Homeland Security Watch

Early this afternoon Philip Mudd withdrew from consideration as DHS Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. 

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that a Senate aide had raised the possibility of Mr. Mudd being associated with “enhanced” interrogation techniques used during the last administration.

Late this afternoon the Associated Press reports,  “At issue was the extent of Mudd’s involvement in the interrogation program while he was a senior CIA official in the Bush administration. The interrogation methods have been criticized by Democratic lawmakers and Obama… As deputy director of the Office of Terrorism Analysis at the CIA, Mudd had direct knowledge of the agency’s harsh interrogation program, according to a congressional aide, who was not authorized to disclose the information and spoke on condition of anonymity.”

In recent years,  Mr. Mudd has held a senior  position with the  National Security Branch at the FBI.  Before that he served with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Intelligence Council, and the National Security Council.  I do not know him.

Mr. Mudd may have — probably did — know of the harsh techniques being applied at Guantanamo and elsewhere.  So did I.  So did all of us who were paying attention.  Perhaps — certainly – Mr. Mudd knew of the techniques earlier than most of us.  

While brooding over what I knew, I was mostly quiet. And in this silence and delay I am no less complicit than he, and barely less than the torturers.  So where does that leave me — and you — on this late Spring day?  What should we resign?  How might we forsake redemption?

Mr. Mudd’s vita notes he has a Master of Arts in English Literature.  He is especially fond of Victorian fiction.  I do not share his taste.  But here is a poem of the period that may capture our present paradox.

When will you ever, Peace, wild wooddove, shy wings shut,
Your round me roaming end, and under be my boughs?

When, when, Peace, will you, Peace? I’ll not play hypocrite
To own my heart: I yield you do come sometimes; but
That piecemeal peace is poor peace. What pure peace allows
Alarms of wars, the daunting wars, the death of it?

O surely, reaving Peace, my Lord should leave in lieu
Some good! And so he does leave Patience exquisite,
That plumes to Peace thereafter. And when Peace here does house
He comes with work to do, he does not come to coo,
He comes to brood and sit.

Gerard Manley Hopkins

Related Saturday morning reports:

Washington Post

New York Times

Newsweek

The Cable  (Foreign Policy)

Daily Kos by fflambeau

Monday morning reports:

Wall Street Journal

On Monday morning the withdrawal is also featured in a few regional papers.  But a Friday afternoon story  has to have significant legs to make it into the next week.  While the Mudd resignation itself may not, the larger story clearly will, as underlined by this Sunday New York Times front-page story: US Lawyers Agreed on Legality of Brutal Tactic.

Pat Longstaff offers an especially helpful comment on the issue.  Access immediately below.

English language media is not the best barometer for measuring reaction among speakers of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Pashto, and more.  But it is what I can do.

Thursday night for several hours the “most emailed article” at Al Jezeera English was the full-text of the President’s Cairo speech.  It continues in first place today.

The lead editorial in today’s Daily Star of Lebanon includes, “Obama’s speech wasn’t a lightweight declaration of idealistic principles; it represented a country, through its innovative leader, speaking quietly and carrying a big stick.  Obama emphasized the down side of global interdependence, meaning today’s problems have real-world impact for many countries. Moreover, interdependence is a two-way street: people here are being asked to drop their misperceptions, just as America under Obama’s leadership is prepared to drop its own misperceptions.”

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg argues, “The American president may believe that he has articulated the principles of mutual acceptance that “everyone knows to be true,” but this is a stretch. His “everyone” ignores the army of propagandists who promote the anti-Israel narrative, label every act of self-defense a “war crime” and a “human rights violation,” and reject the right of Jewish self-determination… In promoting his peace plan, including the demand for a freeze in Israeli settlements, Obama has imagined a false and highly dangerous symmetry. Israelis are far more vulnerable to American pressure than the Palestinian leaders (Hamas and Fatah) or the dictatorships that control Egypt or Syria. No Israeli leader can afford to ignore or reject American coercion, particularly as Iran continues efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But if Netanyahu accepts Obama’s demands, and there is little or no change in the hatred, violence and rejectionism on the Arab side, the “land for peace” exchange will fail, and Israel will have neither.”

