COE Selection-COA Evaluation Criteria

As we move into a new era were a more robust and urgent homeland security program is needed, it is important to talk about how officials are managing all of the risk. There are a multitude of threats; from terrorism, where tactics are all the more unconventional an unpredictable, to climate change, with extreme weather conditions causing severe droughts or other catastrophic storms. The risk accepted by federal officials must be weighed and prioritized in a manner that is conducive to the longevity of the nation but also eliminates political or other personal agenda. To ensure a standardized approach the Department of Homeland Security adopted a risk management. The following will look at defining what risk management is as well as an example of how it is being incorporated within the homeland security enterprise and how doing so is of benefit.

SITUATION ANALYSIS – THREATS . . . . . . . . . . PG 9-10

Risks that the organization focuses on are acts of crime and drug/alcohol abuse. The target of the risks are the negative outcomes because the organization is trying to prevent the negative results of the risks. The risks are medium.

The ability of the Department of Homeland Security to effectively manage risk is vital to national security. Risk in general, is something that is permanent but because this is known, strategies can be used to mitigate situations as they present themselves. Government managers must manage risk in a complex environment taking into consideration the diverse missions and multiple objectives of public agencies (Hardy, 2014). The role of risk management within the homeland security enterprise was managed by best and worst case scenario planning. This is something that is inevitable as we are faced within a definite variety of threats. One way to grade or rank threats is through worst-case analysis. As this analysis can be used for worst-case scenarios the federal government cannot leave out lower ranking situations (Roberts, 2007). Since the Department of Homeland Security is charged with managing risk within the enterprise, a basic equation is used to help figure out different variables and how they would be affected.

The Army has endured many issues as ebbs and flows with this process. It is imperative for any long-term operation to be a sustained warfighting effort. The quality of the force readiness is measured on its ability to be sustained. Sustainment in itself has eight different elements of which each has multiple facets or sub-elements that comprise the system.

Risk management is beneficial for the Department of Homeland Defense (DHS). Not only for the DHS, but for just about any situation needing a further analysis. How can an individual understand risks if homework is not accomplished beforehand? Risk can be associated with just about any situation. The focus will be to better understand the benefits of a risk management program as applied to homeland security operations. Also, the perception, influence, and balancing of risk elements, and how it can be applied in determining the level of risk.

* There are three (3) schools of thought regarding risk. The first considers the positive and negative aspects of risk, but sees them as separate. The second group believes that there are benefits from treating threats and opportunities together, while the third school does not label uncertainties, but addresses uncertainty as part of “doing the job.” Argue the value of having a risk strategy despite the cost associated with it. Include an example to support

Moreover, we are entering an era where the American people finally support this reality. However, the population also has limited patience for significant military casualties, and large number of “boots on the ground”. The solution to this problem rests on the close interaction between SOF, CF, and IA to prevent tripping wires of escalation. While this type of military action will require an increased level of cooperation between SOF and CF, it will also reduce risk to US forces. More importantly, this strategy will allow the US to achieve limited, political objectives, without losing popular support. Whereas, during the Korean and Vietnam wars, US limited war strategies focused on preventing an escalation to general conventional war, this new era of warfare will seek to achieve objectives in the sub-limited range of military operations. This strategy will ensure the US can persistently engage our adversaries with multiple instrument of power while allowing SOF to mature its capability to encounter global

1c. How well do those operational objectives support the attainment of the Theater strategic objective(s)?

Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement with a particular country. "A SOFA itself does not constitute a security agreement; rather, it establishes the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel present in a state in support of the larger security strategy, and providing some legal safeguards for service members stationed abroad (Mason 2011)". While the host nation and the U.S. sign SOFAs after extensive negotiations, many believe they are a threat to the sovereignty of the host nations and an exercise of U.S. influence in the world. So, is the sovereignty of a host nation compromised by signing these agreements? Is this a zero sum game for the countries entering the arrangements, or it is more about cooperation and mutual benefit to the signatories? Long lasting SOFA’s like the one between the U.S. and South Korea (ROK) seem to have endured the test of time and the domestic and international criticism that generates. On the other hand, short-lived agreements like the one between the U.S. and Iraq succumbed to the internal political turmoil created by the presence of foreign military forces on their soil. In this document, I will try to compare and contrast both agreements in an attempt to demonstrate that the circumstances that generated the agreement play an essential part in the quality and the duration of it.

Defined by Coopers textbook, risk is the exposure to the consequences of uncertainty and has two elements: the likelihood of something happening that has an impact on the project objectives, and the positive or negative consequences of something impacting the project objectives (Cooper, Grey, Raymond, & Walker, 2005)

vulnerability, the potential loss that could occur, and the likelihood of its occurrence.” They are used to detect, deter and prevent critical infrastructure against threats. They have four main goals. Norman identifies these goals as (2010, p.265):

Risk management is an essential task the United States federal government is responsible for. The governments role is to protect its citizens from domestic and foreign threats such as an WMD attack. One way to break down different WMD attacks is using the Impact/ Probability chart, this chart offers a helpful framework that assists what threats are attention worthy. Probability is the likelihood of something happening, while impact always is associated with a negative effect but the impact can vary depending on costs and impacts on infrastructure, human life, and health. This chart offers a way to rate possible risks on these two measurements. The different WMD attacks will be measured based on low impact/low probability, low impact/high

Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement with a particular country. A SOFA itself does not constitute a security arrangement; rather, it establishes the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel present in a country in support of the larger security strategy, and provides some legal safeguards for service members stationed abroad. While the host nation and the U.S. sign SOFAs after extensive negotiations, many believe they are a threat to the sovereignty of the host nations and an exercise of U.S. influence in the world. So, is the sovereignty of a host nation compromised by signing these agreements? Is this a zero sum game for the countries entering the arrangements or it is more about cooperation and mutual benefit to the signatories? Long lasting SOFA’s like the one between the U.S. and South Korea (ROK) seem to have endured the test of time and the domestic and international criticism that generates. On the other hand, short lived agreements like the one between the U.S. and Iraq succumbed to internal political turmoil generated by the presence of foreign military forces on their soil. In this document I will compare and contrast both in an attempt to demonstrate that the circumstances that generated the agreement play an important part in the quality and the duration of it.

The reader will become familiarised with the term risk and it definitions from specifically the ISO 31000 standard of risk management and also the definition of risk from the criminology crime triangle. Which one of these two definitions that are the most suitable for usage within the security industry will be discussed and evaluated. How and why consequence is important when assessing risk priorities and determining where to allocate resources will be examined and answered.