|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |

Sign up for Security Debrief Newsletters



Archive for August, 2009

The Other Side of El Paso: Drugs, violence and social media in Juarez City (Part I)

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

There were many things that surprised me during a State Department-sponsored trip to Mexico this week, where we took a tour of U.S. border security operations before heading into Ciudad Juarez and Mexico City to meet with groups organizing against the spiraling violence in that country. I was surprised, for instance, that a representative from one of the Juarez drug cartels did not meet me at the airport, a block-typed sign with my name on it in one hand and a diamond-handled .45 in the other. I was surprised by the Border Patrol video with shrieking death metal background music. I was surprised by the mixture of courage and nonchalance of the college students living in Juarez who have grown sick of the murders and extortions and kidnappings in their city and who want desperately for the world to know that these cartels do not define them. I was surprised that traffic lights in Mexico City are optional. I was surprised by mad-eyed chickens, stuffed and sitting amid a stash of pungent fruit seized by Customs, arrayed across a table like some dionysian offering to the gods of smuggling. I was surprised by the number of grassroots groups throughout Mexico who want to fight back against the violence but who struggle in isolated and fragmented groups and seem utterly unaware of one another. I was surprised by the unending sea of lights beneath me as my plane descended into Mexico City near midnight, the city infinite and beautiful and ever-changing from neighborhood to neighborhood. Most of all, though, I was surprised that the cruel and savage murder of 14-year-old Fernando Marti has not led to a national uprising in Mexico, an outraged rebellion against the strutting drug tyrants and petty street thugs who seem to rule the country through levers of chaos and terror and brutality.

We were in Mexico as part of a delegation brought in to meet with citizens, students, grassroots groups (NGOs, short for non-governmental organizations, to use the common bureacrateze) and Mexican government officials to talk about ways these folks could organize and make their voices heard, particularly how they might use social media tactics in their emerging public relations battle with the criminal class. The cartels have long been given voice through gunfire and averted gazes, punctuated messages of terror reported daily in the newspapers, and with rural folk ballads, the narcocorridos, that romanticize meth labs and smuggling as mere working-class struggle. The people of Mexico, however, have had no voice, no one to champion their cause. They do not trust the police, who are so often caught in bed with the cartels. And, as more than one pointed out to us, they don’t even trust each other. That is changing now. The cartels have overplayed their hand and the sheer savagery that they have brought down upon the countryside is prompting the people of Mexico to organize themselves. And they have found an alley in President Felipe Calderon, who has virtually declared war on the cartels. And now entire swaths of the country have erupted into open battlefields.

The cartels come equipped with the highest-powered weapons and the most sophisticated of technology. In a country where families are so poor they are living generations to a room, the narcos are swimming in cash – most of it pumped in from the United States, from Americans with voracious appetites for Mexican-flavored dope. Pot, cocaine, meth, heroin … if you can smoke it, snort it or shoot it, Americans want it. It’s like we all want to live the life of Hollywood movie stars and since most of us can’t act, inhaling drugs or signing up for reality tv is the next best thing. Most Americans have a little more pride than Tom DeLay or Vanilla Ice, eliminating reality tv as an option. What’s left is the world’s largest market for drugs of every color, and the cartels of Mexico possess just the kind of psychotic entrepreneurial spirit – a nose for business development combined with a willingness to execute the competition – to meet this insatiable demand.

Perhaps embarrassed by the truckloads (literally) of cash that American college professors and Wall Street brokers are shoveling over to these sadistic fiends, the U.S. government recently decided it would only be fair to give money to the Mexican Government as a kind of counterbalance. The $1.4 billion of the Merida Initiative is largely going to training law enforcement and the military, to guns, bullets, choppers, bulletproof vests, high-tech surveillance and reinforced vehicles. And while $1.4 billion might seem like governmental pennies in an era in which Uncle Sam is purchasing U.S. multinational corporations and piling up a national debt in the trillions, this kind of cash represents an unprecedented effort of the American Government to join forces with the Mexicans against an enemy that is threatening both of our streets.

