Homeland Security Watch

Congressional Quarterly’s CQ Homeland Security ran a story revealing views likely held by the presidential candidates on homeland security priorities. Neither candidate has dedicated much airtime to the topic of homeland security, but both have formed teams of volunteer policy advisors focused on developing homeland security positions. This week’s story quotes Ruchi Bhowmik of Obama’s Senate staff campaign and Lee Carosi Dunn from McCain’s staff. Neither spoke as representing the presidential campaigns, but both are accurate indicators of the candidates’ views.

Ruchi offered a constructive view that avoided the “throw the baby out with the bathwater” stance that many fear a change in party would bring to DHS. A key challenge for the next Administration, she said, would be to complete key programs that the current administration has left unfinished.

She views DHS as something of a “delinquent student” with “homework assignments and they’ve been by no means easy homework assignments, but they haven’t really turned them in.” She specifically included the National Response Framework, and described it as a research paper that was treated as an outline by DHS. “It’s OK,” Ruchi explained, “but it really wasn’t what the assignment was.”

Ruchi also explained that “resilience” is a concept that reflects a core goal of DHS to develop strong partnerships with stakeholders, including governors, local law enforcement, the private sector, and citizens in general. She noted that homeland security is achievable only when these groups are made a trusted partner in the process.

CQ also noted the emphasis Ruchi placed on research and development for better sensor technologies for mass transit protection, cargo container screening, medical countermeasures for bio-threats, and cybersecurity, which depends heavily on strong public-private partnerships.

Lee Carosi Dunn, counsel to McCain, emphasized making first-responders’ communications compatible with one another through such legislative efforts as setting aside some broadcast spectrum for first-responders.

Dunn also noted that McCain supports risk-based funding for state homeland security grants, cited transit security, better leveraging of technology between DHS and DOD, infrastructure protection – i.e. nuclear power plants, ports or cybersecurity – and the Real ID program that requires states to meet federally set standards for their driver’s licenses.

Soon it may be time to update the series we posted here on where the candidates stand on homeland security. Let’s hope the media ask the candidates to expand on their concepts and proposals for homeland security.

The current issue of the journal of the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS), Homeland Security Affairs, includes an article by Christopher Bellavita, an instructor at NPS and director of academic programs at CHDS. The article invokes a long-standing challenge for the homeland security community: Just what is – and isn’t – homeland security?

Dr. Bellavita identifies seven core definitions of homeland security:

1. Terrorism. Homeland security is a concerted national effort by federal, state and local governments, by the private sector, and by individuals to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.

2. All Hazards. Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect against man-made and natural hazards, and respond to and recover from incidents that do occur.

3. Terrorism and Catastrophes. Homeland security is what the Department of Homeland Security — supported by other federal agencies — does to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist and catastrophic events that affect the security of the United States.

4. Jurisdictional Hazards. Homeland security means something different in each jurisdiction. It is a locally-directed effort to prevent and prepare for incidents most likely to threaten the safety and security of its citizens.

5. Meta Hazards. Homeland security is a national effort to prevent or mitigate any social trend or threat that can disrupt the long-term stability of the American way of life.

6. National Security. Homeland security is an element of national security that works with the other instruments of national power to protect the sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical infrastructure of the United States against threats and aggression.

7. Security Über Alles. Homeland security is a symbol used to justify government efforts to curtail civil liberties.

A good deal of Dr. Bellavita’s treatment of these definitions is familiar terrain. That he has cogently organized these into a dispassionate analysis showing both sides of each argument makes this a critical read. Importantly, he takes on the often misunderstood concept of “all hazards,” explaining the difference between addressing those consequences common to multiple threats and the “anything’s possible” approach to securing the homeland.

As this blog is known to do, we should highlight how the definition of homeland security is broader than convention usually permits. Bellavita describes the way in homeland security is interconnected with most of our society’s other great challenges as “meta hazards.” These are generational developments that pose risks on a significant scale, but are slow-moving and often regarded as distinguishable and independent of one another. Bellavita casts a wide net here and does not spend time explaining how each of the following are exactly related to HLS:

1. Growing federal fiscal debt
2. Global warming
3. Inferior math, science, and engineering education
4. Decaying physical infrastructure
5. The privatization of government services
6. Dependence on foreign energy
7. Aging population
8. Inadequate health care
9. Drug-resistant disease
10. Food security
11. Open borders
12. Mass immigration
13. Cyber security
14. Pandemics
15. Foreign ownership of U.S. debt

These long-term concerns can undermine America’s competitiveness, independence, and overall societal coherence. Some are obvious connections to HLS (i.e. cybersecurity, pandemics, food security), but this is because they can be brought on by adversaries. The critical point here is that a number of these risks are self-inflicted – and therefore self-remedied.

David Price, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, yesterday detailed five areas for DHS to focus its efforts. The presentation offered a glimpse into the thinking of the man overseeing the House’s spending plans for DHS. Today the full House Appropriations Committee marks up the $40 billion draft bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security in FY 2009. During Monday’s event, hosted by the Center for American Progress, Price offered criticism and counsel in the following areas:

Immigration: The next administration must make criminal illegal immigrants ICE’s top priority. The draft 2009 appropriations bill supports this, and would provide resources for a current ICE plan to identify such illegal immigrants in federal, state and local prisons and deport them after they have served their sentences. The legislation also devotes attention to the northern border, which Price called “more significant as a potential entry point for terrorists than the southern border.”

Price also calls for comprehensive immigration reform, saying the current administration seemed to be on that track, but “now seems to have turned 180 degrees toward an enforcement-only approach.” Rob Margetta at CQ Homeland Security also notes that it was Congress that failed to pass the reform bill.

