auditing and accountability.

The Senate measure provides $1.5 billion per year for five years in humanitarian and economic support.

Since mid-April roughly 2 million people have been displaced as a result of operations against neo-Taliban forces in the Swat valley.  Tens of thousands more are streaming out of South Waziristan where a sustained fight against Taliban, neo-Taliban, and al-Qaeda is expected in the next several days.

“In Pakistan, some 300,000 refugees are living outdoors, in tents or similar structures, said Michael Kocher, vice president of international programs for the International Rescue Committee.”

According to CNN, “extreme heat plagued Pakistan, with temperatures in May and June soaring past 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius). The heat is escalating the discomfort for many.”

“People are living in cramped situations, often unsanitary situations, and it’s very hot,” Kocher said. “In many places, there is not enough clean water or adequate sanitation. Heat exacerbates that problem.”

The refugee — or internally displaced persons (IDP) – camps are, however, only the tip of a sharp spear.  According to a report released yesterday by Refugees International, “the vast majority of the displaced – over 80 percent – are staying with host families who are quickly running out of resources. One aid organization has even reported ‘pockets of starvation’.”

The same report notes, not surprisingly, that “Jihadist groups” have begun to fill the assistance vacuum.  Taliban and their allies are providing food, shelter, and medical assistance where the Pakistan government, United Nations, and others are not.  The Taliban is also seeking to intimidate NGOs that are in place to leave.

For years the United States has urged Pakistan to be more aggressive against our adversaries along the Afpak border. These include several who have specifically threatened attacks on the United States.  Since mid-April, there has been a substantive change. Pakistan is fighting hard.  Our adversaries over-reached and they are paying the price.

But for our resilient foe, every crisis presents an opportunity.  The more Pakistanis who are displaced, the longer they are displaced, and the more difficult their displacement, the more opportunity is given our adversaries.

The annual budget of Pakistan, adopted Saturday, is roughly $36 billion.  Another $1.5 billion in non-military assistance from the US is not insignificant. But unless this funding is deployed quickly and effectively there is a real danger it will be entirely too little, too late.

The House and Senate bills, hyperlinked above, are worth reading.  Each are well-crafted piec