While the preponderance of the money is being used to pay for those Kevlar-chested cops you see riding around in the backs of jeeps, fingers vibrating just off the triggers of their machine guns, an important sliver is also going to what the folks in the State Department like to refer to as “soft side policies” – legal reform, public diplomacy, and cultural engagement. In short, helping to give voice to the Mexican people who look about at the wreckage and say, “Enough.”

Which is where we came in. For a day or two, anyway. Looking to give a megaphone to these citizens, the State Department flew in a group of us with a background in political organizing and public relations and social media development.

We had representatives from the likes of Facebook and Microsoft and other corporate faces of America’s new economy, along with innovative owners of web and social media companies. One of our crew started his first IT business at the age of 14, and another noted that he was a frustrated Rhodes Scholar, twice turned down as a finalist because he was deemed “too entrepreneurial” – something only an academic committee could despise. How I ended up in this group of technological wunderkinds is not entirely clear. I was just some poor slob who’d been involved in a few political campaigns, a former government bureaucrat myself, who now took the brilliant tech work of these other guys and applied it to public relations campaigns. Maybe I was there as an interpreter – not English to Spanish but Technologicaleze to English, which could then be translated into Spanish by somebody else. If so, it wasn’t necessary. These guys got politics, too, some of them part of the Obama campaign diaspora, the crew that has transformed the nature of grassroots politics in America with the power of digital organizing and who are now running things in Washington and distant satellites in Boston, Chicago and Silcon Valley.

We were all led by Suzanne Hall, a young public diplomacy advisor from the State Department who referred to everybody as “Dude.” Even in the plural, we were “dudes.” In fact, when she showed up for the first round of official meetings dressed in formal attire and tossing about sparkling diplomatic tones, I momentarily freaked, certain I had wandered into the wrong State Department travelling delegation. She brought the kind of energy and cheer and insight that probably does more – day-in, day-out – for cross-national relationships than any given dozen of the plastic-grimaced formal photo-op sessions that dot the schedules of Washington assistant secretaries and far-flung embassy managers throughout the course of a year.

There we were, this group of gringos as one Mexican traveler observed of us deplaning in Mexico City (prompting me to wonder if I had just been campily referred to as the equivalent of a honkey or something), not exactly fitting in to the landscape, blackberries and Ipods constantly in hand, laptop wiring strung across makeshift tables, come to discuss leveraging social media in a nation with less than 30 percent Internet penetration. To be used in the fight against drug lords, no less. Could Twitter stop bullets, pay ransoms? It seemed like a tall order, to say the least. That first morning in the hotel in Juarez City, reading about a series of drug executions, four beheaded corpses dumped into the city streets the night before, I wondered what we were doing.

Over the course of the day, though, in meeting after meeting of frustrated citizens, I regained my balance. It was clear what we were doing. We weren’t doing much at all. We were there to listen and offer whatever advice we might to a growing population beginning the slow but unstoppable awakening, stirring itself to outrage. Marches were being organized, networks developed. I remembered then that that’s where it all has to start. With the people. Twitter can’t stop bullets, but then neither can the local police at this point. President Calderon had just sacked several hundred in the area because of corruption. Most crimes go unsolved. As long as the citizenry stood for this kind of chaos, then little could be done. They had to organize first. What’s the cliché about the pen being mightier than the sword? How does that translate into the Digital Age? If we could help the organizers organize, maybe we could make a small difference. So this is what we were there to do.

US Cyber Consequences Unit Report Demands Attention

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

The US-CCU has issued a superb report on its year long analysis of the 2008 Russian Cyber Campaign against Georgia that accompanied their kinetic military assault into Ossetia. The full report has a great deal of detail on IP addresses and other essentially proprietary information, and therefore has not yet been released to the public.

They have offered a very good nine page summary that hits all the key issues, but without the detailed technical analysis of the attack methods and scripts. Everyone will be clamoring for the full report soon, as this analysis has relevance to everyone hooked up to the Internet. John Bumgarner, US-CCU’s CTO and Director of Research makes the point that this is not just a new way to wage war, but one that allows for a larger audience to be targeted. The analysis in the summary sticks to broad bush level, but none the less is filled with excellent insights. Anyone in this business, in government, or in business would do well to read the nine pages and work to understand the implications.