Price recommended that if the next Administration makes immigration reform a higher priority and pursues it more effectively, such reform will “strengthen our economy, reaffirm the rule of law, and enhance homeland security, allowing DHS to focus more effectively on that small percentage of illegal immigrants that has the capacity and the intent to commit crimes and do us harm.”

Disaster and Emergency Response: FEMA’s capability to deal with large-scale natural disasters suffered when it was absorbed into DHS, and its relationships with state and local responders were better before Sept. 11, 2001, Price said. Price implied that the agency should be elevated to cabinet status or broken out of DHS in the next administration.

Price also asserted that FEMA shouldn’t be in the business of providing emergency housing in the Gulf Coast, but that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be. Although the process has been occurring, it has been slow and lacking in direction, he said.

Management: DHS leadership needs to strike a better balance between providing overall policy guidance and leaving departmental components free to do the fine tuning, between nurturing the new homeland security missions of component agencies and maintaining their historic mission capabilities.

Price specifically called out the need to improve the Department’s financial system management, procurement management, and oversight. Price also noted the difficulty in staffing up faced by new agencies at DHS, as well as the heavy dependence on contractors for critical management functions. Price stated that 72 percent of the career executives at DHS left the Department between 2003 and 2007, compared to an average of 46 percent among all other Federal Departments.

72%? Seems hard to believe, but it may be the case given the morale challenges there. This is the management train wreck that could hobble any good idea in the Department.

Technology and Privacy: Price said DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate has made progress in aligning its work better with the needs of component agencies, but added that the department must be cautious of rushing into technology investments without considering privacy implications or real-world effectiveness.

He cited Secure Flight, which was delayed for years, as well as CBP’s SBINet as examples of programs where attention to privacy protections and technology viability was insufficient at the outset.

“New technologies are not something we should naively bank on,” Price said. “Too often they just don’t work as advertised, as we have seen at our southern border, or they may be premature or have costs that exceed their benefits.”

Grants and Risk Analysis: Price noted that most of the Department’s grants are allocated using risk formulas, but that DHS “has struggled both to develop credible formulas with measurable components and to apply the formulas objectively and consistently.” This has prevented Congress from measuring how or whether grant investments are reducing risk.

This leads to a dual challenge, Price explained: spending is high for daunting threats deemed so perilous that we cannot afford not to spend more money; while at other times, funding is inadequately low because it is difficult to know that the funding is having the desired affect.

Price believes that first responder grants fall into the second category, but that robust investments must continue in first responder equipment and training, port security upgrades, and transit security precautions. However, Price is not satisfied that these grants are being made wisely. The fiscal 2008 appropriations bill commissioned the National Academies of Science with assessing DHS’s risk assessment system, and the next secretary should use that data to guide investments, he said. Both the House and the Senate bills for FY09 DHS spending double the president’s request for first responder grants.

Technorati Profile

Last week DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff delivered a speech at Yale University entitled “Confronting The Threats To Our Homeland.” Citing the five-year mark for DHS and the three-year mark for his tenure as its head, he explained that such an occasion warrants not just one speech, but four.

And the first — the one he delivered at Yale — offers insight into the way he views the “challenges and threats that we face over the next five and ten years relating to homeland security in the broadest sense.” He did offer this caveat: his views would be focused not only on counterterrorism, but also on threats to public safety and other risks that “are of national dimension.”

Chertoff promised that his second speech would address “what we have done and what we need to continue to do to prevent these threats.” The third speech will focus on how to reduce vulnerabilities to threats. (Not sure how this will differ from speech #2.) The final speech he plans to give is on response to catastrophic events, man-made or natural.

The assasination of Marin Luther King forty years ago today represents one of the darkest times in our nation’s past. This blog about homeland security acknowledges today as a reminder that threats to our nation do not always come from the outside. Leaders of the Civil Rights Movement struggled against deep rifts in the country. And while the Civil Rights Movement continues to this day with a great deal yet unfinished, so much has been accomplished in the wake of its early work and the day that MLK was killed.

For the famous speech by Robert F. Kennedy announcing the death of MLK to a predominantly African American would-be campaign rally in Philadelphia on the night of the assasination, click here.

For more on MLK, his speeches, the civil rights movement, and other topics commemorating this anniversary, see the Washington Post’s coverage and NPR’s repository of King speeches here.

This and following posts are quick squibs about subjects HLSWatch.com discussed with Secretary Chertoff today in a small roundtable of four homeland security bloggers. The session was an informal setting in the old DHS International Affairs digs: Four bloggers, a cabinet secretary, and the press staff leadership.

This is the second roundtable the Secretary has organized and it was far more engaging this time. Topics include cyber, the Fence, the presidential transition, REAL ID, immigration, politics, and planning for the future of the Department.

I should mention President Bush’s stenographer was there to cover the meeting. She’s a real pro having worked for three consecutive presidents. Once the transcript is out, we’ll revisit these posts and respond to your questions/comments.

The other bloggers were David Venturella of Security Debrief, Anne Broache of CNET, and Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation.

UPDATE 4/3/08: We now have the transcriptfrom this meeting.

DHS Secretary Mike Chertoff reconvenes a group of us bloggers for a roundtable tomorrow at DHS Headquarters. Topics are likely to include the recent developments surrounding REAL ID deadlines and compliance by states. Or perhaps the legal waivers Chertoff issued today that suspend environmental laws and regulations to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest border. (Eileen Sullivan at AP reports that these pesky laws currently prevent DHS from building the 267 miles of fencing in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.)

Readers are encouraged to submit here the questions they would like answered by the Secretary. The last time we met with him, each of us was given only enough time for one question. I hope we’ll be able to make more use of this session. Looking forward to your questions.

Starting this week, HLSWatch.com begins an occasional series of special edition posts submitted by guest experts, including members of Congress, Executive Branch officials, think tank specialists, and expert practitioners commenting on homeland security policy challenges.