The BBC gathered several “official reactions,”including this one from Mohammad Marandi, head of North American Studies at Tehran (Iran) University, “With regard to Iran, the tone is significantly more positive than before, compared to the previous US administration, though still in some aspects negative. But I think Iranians alongside the people of the region expect the same change that Obama was promising to the American people, for American policies in the Middle East region as well. America has to change. Talking is not enough. As long as racism and apartheid continue to exist in Palestine there will be no peace in the region.”

The BBC also has a report on how those using Facebook, Twitter, and other social media responded to the speech.

In Pakistan attention to the speech was muted by the nation’s sharp battle against insurgents, hundreds of thousands of internal refugees,  and a possible opening in relations with India.  But the lead editorial in DAWN responds to the speech and is the fifth most emailed (Friday morning US time). After characterizing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in rather hopeless terms, the editorial goes on, “The other issue that can undo Mr Obama’s effort to reach out to the Muslim world is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. No doubt few of Iran’s Muslim neighbours will be comfortable with it acquiring nuclear weapons. At the same time, however, the issue is mired in a deep sense of resentment and unfairness: the US has nuclear weapons but it doesn’t want other countries — read Muslim countries — to have the same capability goes the argument. How the Obama administration treads that tightrope will determine who wins the psychological battle for Muslim hearts and minds.”

I was especially struck by this Associated Press photograph that accompanied DAWN’s front-page news story on the Cairo Speech.  It shows members of the Hamas militia in Gaza listening to the the President.  

CNN has published a well-done round-up of world reaction to the Cairo Speech.

One of the comments on Al Jezeera English is authored by a Muslim American who teaches at the American University of Cairo.  S. Abdallah Schleifer was in the Great Hall to hear the President and had this reaction:

But this extraordinary event was more than superb pacing and performance, more than the soaring, almost classic oratory Obama is famous for and that translates so well into modern literary Arabic.

It was more than soothing and conciliatory words for a predominantly Arab audience here in the Festival Hall, or the millions who watched and listened at home and the office, at universities and cafes courtesy of a dozen live Arab satellite feeds.

A vast Arab audience nursing the grievances of decades sharpened by the blows of the past eight years that preceded Obama’s presidency – the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the collapse of the Arab-Israeli peace process, the brutality of the siege and war on Gaza that cry out for justice and conciliation.

Obama vowed that he was in Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”, a new beginning based  on respect – a word that figured significantly in this speech – as well as “mutual interests and shared values”.

But it quickly became clear that he was basing that new beginning on acknowledging realities and speaking hard truths – to Americans and to Israelis as well as to Arabs and Muslims.

If the United States remains faithful to the inclusive values of human liberty, in the long run it may be the voice and example of Muslim-Americans that gives our counterterrorist mission a decisive advantage.

Later this morning Secretary Napolitano will meet with the new Homeland Security Advisory Council in Albuquerque (10:00 mountain).  The PSD-1 recommendations include “enhancing” the role and influence of advisory councils as a way of better ensuring the involvement of State, local, tribal, and private-sector leaders in policy-making.  You can follow the meeting via a new social media tool being deployed by DHS at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nmspirg-hsac

Yesterday the Associated Press reported, “The Obama administration’s pick for a top intelligence post at the Homeland Security Department has ties to the CIA’s harsh interrogation program, a congressional aide said. This could become an issue during Philip Mudd’s confirmation hearing, which is expected next week. Mudd was nominated to be under secretary of intelligence and analysis at Homeland Security.”

While yours truly, in particular, has been obsessing about resilience, other issues relevant to Homeland Security have certainly been popping.  In Case of Emergency, Read Blog is a good complement to HLSwatch.  This week the coverage there includes an exclusive look at Mike Chertoff’s new book.

Among  several other matters not covered since May 26 is the nomination hearing of Rand Beers as DHS Under Secretary for National Preparedness and Protection.  I appreciate William R. Cumming asking about it.  The hearing was conducted on June 2.  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has an archived video of the 105 minute hearing. Prepared statements and testimony are also available for review. Chairman Lieberman gave notice that his priorities for the NPPD include, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, target hardening, visa policy and enforcement, and chemical security.  I heard — or recognized — no surprises in the testimony or inquiries.  Toward the middle of the hearing, Mr. Beers explained that, without a statutory reorganization, he will — when confirmed — be “in charge” of all DHS cybersecurity operations, as has been reported elsewhere.

