Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

September 3, 2015

Homeland Security: Top Issue or Other?

Filed under: Disaster,Preparedness and Response,Resilience,Strategy — by Philip J. Palin on September 3, 2015

In a speech last week to note the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s impact on the Gulf Coast, President Obama said:

Here in New Orleans, a city that embodies a celebration of life, suddenly seemed devoid of life.  A place once defined by color and sound — the second line down the street, the crawfish boils in backyards, the music always in the air — suddenly it was dark and silent.  And the world watched in horror.  We saw those rising waters drown the iconic streets of New Orleans.  Families stranded on rooftops.  Bodies in the streets.  Children crying, crowded in the Superdome.  An American city dark and under water.  

And this was something that was supposed to never happen here — maybe somewhere else.  But not here, not in America.  And we came to realize that what started out as a natural disaster became a manmade disaster — a failure of government to look out for its own citizens.  And the storm laid bare a deeper tragedy that had been brewing for decades because we came to understand that New Orleans, like so many cities and communities across the country, had for too long been plagued by structural inequalities that left too many people, especially poor people, especially people of color, without good jobs or affordable health care or decent housing.  Too many kids grew up surrounded by violent crime, cycling through substandard schools where few had a shot to break out of poverty.  And so like a body weakened already, undernourished already, when the storm hit, there was no resources to fall back on.

In the podcast with Thad Allen that Arnold Bogis highlighted on Tuesday, the former Coast Guard Commandant remarked, “The event does not create the preconditions, and to the extent that preconditions exist, that erodes resiliency and your ability to deal with the problem, you’re going have the consequences of greater effect and greater magnitude.”

In addition to the preconditions noted by the President and the Admiral, I would highlight the structure of the electrical grid, fuel distribution systems, supply chains for food, pharmaceuticals, medical goods, and more.  The lower ninth ward did not have a functioning public water system for fourteen months after Katrina. What would be the situation in post-earthquake Los Angeles?  In the New Orleans region, as in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and in myriad locations along most major US waterways, dikes, levees, dams and other engineered structures have incrementally accumulated without much attention to potential interdependencies.  Dozens of dams my grandfather was instrumental in building more than sixty years ago have not been maintained and are an increasing hazard.

As the President suggests, many of our most troublesome preconditions are the result of neglect.  But others — even some referenced by Mr. Obama — are as likely to emerge from proactive and purposeful choices intended to enhance efficiency, economic productivity, and other generally perceived positives.

Does the Homeland Security mission include addressing preconditions?

Glance at the screen capture below.  This is from the White House website.  Click on ISSUES and this is what is displayed.  Does the distinction between “Top Issues” and “More” strike you as meaningful?

White House Website_Issues

I suspect the headings were organized by a web-master rather than senior policy staff. But like an innocent (Freudian?) slip of the tongue, it’s interesting to consider.  I may even agree with the distinctions.  The “Top Issues” listed above have the potential to shape the strategic landscape.  Those listed under the first set of “More”, as usually conceived, are much more responses to problems that resist strategic shaping.

Much of my work tries to get Homeland Security more effectively engaged in preconditions.  Presidential Policy Directive 21 indicates:

The Federal Government shall work with critical infrastructure owners and operators and SLTT entities to take proactive steps to manage risk and strengthen the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, considering all hazards that could have a debilitating impact on national security, economic stability, public health and safety, or any combination thereof. These efforts shall seek to reduce vulnerabilities, minimize consequences, identify and disrupt threats, and hasten response and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure.

Later in the same PPD, we read:

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide strategic guidance, promote a national unity of effort, and coordinate the overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure. In carrying out the responsibilities assigned in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, the Secretary of Homeland Security evaluates national capabilities, opportunities, and challenges in protecting critical infrastructure; analyzes threats to, vulnerabilities of, and potential consequences from all hazards on critical infrastructure; identifies security and resilience functions that are necessary for effective public-private engagement with all critical infrastructure sectors; develops a national plan and metrics, in coordination with SSAs and other critical infrastructure partners; integrates and coordinates Federal cross-sector security and resilience activities; identifies and analyzes key interdependencies among critical infrastructure sectors; and reports on the effectiveness of national efforts to strengthen the Nation’s security and resilience posture for critical infrastructure.

Several additional DHS roles are then listed.  Similar proactive language — authorities, as they are called — can be found in other statutes and executive actions. But whatever the authorities and occasional exception, the culture of Homeland Security remains more defensive…threat-oriented…reactive.

Preconditions persist and multiply.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn


Comment by John Comiskey

September 3, 2015 @ 4:35 am

Currently, DHS is trying to identify it’s employee’s “resiliency” under a rubric of individual resiliency posture. The rationale is that an organization’s resiliency is predicated on the resiliency of its individual members.

In my current research, I ask is the oft stated DHS mantra that homeland security is about hometown security true.

The research focuses on a small coastal town in Monmouth County, N.J. that was struck/impacted by Superstorm Sandy in 2012, Hurricane Irene in 2012, Hurricane Felix in 1995, and the Great Hurricane of 1938. The research focuses on Superstorm Sandy and the Emergency Services Sector (Police, Fire, EMS, OEM, & Public Works).

Thus far, I have found that the Emergency Services Sector was supported greatly by local government and a great sense of civic cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and strategic foresight. I “sense” that near all organizational leaders demonstrated a high level a personal resilience. I found that the town’s response was a whole community approach to preparing for, responding to, and recovering from Superstorm Sandy

I sense that NOLA’s response to Katrina was less than a whole community approach and that NOLA’s leaders were less resilient.

Notably, I found NOLA’s response to Deepwater Horizon to be the complete opposite –they learned to be proactive, responsive, and to collaborate.

*One noticeable limitation of my study for generalization purposes was the affluence of the town and county.

I plan to publish my findings in a HLS journal in 2016

Comment by John Comiskey

September 3, 2015 @ 4:36 am

Correction: Hurricane Irene occurred in 2011

Comment by William R. Cumming

September 3, 2015 @ 6:51 am

Thanks Phil!

I now total an immediate $10-20 trillion needed to recover from mistakes of the past wherein most Americans lived as those human efforts that may have achieved benefits had no costs.

E.G., the nuclear weapons complex which needs a quick trillion to avoid further posiioning of the earth and specifically the U.S.A.!

Comment by William R. Cumming

September 3, 2015 @ 6:52 am

John! You better research the winter 1962 Nor’Easter impact on the Jersey Shore.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

September 3, 2015 @ 7:54 am

John: Thanks. Do I hear you focusing on “community resilience” as a key pre-condition? And I think I hear you saying the key to community resilience is less a matter of critical infrastructure or supply chains or other engineered systems and more a matter of social/professional relationships across the whole community? Have I heard correctly or am I projecting too much?

Comment by John Comiskey

September 5, 2015 @ 7:13 am


Yes, community resilience is a key pre-condition
Yes, community relationships enable, facilitate, and promote community resiliency

I found the same phenomenon in a study of a congregant shelter that was created in Monmouth County. This will be published in a chapter in a Monmouth University book that is in the works

FYI, your grand strategy of resiliency is at work here

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>