Our first guest is Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA). Now in her seventh term, Harman serves on the Homeland Security Committee and chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Information Sharing. She served eight years on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - the final four as Ranking Member - where she helped craft and pass the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Harman also sponsored the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which focused on establishing a “layered container security strategy” and enhanced port and maritime security. Representative Harman will address the misconceptions and potential of the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group, which is operated jointly by the National Counterterrorism Center and DHS.

This occasional series of guest expert contributors will be maintained in the spirit and style of HLSWatch.com as a bipartisan, objective, fact-driven analysis of strategic homeland security policy issues. (The next contributor will be a Republican.) Readers also should consider this series a forum, like with all posts on this blog, and feel welcome to comment on these posts.

NOTE: Hosting these guests also gives me a chance to enjoy my vacation in Big Sky, Montana.  I’ll do my best to manage the blog from here, but look for more frequent updates after this week.

Scroll past the “economic stimulus” plan, the “tax cuts” plan, and the “lower taxes” plan on John McCain’s campaign website and you find more on his positions regarding judges, abortion, and lobbyists. However, if you haven’t clicked back to Google yet, there you’ll find some content on protecting against terrorism and securing the homeland. Not surprisingly, he calls out immigration and border security as their own issues. He and Ted Kennedy co-wrote last year’s ill-fated immigration bill.

To learn about McCain’s views on combating terrorism, you’ll find it among, again not surprisingly, his positions on continuing the Iraq War. The net of all this is that McCain is no slouch when it comes to counterterrorism. Parsing brawn and brains is the tough part. A closer look reveals his campaign’s priorities and perspectives on the mission of securing the homeland, but its an incomplete picture.

McCain has been alive for WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, and various other battles throughout the 20th century. And one can sense his preference for drawing upon this framework in viewing the threat of terrorism in the 21st century. Secure the borders. Fight the enemy where he is. Wherever he is. Assemble weapons for the worst case scenario, just in case. But do these platforms still promise the same success in fighting al Qaeda as they did in fighting the Germans, Japanese, or the Vietnamese?

His campaign turns to this pretty directly:

the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

And he embraces a long view of the battle as follows:

just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and teach the doctrine of hatred and despair.

But these are not plans. These are platitudes. The campaign doesn’t seem to offer the details required to judge his priorities and the success or failure he’ll likely encounter by pursuing them. He comes close to addressing challenging homeland security issues in one particular area. Immigration.

Immigration touches on many aspects of American life. It represents the avenue to the American Dream for many, the funnel of prosperity through trade for many others, and even the hope of building bridges through student exchanges across the globe. Immigration also represents the vector through which the 9/11 terrorists initiated their attacks.

McCain offers the following:

A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.

McCain’s campaign continues by suggesting that a secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also:

Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens.

Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies — keeping government spending in check, holding down taxes, and cutting unnecessary regulatory burdens — so American businesses can hire and pay the best.

Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities

Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, American history and civics, and respecting the values of a democratic society.

Recognize that America will always be that “shining city upon a hill,” a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.

Beyond these rather detailed treatments of the immigration challenge, and yes he uses “siren call” –McCain dedicates a significant portion of his platform to fighting in Iraq and spending more money on a missile shield. Not exactly the departure from the past one would expect from the Maverick.

Conclusion:

The general election campaign ought to allow the two candidates to debate this issue specifically. By my account, Obama offers the most detailed and thought through plan for Homeland Security. His position would benefit from treating the national security/homeland security concept and the international dimensions of the job. McCain has a lock on the immigration debate, but he remains boxed in by his choices regarding Iraq and his party’s position on missile defense. Furthermore, he needs to open the aperture on what his plans for securing the homeland would be. The Clinton campaign has yet to take this topic seriously. I ran out of time searching for her campaign’s stance on the issue. I’ll ask again for readers to send suggestions if you’re inclined.

The post we ran here about federal efforts to address threats posed by small boats was the subject of an interview on NPR’s Homeland Security Inside & Out.  The hosts of the show, Dave McIntyre and Randy Larsen, also invited me to stay on for a section on the show that discusses suggested homeland security priorities for the President.  You can listen to both sections by clicking through here.  The webpage for this show is available here.

Dave and Randy asked about what the recent DHS attention to the small boat threat may mean for the boating community and public waterways, as well as funding issues.  On the topic of presidential priorities we took a step back from reorganization or funding issues and instead spent the five minutes discussing a new strategic framework that would enable the president to make the best decisions about gauging threats, determining how best to deter, deny, or defeat them, and generally take a broader view of the challenge.  FF to 38:11 of the show for this piece.  Readers may notice certain ideas from an earlier post here are invoked shamelessly.

This follows the earlier post I ran on Senator Obama’s positions on Homeland Security. Today I had intended to examine Senator Clinton’s positions. The content for the Obama post was based almost entirely on his campaign’s official website and speeches he had given. While very little material is put forward by the Hillary Clinton campaign on homeland security ideas, her Senate office focuses on past accomplishments attending mostly to New Yorkers.

Senator Clinton’s campaign website includes nothing under the Issues section on homeland security. Nor is there any content under the speeches or biography (beyond mere references).

Clinton’s Senate homepage dedicates a brief section to HLS issues with links to press statements. Among those, she calls for safeguarding nuclear materials that could be used to produce a dirty bomb by urging adoption of the recommendations of a report by the National Academies of Sciences, which would review the industrial, research, and commercial use of nuclear materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb and recommends that cesium chloride be phased out as soon as is possible. Not much else.

If readers have any material that can shed some light on Clinton’s plans for homeland security, please add them as comments. In the meantime, it just looks like homeland security is not a priority for the Clinton campaign.

NOTE: We’ll examine Senator McCain’s positions/plans on HLS issues next in this series.