I received several private communications regarding yesterday’s “dinner” with Mr. Brennan.   The most critical comments assailed my attention to Mr. Sunstein rather than nominating State, local, tribal, or private sector professionals to the new Directorate.

Three reactions. 

First, the appointment of such individuals is nearly a foregone conclusion.  If Mr. Brennan asked for my nominations, I would be happy to provide some names. In fact, in the real world, I have been pushing one local leader.  Otherwise, if the sale has been made don’t waste time, move on.  How do you know what I might have said over dessert?

Second, putting the “right people” in place is never enough.  This is the most common error that managers and policymakers  make.  Someone I trust inside the process has said there is still the need for “policy direction.”  Right now the Resilience Policy Directorate is mostly a box in which to insert stakeholder — or functional – representatives.  There is a need to frame a reasonably clear “why and what” for the RPD.  I have argued — with others — that complex systems organize around meaning.  What is the meaning of resilience? 

Third, we have not answered the question of meaning.  I believe the Brits abetted by Cass Sunstein point us toward a helpful answer.  But as our discussion has exposed we are far from a meaningful consensus or even a simple modus operandi.

(Defensive interlude:  I, too, believe — profoundly — in emergence. But the reality of emergence should not be used as an excuse for intellectual laziness.  Our analyses will only be proximate and we should always recognize our limitations.  But we may speed and even shape emergence with the rigor of our analysis and the power of our creativity. We can contribute to helpful outcomes even when our specific input fails to fulfill our intent.)

Others have written they are preparing comments on resilience and/or the RPD.  Great.  If you are looking for an outcome beyond an interesting bloggy exchange, I suggest getting your comments into the conversation earlier instead of later.

I assume that when individuals write me privately, instead of making public comments,  they have ethical or political problems being identified with what they offer.  Yesterday someone I do not know sent along the following factual information.  The fact is helpful.  The contributor’s analysis is acute:

Avid reader of your blog. FYI, useful addition to the discussion is
that Resilience is defined in the DHS Lexicon as:

“Ability of systems, infrastructures, government, business, and
citizenry to resist, absorb, recover from, or adapt to an adverse
occurrence that may cause harm, destruction, or loss of national
significance .”

Link:http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs_risk_lexicon.pdf

Note, DHS continues to see resilience as subordinate to ‘risk’ and an
aspect of ‘vulnerability’, vice recognizing it as the super-ordinate
organizing philosophy laying above risk management. Still, a useful
working definition.

  Steve Flynn, Philip Palin, and John Brennan at Virtual Citronelle

As expected, Mr. Brennan was a bit late to arrive.  Steve Flynn joined me at the glittering, probably digitally enhanced, table.

“Your pitch has been vague Phil, what are you planning tonight?” Steve challenged.

“Whaddya  suggest?”

“Seems to me the context has seldom been better for American grit, volunteerism, and ingenuity in the face of adversity,” Flynn replied.

“And that’s not vague?” I asked smiling. “I’ve read your testimony and your books Steve, I expect Brennan has too, what’s new?  What’s the take-away?”

“Can I bring you a drink or an appetizer?” the waiter offered soothingly.  Flynn ordered a red wine.  I demurred wanting every synapse to fire as cleanly as possible.

Steve continued, “We have to gather and share as much threat, response, and recovery information as possible with private industry and state and local emergency responders. At the same time, it must place far greater emphasis on informing and engaging the American public. The key is to target the relevant audience with threat information that is matched with specific guidance on how to respond to the threat.”

“Psychological readiness is key,” I agreed nodding.  “The more we  think about a potential catastrophe, the less likely we will perceive the actual event as catastrophic.  The more we anticipate the worst, the more quickly and fully we bounce back.”

I’d lost him.  Steve was fixed on something over my left shoulder.  Virtual Citronelle is an immersive virtual space that mimics a real dining room. Sort of a flight simulator for policy wonks. 

“Hey Steve, good to see you,” Mr. Brennan reached out and they shook hands.  “So you’re Palin.  Ruchi says you’re not related to the Governor.”  Brennan’s digital handshake was more a quick grab than a welcome.

