A Safe Homeland

Homeland security can be seen as a loosely based term as it is still a relatively new area of the United States strategy. Since its creation, post September 11, 2001, there has been a plethora of additions and revisions. The homeland mission lies not only within a specific agency, but demands collected participation from U.S. agencies and foreign entities to remain strong, efficient and innovative. One can examine homeland security as having the responsibility of maintaining and protecting the United States by keeping focus within the U.S. while homeland defense is responsible for maintaining the U.S. by keeping focus outside the U.S. Homeland security and homeland defense are different, but both can assist each other in certain aspects. The following paragraphs will compose of accurate definitions regarding homeland security, homeland defense and in end will discuss an in depth summary of the critical infrastructure program. These mentioned areas each have a requirement to be treated as specific in nature in order to not sacrifice their specific definition.

To keep our great nation safe requires the combined effort of a multitude of agencies and groups nationwide. The US homeland is the physical region that includes the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, US territories, and surrounding 500 nautical miles of territorial waters and airspace (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2013). The keep the countries boarders secure and over 324 million Americans safe is a massive task and this broad stroke program involves federal government including the military, federal, state, local, tribal areas and the private sector along with other governments with shared interests. According to The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) there are three key concepts that are the foundation of America’s homeland security strategy.

The missions held by homeland security and homeland defense are vital to the protection of the country against acts of terror. While relatively young programs, much has been achieved in the homeland security and homeland defense missions. To continue this success, the programs must evolve as the world evolves, and more specifically, the terrorists. To stay relevant, the Department of Homeland Security, its subordinate agencies, and the Department of Defense must evolve with the threats in a way that does not impede on civil liberties.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security is tasked with guiding, unifying, and organizing America’s homeland security efforts. The National Strategy seeks to protect the Americans, the country’s infrastructure and major resources as well as prevent and thwart any terrorist attacks. It also responds to and ensures recovery from incidents and strengthens the foundation for long-term success. Such involves developing a preparedness culture among various partners across the country to make use of well-planned response, defensive approaches, and recovery measures.

The Department of Homeland Security Enterprise identifies an enormous value in risk management. This is because its core role is to investigate and hold up every single operation done by the particular department. The process assists in the prevention, protection, mitigation and response to, as well as recovery from the risks to the Nation. So as to identify the effectiveness of the risk management process, the DHS must collaborate with their allies within the enterprise. Another role of the department is to set up an incorporated risk management through the generation of safety, security, and resilience across the domains. This takes place through the collaborative efforts to put off violence and boost security, safety, and efficient management of the national

Ensuring the safety of the American people and homeland is the first and most fundamental obligation of the American government. Current policies are not fulfilling that obligation and are unlikely to do so if continued. This planning exercise has therefore focused exclusively on the problems that threaten the safety and prosperity of the American people and on ways of ensuring their security today and into the future. No secondary considerations – democracy promotion, humanitarian activities, or support and expansion of American values, for example – have been allowed to intrude into our deliberations, despite the importance we and many Americans attach to each.

The Department of Homeland Security identifies that risk management could improve its activities of providing the people of America with a secure environment (Masse et al., 2007). Vulnerability influences the actions of the department in providing peace to the citizens of the country. The homeland security enterprises include all departments, units and groups of people that are interested in a peaceful and secure environment. While these units aim at achieving a common goal, their activities have not been consolidated at all making the achievement of their objectives much harder (Decker, 2001). The Department of Homeland Security plays a major part in nationwide activities such as monitoring the national boundaries and controlling the immigration of persons in the state. Regional and local roles are played family, community and regional enterprises where the department’s activities are limited to amendment of laws and supervision. The current state of national security and

Risk management is applied in numerous ways by various agencies and organizations within the U.S. national security apparatus. One manner in which risk management is utilized by the Department of Defense is to mitigate vulnerabilities to personnel during military operations. Whether or not to recruit and deploy a double-agent is a primary focus of risk management within the CIA’s Counterespionage Group. Moreover, evaluating security threats to U.S. embassies and other diplomatic facilities is an application of risk management within the U.S. Department of State. Not surprisingly, risk management is also found throughout the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The five primary missions of DHS are: terrorism prevention and security enhancement; border security; immigration law enforcement; cybersecurity; and disaster resiliency (Department of Homeland, 2012, p.2). The concept of risk is inherent to varying degrees in each of these missions. In order to achieve the subordinate goals and objectives associated with each mission, risk management is utilized by DHS to assess subjects such as threats, vulnerabilities, asset criticality, and budgetary matters. Thus, risk management is an essential component in DHS activities such as terrorism prevention, critical infrastructure protection, and resource allocation