The cyber part of the Russia operation appears to have been executed solely by non-government civilians he calls “foot soldiers in the cyber conflict.” This is not to say that the “power that be” were not involved. Bumgarner does comment that the civilians were fed the time table, the targets, and the tools to make their efforts as effective as possible. He also notes that these civilian recruits were surprisingly easy to muster together, and, more importantly, that their tools they were given were clearly developed long before the actual attacks.

Several things stand out to me after reading this report. One is that cyber attacks are now becoming the simple equivalent of kinetic artillery preparation or preparatory airstrikes. Though it is unlikely that anyone will refrain from using this very inexpensive methodology in future conflicts. The second is that the “world” has not yet figured out how to react to this sort of action, and therefore has done nothing when it occurs. Bumgarner makes this point for Estonia (2007), Georgia (2008), Lithuania (2008), and Kazakhstan (2009). If civilians execute it, and those provoking the action cover their tracks, they can expect little international response. The final point was the prominent role of organized criminal elements in the effort. These cyber “ronin” are out there for the hiring, and we have no assurance that they work for anything other than profit. That puts their capabilities within reach of elements besides nation states. These lessons will not be lost on future enemies, but will be studied and absorbed by all.

The report summary goes on the call for international entities to monitor the cyber realm in order to give warning of coming attacks, and to provide advice and direct assistance to those counties which may be attacked. The US-CCU is 100% on the mark here. However, if we in the US are not adequately organized, how can we effectively push the international community to do so?

The Obama Administration must take heed of this report, and speed up its efforts to organize our Cyber Defense efforts. Clearly our peer competitors and enemies are moving ahead. Why are we dawdling?

The US-CCU and John Bumgarner in particular has done us all a great service. Their analysis is practical, measured, and useful. It now remains to be seen if the US Government will utilize it, or put it on the shelf with all the other “warnings” we have been given of late.

DHS: How many terrorist did you catch today?

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

I am still a bit surprised when I hear this question: How many terrorists has the Department of Homeland Security caught? Probably for most employees at DHS, it’s an odd question. Which is why it’s a critical public relations matter. Most Americans still don’t understand the mission of DHS.

Why is it an odd question? It’s not DHS’s job to catch terrorists, per se.

Yes, DHS has as its mission the goal of preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. So catching terrorists would seem like an obvious part of that. Except it’s not. Prevention is the key word. The job of the folks at DHS is not so much to catch terrorists but to prevent them from successfully implementing a terrorist operation. Catching and preventing may at times overlap, but more often than not, for the majority of cases, they do not.

The FBI is the primary agency responsible for investigating and bringing individual terrorists to justice. The job at DHS is to implement a wide variety of tactics and strategies to prevent terrorists from ever setting foot on U.S. soil or being able to smuggle in the materials and resources they need for an operation. If you consider the nearly infinite ways in which terrorist groups might achieve their aims, you can see that this is a daunting challenge. And, unfortunately, when DHS is successful, most Americans never know it. The good work of DHS agents and employees goes largely unheralded.

During a trip to the border recently, as part of a group to review border security operations with the federal government, somebody asked this question, heard often in the halls of DHS and from the media during news conferences: Are you catching any terrorists?

The implication of the question – usually the questioner already knows the answer – is that the failure to catch members of al Qaeda during the fingerprinting processes at the border, or during Border Patrol operations along the southwest land border, or during the student visa process, or during the airport screening process … the implication is that the tactics implemented by DHS are obviously failing. No terrorists.

It is important to remember, however, that we usually won’t know if the efforts are successful – at least from the perspective of stopping the next al Qaeda operative. It should be remembered that most of the September 11th terrorists who entered the United States did so by exploiting our immigration system. For example, Hani Hanjour, one of the men who helped crash a 757 into the Pentagon, entered America allegedly as a foreign student. He applied for and received his student visa, but he never set foot on the school at which he was supposedly studying. In fact, nobody ever heard from him again until that fateful morning of September 11, 2001.

Had the DHS student visa program been in place at the time, Hanjour’s failure to show up at the school for which he was given a visa would have resulted in an alert being issued to US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. ICE would have then investigated the matter. Had they run down Hanjour, he would have been deported.

