Why Is Internal Division A Threat To National Security?

Bellavita Christopher is the Director of Programs for the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Also, from 1998 to 2002, he was the planning coordinator for the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command. The author focuses on the fact that homeland security faces a variety of threats. Many factors such as the economy, weapons of mass destruction and a lack of moral compass pose potential challenges to homeland security (Bellavita, 2009). The terrorist attacks such as the one in Mumbai, the economic meltdown, the disaster on the borders remain potential malefactors to the U. S. homeland. And to no surprise, the threats are gradually transforming into a more complex tactics. Bellavita takes aim towards a realistic assessment

Budgets for defense related agencies have grown sky high. 9/11 changed many peoples attitudes and concerns about safety. This resulted in policies like the U.S patriot act that put defense and security above civil liberties. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, homeland security was created and their budget in 2001 was 43

It cannot be denied that terrorism remains a serious problem but there is a strong argument that the United States government oversold the actual and potential risk and that the power and authority granted to

Government spending, whether for defense or heightened security, significantly increased following the attacks on September 11, 2001. The attacks, directly or indirectly, led to subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Tilford). With additional spending for homeland security, a price tag of $5 trillion dollars has been attributed to the events of September 11th and its

The Federal bureaucracy before 9/11 was nonexistent. The Federal bureaucracy was dealing with foreign rather than domestic threats. The federal bureaucracy was very limited at the, because DHS don’t exist at that time. Since 2001 until now the DHS has improvement a lot from interdepartmental transitioning in find the threat. The federal bureaucracy get all other countries involve in the betterment and transformation to stop any form terroristic threats.

As we move into the twenty-first century people are confronted with complicated and compromising matters affecting the intricately convoluted global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend many hours arranging ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking across national borders. President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an undertake to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism in the United States; he issued the Executive Order of Homeland Security as that initial step.

With our country’s focus on the strengthening of military weapons and protection programs against foreign enemies,

After all, it is not as if right-wing extremism disappeared after September 11. The history of right-wing extremism from 1995 to the present day has been one of a steady stream of plots, conspiracies, terrorist acts, and hate crimes. The recent history of extremist violence in the United States has in most respects been dominated by right-wing extremists.

The war on terrorism is vast and intense. Most of the media and public are focused on the international threats and groups plaguing the globe, however there is a true and real concern for the terrorism in our backyard and the government has taken notice. How exactly can a government so fragmented and already stretched so thin take on another hardship with such high stakes? By restructuring the system with a more narrowly tasked counsel, the Domestic Terrorism Counsel (Carlin, 2015), to focus all involved, bridging the gaps between vertical intergovernmental relations, from federal to local levels, and the horizontal cross-sector collaboration of multiple organizations, like the FBI, the Attorney General’s Office, and the SPLC. (Carlin, 2015)

“The struggle against international terrorism is different from any other war in our history. We will not triumph solely or even primarily through military might.” (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003) And so to combat this in the post 9/11 time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was born. And as we have seen in the past event, DHS is needed more today than ever. But DHS was born out of not only necessity but also function.

Thinking about the government knowing about these attacks and doing nothing about it is sickening. Nobody wants to believe it, and that makes it all the ever more important. The first thing that may come to mind when trying to comprehend this idea is, why would the government want to do something like this anyway? One theory suggests that they needed to push the Patriot Act through congress. The Patriot Act’s title is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) which stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". It was signed by former President George W. Bush in October of 2001. Another theory suggests that the United States government needed to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Nothing fires up patriotism like an attack on our own

Homeland Security is the intersection of evolving threats and hazards with traditional government and its responsibilities for civil defense emergency response law enforcement, customs border control and immigration. Moreover, the term “enterprise” is a national effort that refers to the collective efforts and shared responsibilities of federal, state local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental and private-sector partners as well as individuals ( U.S. Department of Homland Security, 2010). Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the concept of National Intelligence was arranged by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. As that was formulated, the IC community was known to be more coordinated and effective. The Act also made it possible for the integration of domestic and foreign dimensions of us intelligence to eliminate gaps and understanding national security threats. Also, this brought about the mission of the Department of Homeland Security and future capabilities of the department (Noftsinger, 2007).

“We have learned as a Nation that we must maintain a constant, capable, and vigilant posture to protect ourselves against new threats and evolving hazards. But we have also learned that vigilance and protection are not ends in and of themselves, but rather necessary tools in the service of our national purpose.”(Napolitano, 2010, p.iv) In the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attacks our nation has taken upon itself extreme vigilance to ensure the security and defense of the American people. The relationship between homeland security and homeland defense is one that is tightly knit. Each has a very distinct mission set but somewhere along the spectrum they cross over and mutually support each other in the best interest of the nation.

In order for the United States of America and its allies to live a life free of terrorist threats, they need to counter violent extremism and terrorism with swift and deliberate prevention efforts world-wide.

Differing accounts on either pole focus on al-Qaeda’s continued relevance as the premier terrorist network, whether it is any longer effective or not. From there, the natural conclusion comes around to asking how effective al-Qaeda is, and by which mechanisms does it project that effectiveness. Aside from this, both parties agree that al-Qaeda has an uncanny habit of surviving in the turbulent international dialectic that spawned radical Muslim distress, vicariously.