The National Security Council is a forum for the president to consider issues of national security and foreign policy with his national security advisers and senior cabinet officials. The problem of national security strategy is that it causes many conflicts and arguments. There are many definitions of concepts of national security. Traditionally security means, first, as the physical survival of the state, protection and preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity, the ability to react adequately to potential and real external threats. The date September 11, 2001 has changed the way the world began to perceive their own security threats and related to these threats. As for security and US approach, the White House has released its new "National Security Strategy" in 2002 establishing a pattern for eventual war against terrorism. ("The Whitehouse National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.". Network Security2002, no. 10 (2002): 2-3. doi:10.1016/s1353-4858(02)10002-x). The argument presented here today will hopefully answer the question “Why is it so difficult to develop and implement a successful national security strategy”? This paper is an analysis of the strategy plan of national security of the United States specifically after the attacks of Sept. 11. The National Security Strategy is poor, especially in relation to national warfare threats.

The end of the Cold War and attacks of 9/11 dramatically altered the landscape of United States national security endeavors. Gone was the singular, nearly tactile threat as presented by a major superpower, and in its place was the “amorphous nature of a terrorist opponent,” (Snow, 2014, p. 112). This novel threat defied easy definition or identification, and attacked in ways to which the U.S. had grown unaccustomed. Phrases like “asymmetrical warfare” and “war on terror” were used liberally by an executive branch wholly unprepared for mitigating such a threat, and exploited to justify any number of means to achieve an end that as yet remains elusive. With the threat now subsiding, and certain means of statecraft and defense

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has improved emergency response dramatically over the last 15 years in many areas, however, other areas are still deficient. Even though DHS is making great strides the task is often daunting and challenging, some efforts have fallen short and possibly need to be discontinued. Effective homeland security requires a more decentralized approach in working with state, local and private sectors, which can be seen in immigration enforcement and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Since 9/11 the DHS has taken monumental movements in thwarting terrorist

The DHS brought resources and expertise of law enforcement partner the team, but new mechanisms to share information this includes investments in training for local law enforcement and first responders of everyone in order to increase expertise and capacity at local level (“Law Enforcement Partnerships”). One of the main purposes of DHS is to get information, tools and resources from Washington D.C and this indies the federal state local, tribal a territorial law enforcement partnership all begins with homeland security and hometown security. The partnership between DHS and other law enforcement areas have to make sure they are close and understanding of the information passed through each other because the tactics behaviors and other actions

Just as the world’s geopolitical climate ebbs and flows, so does the National Security Strategy of the United States. Over the past fifteen years or so the United States’ foreign policy and security focus has been largely directed toward Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria, with an intent directed at stabilizing the region. The National Security Strategy of 2015 continues to emphasize the need to combat terrorism and the role the United States will play in the fight against al-Qa’ida, ISIL, and their affiliates. More recently however an old and familiar face has surged back into the limelight and garnered the attention of United States strategists and policymakers. While the 2015 National Security Strategy lacks directly identifying any

Although, the unrest around the globe whether, natural, man-made, or technological disaster are signs that DHS must at all times be ready to act to prevent, or thwart any attacks or potential attacks. Also, DHS leadership must also understand that its professionals operate in an environment where terrorist threats and natural disaster are not far fetch. Finally and to answer the question from the context “how can DHS leadership lead and operate successfully in such complex environment where the stakes are high?” it is important therefore that leadership within DHS is evident of the need for leading change (creativity and innovation, external awareness, flexibility, resilience, strategic thinking and vision); leading people (conflict management, leveraging diversity, developing others, and team building); results driven (accountability, decisiveness, technical credibility, and problem solving); business acumen (financial, and human capital and technological management) and build coalitions (political savvy, negotiation, partnering) (United States Office of Personnel Management,

This “intermestic” condition demands a national security strategy that adequately addresses both international and domestic threats (Snow, 2014, p. 1). However, since the end of the Cold War the United States has failed to create a widely accepted national security strategy (Korb, 2003, p. 1). It is imperative, therefore, that decision-makers take a realistic and comprehensive inventory of the threats to national security and be willing to commit to a strategy that will serve to guide American policies and actions.