“Not in the last three generations,” I replied.  “I thought of Ruchi when I saw the proposal to spin-out long-term recovery.  Will that be her assignment?”

“Not my call.  I understand you think resilience is the solution to all my problems?”  His tone signaled impatience.

“Any chance of a dotted line between the Resilience Policy Directorate and OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)?” I asked. 

“No,” Brennan answered, looking slightly annoyed.

In my experience directly launching a policy pitch typically fails.  It sets up a kind of seller-buyer dynamic.  And most Washington policymakers use caveat emptor as their mantra, whether or not they practice yoga.  If there is some way to actually have a conversation substantive progress is much more likely.

“How much of the current thinking on resilience draws on the British model?” I asked.

“None, as far as I know.  If Randy and Michele looked across the pond they didn’t tell me.”

“It’s a good place to look,” Steve interjected. “Whitehall defines resilience as an integrated approach to anticipation, assessment, prevention, preparation, response and recovery. Those first three steps are too often left out of our approach. We talk about preparedness, but we’re usually just preparing to respond.  Resilience is also preventative.”

“Back in 04 parliament passed a Civil Contingencies Act that fundamentally reconceived and reorganized what we would call homeland security,” I added.  My voice goes a little high and fast when nervous. “Crucially, they reconceived and reorganized around resilience.  We’re not there yet.  But  the results of PSD-1 could push us that way.”

“The Brits are doing a good job on going public in a rigorous way with real risk assessment and the beginnings of serious risk-informed decision-making,” Steve said with the calm of a more experienced hand. “It’s not a panacea, John.  But it’s a practical model that is in place and from which we can learn alot.”

Brennan was sitting back, a little more relaxed.  My shoulders loosened.

“That’s why I asked about OIRA — or really about Cass Sunstein.  If Sunstein is too busy, we need to get one or two of his best acolytes assigned to the RPD,” my voice had returned to it’s typical baritone. “What Cass sets out in Worst Case Scenarios and in Nudge is the why and how of an American approach to resilience.”

“Are you ready to order?” the waiter asked.  We were not.  But Brennan picked up the menu.  Looks like he will continue the conversation.  A small victory.  Maybe I will have a drink.

(This is most definitely a fiction. Apologies may be in order to Steve Flynn, John Brennan, and — perhaps most of all — to Chef Michel Richard.  Please see many substantive comments by readers by scrolling below, but especially here and here and here.)

At about 6:10 am eastern the President will give his Cairo University speech.  When the prepared remarks are released, we will link them here.  UPDATE: The Washington Post has made available a transcript of the roughly 45 minute speech.

Every cable news channel around the world will provide extensive coverage. Probably worth checking the Al Jazeera Arabic homepage during the speech.  The White House will stream the speech live.  The White House is also promoting a new Facebook page to encourage public remarks on the speech.  We are told there are about 20 million Arabic-speaking users of Facebook.

This is how so-called soft power is expertly deployed.  As we have already seen, our adversaries understand the tough challenge they are facing.

Apparently inspired by the recent television duel of President Obama and former Vice-President Cheney, Osama bin Laden timed his most recent comments to coincide with Air Force One landing in Saudi Arabia.

In an audio-tape released to Al Jazeera, the al-Qaeda leader asserts that, “Obama and his administration have sowed new seeds of hatred against America… He has followed the steps of his predecessor in antagonising  Muslims … and laying the foundation for long wars.”

Tuesday bin-Laden’s Egyptian second-in-command,  Ayman al-Zawahri, posted an audio calling on Egyptians to reject President Obama’s Cairo University speech (today).  The carefully-timed and targeted double-blast by the terrorist leaders suggests particular concern for the President’s potential impact on Muslim public opinion. (More from CNN.)

(I do not read Arabic, can someone who does confirm, deny, or provide further guidance on whether or not this Al Jazeera page includes access to the most recent audiotapes?)