The Transportation Security Administration took a step into the blogosphere with its new outlet called “Evolution of Security.”  This looks a lot different form the DHS/HQ blog set up by the Secretary.  TSA says that the purpose of its blog is “to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on innovations in security, technology and the checkpoint screening process.”  More of a two-way street.

Kip Hawley made the first post, and it sounds like an excellent start.  Hawley states that “While I and senior leadership of TSA will participate in the discussion, we are turning the keyboard over to several hosts who represent what’s best about TSA (its people). Our hosts aren’t responsible for TSA’s policies, nor will they have to defend them — their job is to engage with you straight-up and take it from there. “

Refreshing.  The bloggers assuming the keyboard cover a number of positions, but they are also practically anonymous.  Bob, Ethel, Jay, Chance, and Jim will be providing content.  While the informality is welcome, the introduction is a little awkward.  (”I like music, I love ice cream, and I adore weird facts,” begins one bio.)  In any case, the line-up includes a senior Transportation Security Officer, a Federal Security Director, and a staffer (referee?) from the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs, among others.

Judging by the surfeit of comments the first post has generated (98 in one day as of this posting), they are hitting the ground running.

Polls of adult Americans over the last year show trends in threat perceptions and priorities in the terrorism and homeland security domain. I converted some of the findings from this CNN/Gallup poll into the following charts. These two questions captured an important metric about how a cross-section of the electorate is thinking.  (The poll includes other questions that deal with Iraq, Iran, and Middle East peace specifically.)

When asked how worried they are that they would become a victim of terrorism, most said that they were “not too worried” across the seventeen-month span of the survey ending in December. Being “somewhat worried” ranked second consistently, but those asked were almost twice as likely to be not worried at all as opposed to very worried that they or a family member would be a victim of terrorism. Either there isn’t all that much fear-mongering these days, or it isn’t really registering.

 

And its still the economy, stupid. When asked about the “most important” issue for determining who should be the next president, terrorism and the war in Iraq gradually give way to the economy. In fact, terrorism rarely ranks 12% as the most important issue. Last summer, Iraq dominated with 31% of the voters’ attention. But through the fall and into December, despite the constant debate about funding our troops and whether/when to bring them home, Iraq could not compete with the credit crisis and job losses. The economy is the number one issue.

In a CQ story today, Matthew Johnson invokes the perennial question of whether we need a Homeland Security Council in addition to a National Security Council at the White House. The non-government experts interviewed both suggest the HSC’s days are numbered, while Congressman Peter King defends the need for a separate HSC.

P.J. Crowley at the Center for American Progress gets the award for most cutting response:

“… it doesn’t make sense to have an Iraq policy where you are creating terrorists disconnected from a homeland security policy where you are supposed to be able to defend against them.”

Whether one agrees that the Iraq war is making more enemies than friends, it stands to reason that if combating terrorism overseas is a national security concern, why would defending against terrorism at home not be? No one would argue that the two efforts are completely disconnected, but sometimes all it takes is a little extra bureaucracy to install a stovepipe.

Imagine if the next President had a national security advisor with two deputies responsible for different portfolios that required a great degree of coordination and shared assets/resources (like the President’s attention)? One deputy for national security, the other for homeland security. The NSC staff would enlarge enough to accommodate the extra workload and the membership on the NSC would be rebalanced to include some of the members from the former HSC. (The Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Transportation may be the only two members of the HSC who are not also members of the NSC.)

CSIS’s David Heyman agrees. Not to put too fine a point on it, David clarifies that “We should abolish the HSC and it should be subsumed by the National Security Council….”

And in the other corner: Peter T. King of New York, the Ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, opposes the idea of merging the two Councils.

“Just as the president has a secretary of State and needs a national security adviser, he also needs a Homeland Security secretary and a homeland security adviser,” King said.

By this logic, we’ll need a Housing and Urban Development Advisor and a HUD Council at the White House, along with an Education advisor and National Education Council.  You see where I’m going with this.

Determining the HSC-NSC fate requires a different argument from this one.  Consider the unique roles that the HSC carries out that have no obvious overlap with the NSC (i.e. State and Local coordination, Emergency Preparedness and Response, or Critical Infrastructure Protection) and ask the following questions:

“Do these portfolios require a separate structure to serve the President or can they be represented by individual senior directors on an expanded NSC staff?”

“Do these responsibilities require direct White House coordination and guidance in the fist place?”

“Would a double deputy and single National Security Advisor be effective in managing a broadened portfolio?”

“Is homeland security a separate endeavor from national security?”

The White House announced today that Francis Fragos Townsend, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, resigned.  She served as head of the President’s Homeland Security Council for the last nearly five years and oversaw the development of the recent update to the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the lessons learned report on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and the fires on the west coast. 

No word yet on who will replace Ms. Townsend.  Her recently appointed deputy, Joel Bagnal, stepped in for former Deputy HLS Advisor Ken Rapuano after he deployed for a tour in Afghanistan.  Will Mr. Bagnal step in for Townsend?The President reportedly asked all senior political appointees nearly a year ago to decide promptly if they’ll stay until the end of his term.  If not, they were to step down soon to be replaced.  Every President faces an exodus near the end of the second term, and that makes the request sensible.  That Townsend is leaving now — and without an immediate replacement — prompts questions about that wing of the White House.  Who fills that job takes up a great task of shepherding a homeland security mission during very difficult times, and does so by inheriting a new strategy he or she may or may not have had a hand in writing.  Given these circumstances, expect an insider like Bagnal to be named. 

I sure could be wrong on Townsend’s replacement.  Readers are encouraged to comment on who they think will be the new Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

In a letter to the outgoing Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Jackson, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson chose to focus on the low lights of Jackson’s tenure. Thompson’s letter is a response to Jackson’s October 19 letter highlighting the efforts to fill vacancies at DHS.