I am writing from Los Angeles and E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) 2009, the industry-only trade show for folks involved in the global interactive entertainment industry (i.e. video and computer games). Greeting attendees at the front of the L.A. Convention Center is a 1959 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Ambulance, which 80s film buffs may know better by its license plate – Ecto-1.  As I walk up, I notice that surrounding the vehicle — who you gonna call? – are the Ghostbusters, a rowdy HAZ-MAT crew of first responders with proton packs and ecto-googles.

Once inside, one of the first games I came across on the trade show floor was Real Heroes: Firefighters, a game to be released in July, which allows you to take on the role of a rookie firefighter working out of a busy metropolitan station and tacking emergencies. I tried the game and it was fun — though I was not too successful. The game is one of several on or coming into the market that allows a player to take on the role of a first responder – whether EMT, firefighter, or public health official. (I won’t even try to describe all the games available to help strategize, combat, and address some forms of terrorism or war).

While the games described above show the appeal of merging homeland security into our cultural entertainment preferences, games and homeland security are connected in several other critical ways. We are seeing video games and simulations being used more and more to help on a practical (not just an entertainment) level prepare our homeland security first responders and preventers.

For example, the Washington Post ran a story in late March entitled “Sober Games for First Responders” that detailed the efforts of the National Emergency Medical Services Preparedness Initiative at George Washington University to develop a video game that will allow emergency workers to hone their skills on the virtual scene of large-scale crises. The “Disaster Gaming” Initiative received a $4.8 million grant for the game, called Zero Hour: America’s Medic.

The Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) at Carnegie Mellon, in collaboration with the Fire Department of New York, has also developed a responder game tool – Hazmat: Hotzone, a simulation that uses videogame technology to train first responders about how to respond to hazardous materials emergencies. The game was designed to be distributed for free to fire departments across the country.

A team at the Sandia National Laboratories developed a game called Ground Truth, which was designed to help trainee firemen and policemen understand threats and measure their real-time responses. The game, for example, has as a scenario, a toxic chemical spill that requires players to organize evacuations, get hazmat and EMT teams in place, and keep law and order.

It would be interesting to see an in-depth analysis of how video games are being and can be used for the numerous simulation, training, and exercises in homeland space, as well as an assessment of stakeholder opinions on them.

On a related but different matter— the Department of Homeland Security also plays an important enforcement role that has a huge impact on those attending this week’s E3 trade show. The industry’s innovation and competiveness has been hit over the years with the trade in counterfeit and pirated goods – both online and in the bricks and mortar world. Much of those efforts fall to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. A number of their efforts are coordinated through the National Intellectual Property Rights Center, staffed with agents and analysts from ICE, CBP, and the FBI.

The Entertainment Software Association estimates that the U.S. video game industry was nearly a 12 billion dollar industry in 2008, a figure that has quadrupled since 1996. The industry, especially given many of the announcements this week at E3 of new and emerging technologies such as Microsoft’s Project Natal, should certainly continue to grow. That growth, however, will depend on how seriously and with what resources DHS and other federal agencies protect intellectual property.

The Pleasure of Your Company

is Cordially Requested

to Dinner with the

Honorable John O. Brennan

on Wednesday the Third of June

at Virtual Citronelle

on the Browser of Your Choice

If tonight you were seated next to John Brennan at dinner, what would you ask or tell the the Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (aka Deputy National Security Advisor)?

Since May 26 we have been having a conversation among ourselves regarding the establishment of the new Resilience Policy Directorate of the National Security Staff.  Scroll below.

What if someone within the gray granite and marble wedding cake next to the White House is assigned to summarize for Mr. Brennan the “chatter” regarding this proposal.  What would you want the top bullet point to read? The final bullet point?

Steve Flynn, the Reform Institute, the National Homeland Security Consortium, the House and Senate Homeland Security committees, and many others have had their input.  What is yours?

Expert analysis is so common inside the beltway as to have modest value.  It is almost (not quite) taken for granted.  There are  good substantive reasons for the Resilience Policy Directorate.  These arguments have been heard and largely accepted.

Persuasive presentations of self-serving proposals are even more common.  There is some element of this in the Resilience Policy Directorate.  State, local, tribal, and private-sector “stakeholders” are being given a specific seat at the table. 

Informed and thoughtful and constructive and personally disinterested  comments on important topics of the day are, however, so atypical that they can command unusual attention.  Evidence that ten or twenty of you consider this important will have much more impact than anything I write.