The response takes issue with Jackson’s positive spin on filling vacancies (“filled, selected, or formally advertised” to be exact).  Thompson takes the opportunity to list a number of programs failing to meet expectations that may indicate a pretty clear agenda for the Dems to start critiquing the Repub’s homeland security record.

The programs identified in Chairman Thompson’s letter include:

• The Transportation Worker Identification Card program

• Secure Border Initiative and Project 28

• US-VISIT (biometric exit capability)

• National Infrastructure Protection Plan and the corresponding Sector-Specific Plans

• DHS Office of Health Affairs

• Surface Transportation Security (mass transit)

• FEMA (brain drain)

• Office of Emergency Communications

Of course, the Thompson letter could have highlighted some positive accomplishments by the Department.  But the Chairman closes his missive with a reference to a recent hearing that the DepSec did not to attend. Thompson suggests that the hearing, “Holding the Department of Homeland Security Accountable for Security Gaps,” was a missed opportunity for Jackson to defend the Department’s record. With a hearing title like that, I suppose its no surprise the DepSec had somewhere else to be.

I had the honor of working with two great colleagues in producing the next IBM white paper on Homeland Security issues. I will be off-line until November 1 and wanted to introduce this new study before I sign off to get married next week.

The new paper — by Scott Gould, Dan Prieto, and me — is entitled “Global Movement Management: Commerce, Security, and Resiliency in Today’s Networked World.” As IBM’s most recent thought leadership piece on homeland security, the paper offers a perspective on challenges shared by a broad community of interest that includes governments, corporations, NGOs, and individuals.

The report is to be rolled out on October 16th in Vancouver at IBM’s Global Executive Forum on Customs, Ports, and Border Management. You may download the Executive Summary here. By month’s end (possibly sooner), readers will be able to click through here to request a copy of the full report.

The key ideas presented in this paper focus on:
• The networked nature of 21st century risk
• A new concept of security we call “Intelligent Immunity”
• A revised and extended Global Movement Management analytical framework
• Strategic human capital
• Unique data assets and skills to be leveraged through technology in new ways
• A challenge we call the “governance gap” that currently limits progress in these areas

IBM first introduced its global movement management strategy in 2005 with “Global Movement Management: Securing the Global Economy.” Chris Beckner, the founder of this blog, co-wrote that piece with Scott Gould.

Both GMM papers explain how the health and well-being of modern society depend on highly integrated, complex economic systems that serve to move people, goods, conveyances, money and information around the world. These systems include, for example, immigration, aviation and transit systems for the movement of people; maritime, trucking and air cargo for the movement of goods; pipelines and electric grids to transport fuels and energy; and the Internet and other communications networks to move information and to enable financial flows. Collectively, these comprise the “global movement system.”

This thumbnail is a sneak preview of the revised GMM framework illustration (click to enlarge):

“Global Movement Management: Commerce, Security and Resiliency in Today’s Networked World” asserts that, despite the complexity of today’s global economy, movement systems are more alike than they are different. The basis for the GMM initiative is a belief that policymakers, business leaders, and security professionals should focus on these similarities as the keys to developing sound strategies for improving the performance, security and resilience of global movement systems, while also seeking to preserve core societal values.

NOTE: I may be recruiting a guest blogger or two for the next couple weeks. If interested, email jonah.hlswatch [at] gmail [dot] com.

The Washington Post ran a story today about the new National Strategy for Homeland Security that emphasizes the timing chosen for the new document. The article misses some important points.

The President’s homeland security advisor, Fran Townsend, is quoted as suggesting that “Homeland security both as a policy matter and as a concept didn’t exist prior to 9/11 and prior to…President Bush assuming office.” We may have called it “homeland defense” or “anti-terrorism” before, but it sure isn’t the sole product of 9/11 or this Administration. Whether it was the Gilmore Commission (1999-2004) or the Hart-Rudman Commission (1998-2001), or one of several other high-level efforts, that concept long predates the authors of the 2002 and 2007 Homeland Security Strategy documents.

The Post writers go on to quote Frank Cilluffo and David Heyman. Frank is candid in proposing that the new Strategy is more rearview mirror that proactive. Less than a contribution to the next Administration, he suggests it’s an effort to preserve the Bush Administration’s legacy. One would get that impression from the fact sheet put out by the White House Press Office. A full third of that document is dedicated to past successes and advice for the Congress.

David Heyman’s analysis is focused on one of the elephants in the room: How do you carry out a strategy – old or new – if you have a depleted workforce? But the Post story quotes him as though the problem is a lack of “processes and operations to support” the Strategy. This seems odd since a major highlight in the new document, also explained in this earlier post that broke the story of the Strategy being revised, that shows a very detailed process for policy, operations, and support.

The story did not point out that the timing of this new Strategy may just be overdue. After the first Strategy in 2002, there was the 2003 Iraq invasion and the creation of a whole new enemy called “al Qaeda in Iraq,” the Madrid bombings in 2004, London bombings in July 2005, and the Bali bombings later that same year. The Department of Homeland Security had only been around for six months at the time the first Strategy was issued.

I can understand why the re-election effort in 2004 may have slowed things down in the policy shop, but why not issue a new Strategy in 2005? That would have given this Administration four years to carry it out. Did we have to wait to have the concept of natural disasters included more prominently into our Homeland Security doctrine until after Hurricane Katrina?

Readers will recall the post we had here on September 25 introducing the presentation slides being used by White House officials to brief Congressional, State, and Local stakeholders about changes to be made to the nation’s homeland security strategy. It revealed a broadened focus that emphasized both natural disasters as a risk and offensive measures as a resource in protecting the homeland. The White House issued a statement today that describes those changes as:

Acknowledging that while we must continue to focus on the persistent and evolving terrorist threat, we also must recognize that certain non-terrorist events that reach catastrophic levels can have significant implications for homeland security.