Readership over the last two days has increased substantially.  Lots of folks are listening.  I wonder what you are thinking?  More importantly, others are wondering too.  Is resilience just a new name for an old bucket?  Or does it, can it, should it signal a different strategic approach to homeland security?

Last night I was at dinner with two admirals.  They discussed and described how one of the most important aspects of today’s Maritime Strategy emerged over a dinner conversation in 1999.  How would you handle a dinner conversation tonight with Mr. Brennan?

The WHO is — finally —  preparing to declare a phase 6 pandemic, according to several media reports.  Several stories have appeared suggesting H1N1 has already met preexisting criteria for phase 6.  But the WHO has held back due to the comparatively mild nature of the current outbreak and concern that the declaration would be misunderstood. See Bloomberg  and Science Now for more.

A new survey finds that, “Nearly eight years after terrorists struck on U.S. soil, more than a third of Americans say they worry about the chance that they or their relatives might fall victim to a terrorist attack— essentially unchanged from 35 percent five years ago.”  The AP/GfK poll asked the terrorism related questions as part of a broader set of inquiries on politics and the economy.  See pages 5-7 of the survey results.

In an interesting example of a “cyber-accident” with potential implications for nuclear terrorism, please see today’s New York Times coverage of “US releases secret list of nuclear sites accidentally.”  Is this the same document, still available from the Secrecy News site (and also Cryptome)?  If so, get the 13 MB file asap.  Further, if so, mea culpa mea maxima culpa, William R. Cumming forwarded notice of this site to me early Tuesday and I did not recognize the implications.

New contributions to the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management consider national security strategies, terrorist networks, cost-benefit analysis of regulations, and more.

Pakistan’s reassertion of state authority in the Swat Valley has resulted in the capture of the regional administrative center of Mingora.  Several reports suggest that other cities in the area northwest of Islamabad are on the edge of being retaken. Refugees from the fighting are being urged to return home starting June 17.  But the Taliban and its allies will challenge the government from rural and mountainous hide-outs.  Meanwhile attention is increasingly focused on possible Pakistani military action in Wazistan on the Afpak border.  This is thought to be where al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership is concentrated.  In a front page piece focused on Waziristan the Monday Washington Post headlined, “A New Optimism in War on Al-Qaeda.”

Reader Contributions

Anonymous readers have sent along the following important links:

The Rockefeller Institute of Government has released a new study entitled, Who’s in Charge? Who Should Be? — The Role of the Federal Government in Megadisasters.  “This report recommends the federal government response to disasters should be changed to allow the president to appoint quickly a special Officer-in-Charge — with pre-approved discretionary funding — to oversee and coordinate government efforts following a major catastrophic event.”

From yesterday’s Federal Register please read this gem: The Department of Homeland Security, Policy Directorate/Office  of Strategic Plans… is soliciting comments concerning the  Quadrennial Homeland Security Report… Ideas, comments, or position papers will also be solicited at the
outset of the review and accepted via electronic means. All submitted
position papers will inform the QHSR Study Groups as they initiate
their analyses. All homeland security stakeholders are eligible and are
invited to provide input.”  HLSwatch will certainly be giving this much more attention.

Reader Contributions Elsewhere

Arnold Borgis, a regular reader and contributor to HLSwatch, encourages readers of the Huffington Post to take action in regard to the threat of nuclear terrorism. “Terrorist acquisition of a nuclear bomb, or the materials required to construct one, would fulfill President Obama’s warning that ‘one terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction.’  Significant, if insufficient, action has been made toward preventing nuclear terrorism while little has been accomplished in terms of preparedness for an attack. Similar to pandemic flu planning, such efforts need to occur outside of Washington, DC and include private businesses and citizens.”

Peter J. Brown, another frequent analyst and commentator here, gives readers of the Asia Times  a detailed report on lessons-learned from last  year’s massive Chinese earthquake. “A formal assessment of China’s emergency response and recovery efforts following last year’s earthquake was issued in December under the auspices of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) with assistance from the Bangkok-based Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. The ADB report, “People’s Republic of China: Providing Emergency Response to Sichuan Earthquake” is much longer – almost 200 pages – and, in many respects, more comprehensive and candid than the Chinese government’s official white paper. To get a complete picture, one must read both the white paper and the ADB report. “

Nick Armstrong, Project Director for Resilience and Security at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, offers a rich resource for defining and deploying a meaningful concept of resilience.