Emphasizing that as we secure the Homeland we cannot simply rely on defensive approaches and well-planned response and recovery measures. We recognize that our efforts also must involve offense at home and abroad.

A full third of this fact sheet lists accomplishments by the Administration since 9/11 and suggests what Congress should do on secret surveillance laws, Committee jurisdictions, and grant allocations.  The entire strategy is available for download here. 

Leaving aside for the moment the question of “Why now,” the “national information management system” cited in the Strategy peaks my interest. Since there’s little on it in the document, perhaps this refers to something already underway. It may be the Interagency Incident Management Group. Readers of this blog usually have all the answers so please comment.

Other highlights include the following:

Situational Awareness & Information management
Maintaining situational awareness requires “prioritiz[ing] information and develop[ing] a common operating picture, both of which require a well-developed national information management system and effective multi-agency coordination centers to support decision-making during incidents.” The concept of situational awareness is identified as the fifth core principle of incident management and defined as

“continuous sharing, monitoring, verification, and synthesis of information to support informed decisions on how to best manage threats, potential threats, disasters, or events of concern.”

The Strategy acknowledges that while timely information is valuable, it also can be overwhelming. Situational awareness and decision-making, therefore, demands that incident information be effectively prioritized. The Strategy refers again to a “national information management system.” That system’s role is to “integrate key information and define national information requirements.” Not a bad job to have. This type of role would amount to the czar of all czars.

Cyber Security: A Special Consideration
The Strategy asserts that in order to secure the nation’s cyber infrastructure against man-made and natural threats, Federal, State, and local governments, along with the private sector, must work together to prevent damage to, and the unauthorized use and exploitation of, cyber systems.

The Secure Freight Initiative is called out specifically as a “comprehensive model for securing the global supply chain that seeks to enhance security while keeping legitimate trade flowing.” The Secure Initiative, it explains, “leverages shipper information, host country government partnerships, and trade partnerships to scan cargo containers bound for the United States.” Nothing further about the Global Trade Exchange or other phases of this Initiative can be found in the Strategy.

Interoperable and Resilient Communications
The Strategy identifies two distinct communications challenges: interoperability and survivability. Interoperability, according to the Strategy requires “compatible equipment, standard operating procedures, planning, mature governance structures, and a collaborative culture that enables all necessary parties to work together seamlessly.” Survivable communications infrastructure requires that the nation’s “communications systems [are] resilient – either able to withstand destructive forces regardless of cause or sufficiently redundant to suffer damage and remain reliable.”

Tom Friedman’s piece in yesterday’s NYT made a heck of a sound point: “We have to get our groove back.” By that he means that the America we knew may have changed on 9/11, but it doesn’t need to go on changing along the same hyper-secure trajectory along which the costs risk outweighing the benefits.  I’ll be the first to admit that our efforts to secure the homeland against terrorism are needed and unfinished. However, Friedman’s observation suggests we do not need to have only two views on this issue:

In one corner we have the New York Times editorial staff. In the other corner is Secretary Chertoff. The NYT ran an editorial suggesting that the Administration’s invocation of 9/11 and the terrorist threat supports political objectives and obscures the real challenge of securing the homeland. Secretary Chertoff’s “how dare you” rebuttal roundly criticized the NYT for failing to mention a number of accomplishments and risking the reemergence of another vulnerability: a public’s eroding commitment.

Break it up, gentlemen. Freidman offers a third way that makes sense. Recognize that we are winning in the fight against terrorism, narrowly defined. Consider the externalities of our “global war on terror,” particularly the ones that come back to bite us (i.e. declining credibility in crucial regions, important international organizations, and visitors to the U.S. that make this country great).

Despite all the negative overtones when just about anyone in the world is asked about the fight against terrorism that followed 9/11, we are not in it alone. While researching this topic I found several dedicated programs underway at the European Union, NATO, and countless non-government organizations. Get this: there’s an International Institute for Homeland Security, Defense and Restoration. Sign me up. We run a serious risk of losing the fight against terrorism and the effort to protect civilan populations if we fail to work together. Collaboration can be a decisive advantage.  That’s something the terrorists can’t attack.

However, Friedman’s correct when he points out that we can lose this fight by simply changing who we are. Its just not worth it to be secure in a non-America where the role of government, free speech, and commitments to the next generation are obscured. Friedman calls for a “9/12” mentality as opposed to a “9/11” mindset.

If the NYT is 9/10 and the Secretary is 9/11, who will represent the 9/12 way forward? Perhaps we should give some space on this site for the presidential campaigns to weigh in….

Many of us have heard rumblings of an effort underway – led by White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend and her deputy Joel Bagnal – to revise the 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security.  I was able to locate a presentation deck being used by Homeland Security Council officials to outline the rationale, intent, and scope of the new strategy document. It’s a cursory treatment at only 14 slides. However, some telling language reflects prevailing views amid HLS leadership about the five-year-old strategy presently on the books, as well as some useful perspectives on the nature of the threat.

The first slide’s title says it all: “The Need for a Revised Strategy.” Operating from the same strategy since 2002, the need is real and surely felt by many members in the HLS community. The original strategy was written at a time when the terrorism threat environment was different (there was no Iraq war, for one) and the bureaucracy responsible for the homeland mission was only just getting off the drawing board.

So what was really missing back in 2002? The presentation offers a short list with the suggestion that we need to “Articulate a capstone strategy to organize and unify the national effort.” I’m not sure what that means, but the next goal is indisputably important: “Institute a common framework for the broader homeland security community.”

The need for a common framework is hard to argue with. You’ll find nothing else in this presentation specifically on that topic except for the detailed graphic on the final slide depicting what may be the “framework” they have in mind. This beauty is reminiscent of the structures used by the Defense Department to align their policy guidance, planning, and operations. This one even uses the term “doctrine,” a rarity in the realm of homeland security.

 

Other items missing back in 2002 included, apparently, disruption and protection. The presentation justifiably takes on the very definition of homeland security put forth in the original strategy.

2002 Strategy:
•Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.

2007 Strategy:
•Homeland Security is a concerted national effort to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect against man-made and natural hazards, and respond to and recover from incidents that do occur.

Broadening the concept of homeland security is a great start.  And while a more detailed voice track surely accompanies this presentation, some things still remain outside this scope.  For example, a comprehensive strategy would include the concept of deterrence and how it applies in the context of terrorism.  Perhaps prevention can encompass deterrence, but that’s a stretch.  The only other possible hook on which to hang a reference to this would be on Slide 4, which states that Homeland Security entails “offense and defense.”  It is in the latter where we may find deterrence accounted for.  Quite a lot could be read into these 14 slides.  Let’s hope that the intellectual foundation supporting these encouraging signs come to light soon.

Updated 9/27/07: I had originally noted that DHS officials were briefing this slide deck, but was informed today that it is being used by officials at the White House Homeland Security Council. 

Update 9/27/07: UPI’s Shaun Waterman ran a related story today.

Readers may have noticed that we’ll need to add a new one to the blogroll here.  Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is now blogging.  I don’t think he sleeps.  The man is dealing with one of the most motley of bureaucracies in one of the most political environments, and he still finds time to post.  Looking at my frequency of updates here lately, I’m feeling rather inadequate.

But the Secretary seems to be enjoying himself.  The Leadership Journal, as the blog is named, affords him some freedom to rebut his critics in the press without interruption.  A recent post of his took the New York Times to task for an editorial about DHS authorities and performance.  Attending to this topic would demand a daily update with all the commentary underway from the GAO to the IG to the Congress.  Heck, perhaps HLSWatch.com will rise to the attention of the Leadership Journal….

Before we get ahead of ourselves, following is the caveat set for the Secretary’s blog:

• This Journal is not to be used to report criminal activity. If you have information for law enforcement, please contact your local police or FBI office or submit a tip to the FBI online.

• Do not send in questions or status inquiries about your specific immigration or citizenship case or questions about your passport or visa. Contact USCIS directly regarding citizenship, and the State Department regarding international travel.

• This is a thought journal, not a substitute channel for services or general questions. See “Contact Us” on www.dhs.gov, to get help from the Department and components.

• Reporter questions will not be posted. Reporters should contact the Press Office through their normal channels.

However, you can always report criminal activity or request citizenship status reports right here on HLSWatch.com.

Update 9/20/07: You can not report criminal activity or request citizenship status reports right here on HLSWatch.com

Conflicting opinions emerging these days about the state of our homeland security.  Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick noted in their coverage of official statements yesterday that while Secretary Chertoff was explaining to the Senate how the threat of terrorism is as bad as it was six years ago, the President’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, Fran Townsend, struck a different chord in an interview with Wolf Blitzer by calling al Qaeda’s leader an “impotent… man on the run from a cave.”  Where to go from here with a threat assessment like this?

In addition to invoking the need for greater investments in HLS capabilities, intelligence gathering resources, and a general sense of resolve, the recently foiled attacks in Germany came to be useful fodder for assessing the risk today.  The DNI suggested that the plans of those aspiring terrorists in North Rhine-Westphalia were uncovered due to warrantless surveillance of communications traveling through the U.S.  (The Senate Committee pointed out that the German cell was located almost ten months prior to that surveillance law being passed.) 

So what can we learn about the recently disrupted cell in Germany on this sixth anniversary of 9/11?  What materiel was too easy for them to procure in preparation for their plans?  How were they able to coordinate and communicate without notice until the late stages as it were?  Could we see the same trend emerge here in the U.S., and would we be able to detect it early enough?  How well could we manage the aftermath of an attack with 700kg of hydrogen peroxide were we not to stop it beforehand? 

I’ve noted the work of a London-based group here before named Exclusive Analysis.  They are kind enough to send me their proprietary products and I’m, as they say over there, keen on sharing it here on occasion.  They recently assessed the terrorist threat in light of the foiled Germany plot.  The main findings, backed up by proper British prose, are as follows: 

The intercepted plot does not demonstrate an evolution in capability of European jihadi networks. 

Currently the risk of attack is moderated by flaws in leadership within jihadi networks.  

European jihadi networks will likely evolve better organisational leadership in a gradual ’survival of the fittest’ fashion; attack targets are likely to be chosen in order to maximise human fatalities. 

According to this, we’re lucky that the terrorists are unlucky — or at least unsophisticated.  Both of these mitigating factors are due to change, and so is the venue.  This places the “fight’em over there so we don’t have to fight’em here” mantra into a different perspective.  Note how rarerly this rationale is invoked on this anniversary of 9/11.

Wouldn’t it be great if homeland security ranked up there with the big five of presidential debates (health care, social values, economy, taxes, all out war)? Many of us watched as John Kerry and George W. Bush agreed during their first debate of the 2004 campaign that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists represented the most serious threat to the homeland. We watched and thought this was remarkable for two reasons. First, these two agreed on something. Second, they were about to start focusing on the details of securing the homeland as part of a public discourse as a determinant for the election. Or so we thought. The campaigns soon returned to their corners and the topic of homeland security was returned to its somewhat bumper-sticker status.

In the next election, which is apparently already underway, we likely will not witness the ascension of homeland security to the top of the issues list beyond the necessary nod to such things as grants tied to risk, securing public mass transit, and perhaps an enlightened reference to rolling back root causes.