A  report from a January Resilience and Security workshop includes this provocative finding:

They spent some time trying to find a common definition of resilience, and, while they did not find a precise definition, they all arrived at a consensus that it had something to do with bouncing back after something bad happens and having the ability to bounce back to better place – a place better suited to new realities.

Access the INSCT website to read the entire report (6-plus MB PDF).

“The ability to bounce back to a better place,” would certainly be valuable.  I have seen it happen in small and big ways.  I have also seen modest challenges seem to overwhelm places and people that I  had considered very strong.  How do we make sense of the difference?  How do we craft and deploy policy that advances real resilience?

In his comments on the PSD-1 Review, Randy Beardsworth, one of the study’s co-chairs, notes  that implementation of the recommendations will, “expand the spectrum (of the White House security staff) from global to local.”

Global knows its way around the West Wing and the old State, War, and Navy Department offices next door.  Local security – despite delegations of sheriffs, police chiefs, and firefighters arriving for photo ops — not so much.

Creating the Resilience Policy Directorate, Beardsworth says, may be the “most significant aspect of the reorganization.”  The RPD is conceived as the policy shop through which local priorities, impediments, needs, and strengths can have direct and early influence on shaping and executing global security.

A slide displayed during the HSPI forum listed the following functions as belonging to the Resilience Policy portfolio:

• Domestic Critical Infrastructure Protection
• Planning Policy and Coordination
• All Hazards Preparedness and Grant Policy
• All Hazards Medical Preparedness
• Domestic Incident Management and Response Coordination
• Short-term Recovery Policy and Coordination
• Continuity
• Homeland Security  Professional Development
• National Exercise Program

Depending on how these functions are framed, this is either an enlargement of something familiar, say,  emergency management on steroids.  Or this is the opportunity to think anew about the nexus of local and global risk-readiness.  Beardsworth commented that the reorganization creates spaces and places for engaging new possibilities.

Since Saturday reader comments (and here) have ranged from skeptical to expansive.  There is a shared recognition that “resilience” is not well-defined.  The lack of mature definition could result in resiliency becoming, as one reader writes, “just another buzz word.”

I agree this is possible.  Especially if state, local, tribal and private-sector stakeholders do not seize the present opportunity.  

It is always tough, in the White House or the neighborhood fire station, to effectively  engage both urgent and  important.  But defining the scope and purpose of the Resilience Policy Directorate is important (do I really need to make this case?) and urgent.  A de facto definition will emerge in the next 100 days or so.  If our first responders don’t respond quickly — and strategically — to this alarm, a similar opportunity will not happen until after the next catastrophe – or presidential election.

The PSD-1 Review has identified Resilience as one of a dozen “essential portfolios” for a new national security architecture.  Here’s their list:

• Intelligence
• Cybersecurity
• Transborder
• Resilience
• Non-Proliferation
• Counterterrorism
• US Border
• Preparedness
• Counterproliferation
• Transnational
• Transportation
• Response

It is, I suggest and hope, meaningful that in this list of places, functions, and states-of-being that resilience is the only word that describes a broadly positive outcome.  Maybe Non-proliferation comes close, but  like Counterterrorism it is focused on stopping something bad.

Resilience can — I am arguing, should — be the cultivation of an innate condition.  The word is derived from the Latin — resilire — meaning to leap back,  gush forth, and spring forward.  To be resilient is to be active, energetic, engaged, able and ready to stretch ourselves, test ourselves, self-correct, and rapidly recover.  Resilience is not about responding to threats, it’s about embracing our full potential.

We should leap at the chance.

Last summer in a dim bar near the Capitol I was pushing resilience as a first-principle of homeland security.  A wise woman with long experience in mitigation and disaster response worried aloud about both  the concept and the word-choice.  “It sounds like a cute brand for a California wine,” she remarked.

I was drinking sauvignon blanc.  She was, I think, drinking scotch.  Maybe that tells you enough — too much — about each of us.