But let’s be hopeful. The GAO issued a study they call 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government. In it, the GAO identifies twelve “reexamination areas” in which the public’s attention should be invested. Among those areas is homeland security. The writers of this report close in on eight broad areas to be addressed with specific questions as follows:

What is an acceptable level of risk to guide homeland security strategies and investments, particularly federal funding? For example, how should risk be managed in making sound threat, risk, and criticality assessments, developing countermeasure options, and implementing those options considered the most effective and the most efficient? What criteria should be used to target federal funding for homeland security in order to maximize results and mitigate risk within available resource levels?

What new international and domestic strategies and related tactics will effectively confront the asymmetric tactics we now face and, for the longer term, address the root causes of terrorism? For example, how can we best anticipate, and thus counter, asymmetric threats such as suicide attacks, biological and chemical terrorism, and cyber attacks? What approaches will address the root causes of terrorism, whether from domestic or international groups? For example, should the current U.S. approach to overseas broadcasting be realigned to target and better reach audiences in areas where new threats are?

Are existing incentives sufficient to support private sector protection of critical infrastructure it owns, and what changes might be necessary? How can intelligence and information on threats be shared with other levels of government and other critical entities, yet be held secure?

What is the most viable way to approach homeland security results management and accountability? For example, how should progress in the current war on terrorism be measured and assessed? What are the appropriate goals for prevention, vulnerability reduction, and response and recovery? Who is accountable for the many components of homeland security when many partners and functions and disciplines are involved? How can these actors be held accountable and by whom?

What should be the role of federal, state, and local governments in identifying risks – from nature or man – in individual states and localities and establishing standards for the equipment, skills, and capacities that first responders need?

What costs should be borne by federal, state, and local governments or the private sector in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters large and small – whether the acts of nature or man, accidental or deliberate?

To what extent and how should the federal government encourage and foster a role for regional or multistate entities in emergency planning and response?

Those questions are ideal prompts to direct the attention of the presidential candidates and nominees for this next election. Indeed, answers to those questions would set the stage for a heck of a transition.

The final conference agreement on the 9/11 Bill is now available.  As noted in earlier posts, the 9/11 Bill represents the effort to implement a number of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.  This was among the commitments Democratic candidates made while running to take the majority in the Congress last November. 

I’ll continue the series of posts here that analyze selected portions of the Bill, and update those already posted if the final Bill changed those sections.

The new GAO study, rolled out in testimony this week by Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Cathleen Berrick, suggested that DHS and the Transportation Security Administration should improve their risk-based decision making methods, planning and program evaluations, and the ways in which TSA collaborates with relevant stakeholders.

GAO cites Secure Flight – the domestic passenger prescreening system – as an example of disjointed or insufficient management attributes that have kept this program off schedule.  It’s worth reading the sections of this critique that make the case for better coordination across TSA and the international passenger screening efforts under the auspices of Customs and Border Protection.  This dimension of the report forces a more interesting discussion about how the different, but closely related, mission areas of the DHS components (TSA, CBP, S&T) could better reinforce one another and reduce duplication where similar objectives could be pursued with shared methods, data, technology, etc.  Screening of passengers lends itself perfectly to this ongoing challenge.

The new study also takes a look at how TSA and others could better partner with relevant private sector stakeholders.  Primary opportunities for better collaboration include:

• Reducing the time it takes to screen air cargo in order to diminish the disruption to delivery time for air carriers;
• Training individual cargo inspectors on more effective inspection technology;·       
• Supporting the development and deployment of improved inspection technologies; and
• Determining the best approach to implementing a “risk-based management approach to securing air cargo.”

The GAO report, entitled Aviation Security: Progress Made in Systematic Planning to Guide Key Investment Decisions, but More Work Remains, is found here.  A one-page summary also is available.

Updated DHS Schedule:

Thursday, February 15

Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson will testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on the department’s 2007 goals: 9:00 AM EST/311 Cannon House Office Building/Washington, DC/OPEN PRESS

Friday, February 16

Secretary Michael Chertoff will deliver remarks to the American Chamber of Commerce: 7:45 AM CST/ Intercontinental Presidente Hotel/ Campos Eliseos 218/ Col Polanco Mexico City, Mexico/ OPEN PRESS

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Chief of Citizenship Alfonso Aguilar will deliver the keynote address on citizenship and immigration issues at the Puebla State Forum on U.S.-Mexico Immigration Reform Puebla: 8:30 AM CST/ State Congress/ Puebla, Mexico/ OPEN PRESS

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad W. Allen will provide remarks on recreational boating safety and maritime security at the annual meeting of Boating Writers International:  8:30 AM EST/ Miami Beach Convention Center:/ 1901 Convention Center Drive/ Miami Beach, FL/ OPEN PRESS

US-VISIT Acting Director Robert Mocny will testify before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for US-VISIT: 10:00 AM EST/ 2362 Rayburn House Office Building/ Washington, DC/ OPEN PRESS 

Last month DHS released the report of a taskforce created under the Homeland Security Advisory Council charged with recommending ways the Secretary could develop a more effective culture throughout the Department. Originally called the Common Culture Task Force, it kicked off with an initial meeting September 13, 2006, with the following mission:

In June 2006, the Secretary directed the HSAC to establish a Common Culture Task Force to provide suggestions and recommendations on achieving and maintaining an energetic, dedicated, unified operational mission-focused culture within the Department. The Task Force will provide organizationally independent findings, suggestions, and recommendations in a brief written report, which shall include identification and consideration of technologies, concepts, and ideas from all sources and across the spectrum of Homeland Security Operations.

In addition to briefings from various component agencies that seem to have a common culture of their own (Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan gave the first talk), Taskforce members were given a peek at the worst indicator. Dr. Leslie Pollack, Manager of HR Research & Studies Group at the Office of Personnel Management gave a rundown of the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey findings on DHS. Needless to say, it was not an upper.

After only about five months of work, the Taskforce agreed to a final draft for approval on January 8. The report hit at just the same time the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey was released publicly with