Last week the PSD-1 Review recommended, and the President’s decision referenced, creation of a Resilience Policy Directorate within the new National Security Staff. At a briefing on the study the co-chairs called the new directorate a “center of gravity” for state, local, tribal, and private sector engagement in homeland security policymaking.

In her remarks at the Homeland Security Policy Institute briefing on the entire study, Dr. Michele Malvesti indicated the new Directorate will address issues including, preparedness, response, infrastructure protection, continuity, training, and exercises.

In a follow-on discussion with an individual involved in drafting the PSD-1 Study I am told, “it is only an organizational construct at this point.  We still need to have the right people and the right policy direction in order to move resiliency policy forward.”

W. Edwards Deming argued that while people are  crucial, it is the management system — especially goal-setting, measures, and sanctions — that either empowers or subverts people’s performance. Is resilience just a re-branding of an old and undistinguished wine; is it a new way of staffing the typically ad hoc White House role in responding to natural disasters? Or is it — could it be — a fresh approach to prevention, mitigation, training, education, public engagement, and strategic risk-readiness?

As of June 1, it is an open question. The question will be answered as the new Directorate’s people are selected and the policy direction is set-out both explicitly and implicitly.  The opportunity exists for new wine in a new wineskin (or even a single malt scotch in a vintage oak barrel).  But a combination of crises, inertia, and neglect could easily conspire to produce satisfaction with the thin, sour wine of the past.

Last summer — and before and since — I advocated resilience as an organizing principle around which homeland security, not just the Department, could be helpfully organized.  Here again and without the benefit of an alcoholic beverage is the pitch:

Our goal is resilience.

We recognize natural, accidental, and intentional hazards will be experienced. But we can take steps now to maximize our physical, institutional, economic, technological, psychological, and constitutional resilience.

We seek to prevent harm. We will be vigilant and disciplined in assessing threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences. We will be vigorous in working together to reduce our vulnerabilities and preempt or deter the threats confronting us.

When prevention is not possible, we will take action to mitigate the consequences of harm. We will make the modest but sustained investments needed today to avoid unnecessarily catastrophic consequences tomorrow.

When prevention fails, we will be effective in response. We will be fully prepared to take collaborative action to reduce harm and speed recovery. We will demonstrate the courage and competence of a free people who care for one another.

We will manage recovery so as to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

I see resilience not just as an organizational construct, but as a linch-pin of policy. Push back.  Refine.  Redefine.  Redirect.  Given the very present opportunity, please address how resilience can become an effective center of gravity — not just for state, local, tribal, and private sector contributions – but for the field of homeland security.

(If reference to old and new wine in old or new skins is unfamiliar, please see origin here.)

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.

This week HLSwatch will give some continuing attention to the creation of a proposed Resilience Policy Directorate within the National Security Staff.  Please join the conversation with questions, concerns, and comments. On Wednesday, Thursday, and — especially — Saturday of last week (see below) we began this consideration.  Look for a new post later today.

Monday, June 1

This is the first official day of the Atlantic Hurricane Season.

10:00 am (pacific) Alameda, California – The US Coast Guard will commission its Force Readiness Command, an integrated tactics-to-policy, uniformed-and-civilian training and education function.

Tuesday, June 2

2:30 pm (eastern) Washington D.C. – The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on the nomination of Rand Beers to serve as DHS Undersecretary for National Protection and Programs.

Security Industry Association 2009 Government Summit opens in Washington D.C.  Continues on Wednesday.

Defense Daily Cybersecurity Conference, all day in Washington D.C.

Wednesday, June 3

12 noon (eastern) Washington D.C.  The Aspen Institute hosts a roundtable on homeland security.   Secretary Napolitano is scheduled to speak.

12 noon (eastern) Washington D.C.  The American Enterprise Institute hosts a seminar on addressing systemic risk (while focused on financial issues, may have implications for risk-informed thinking in homeland security).

Thursday, June 4

President Obama will give a speech at Cairo University focused on US relations with the Islamic world.

9:30 am (eastern) Washington D.C. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery will hold a hearing on preparations for the 2009 hurricane season.

10:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight will conduct a hearing on the DHS fiscal year 2009 budget.

Friday, June 5