And he would never have been tagged as a “terrorist.” He would only have been an individual who was caught exploiting the immigration system – like millions of others who do the same.

So, yes, it’s true that few terrorists are “caught” by DHS. It’s also true that few terrorists who are caught will likely ever be known.

Nice Guys Finish Last

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Imagine two companies: first, a construction company that has received repeated notices for several years from the Social Security Administration of hundreds of irregularities in the social security numbers used for employment purposes at the company. These same social security numbers were used as a basis for work eligibility on I-9s. This company chooses to ignore the no-match letters and as a result, continues to employ significant numbers of unauthorized workers.

Second: another construction company that goes above and beyond the norm and signs up for the voluntary E-Verify program to further ensure that it is hiring only legally authorized workers. Although the company undergoes immigration compliance training, they inadvertently make some mistakes in the E-Verify implementation process. When they discover the mistakes, they immediately correct them.

In tough economic times, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should focus on ensuring a level playing field for honest businesses, and regulating unscrupulous firms who use illegal workers to cut costs and gain a competitive advantage. Clearly, the federal government should focus its enforcement efforts on the first company and not the second. It would be consistent with general beliefs of fairness and justice.

Unfortunately, if last week’s federal register announcement of “dropping the no-match rule” is any indication, the DHS is squarely aiming its efforts on employers who are trying to do the right thing. By ignoring a critical tool that can help agents target employers and instead augmenting the monitoring and compliance of E-Verify users, as announced in May, the administration has turned our sense of fairness and justice upside down.

Of course, DHS’ intent to formally revoke the no-match rule is not a big surprise. Earlier this summer, the administration slipped this announcement in with its very positive announcement that it is mandating E-Verify for federal contractors. But while DHS claims that they are dropping the no-match rule as part of their push to do “smarter” worksite enforcement, the evidence suggests that they are also leaving some critical tools for targeting the most egregious employers back in the toolbox. Not only are they discarding the safe harbor rule, but DHS has declared that they will no longer be looking at no-match letters as part of enforcement actions. DHS said as much in Wednesday’s announcement declaring, “DHS has determined that focusing on the management practices of employers would be more efficacious than focusing on a single element of evidence within the totality of the circumstances.”

This is a mistake. ICE agents and federal prosecutors have routinely used no-match letters as part of an overall strategy to target egregious employers. How an employer handles no-match letters, or rather how they don’t, can often provide significant insight into an employer’s overall compliance strategy, and useful evidence to support a criminal indictment.

This piece was originially published by Forbes.com.

GovExec Cyber Breakfast Panel

Monday, August 24th, 2009

On the morning of Aug 19th, Gov Exec Magazine and Nextgov.com hosted an excellent panel on Coordinated Cyber Defense at the National Press Club.  The panel consisted of Brian Fredericks the lead for defending the DIB networks in the Department of Defense’s OASD NII (Defense’s CIO), Jim Lewis, CSIS’s Cyber Leader, LtGen Ken Minihan, former DirNSA, now working for Paladin Capital Group, and Allan Paller, Dir of Research, SANS Institute.   The panel was moderated by Jill Aitoro, the Cyber reporter for the two hosting organizations.

The conversation was fairly wide ranging, and moved from the threats to the role of leadership, to the competition within government for leadership, to the debate about the role of government regulation, and finally to future government structures.  The panelists were forthright and candid, and at times not too optimistic.

In their self introductions, the all mentioned Richard Clark as a having played a key role in their initial entrance to the cyber world.  The most interesting one was Paller’s story about the so-called “Dirty Minds Project” that was initiated by Clark.  It was a brainstorming session about how others might try to harm the USA.  In the cyber realm, Pallor said that the conclusion was that it would not be the technology that would fail in an attack.  He said the group asserted that if an enemy attacked in waves, with brief pause in between, eventually, we would breakdown, and they would get through.  It was an intriguing concept that unfortunately was not raised again. 

In the area of threats, all agreed that the threats were up, in both frequency and sophistication, and that we were far more aware of them than ever before.  Minihan said that this accounted for a perception that this was a bigger issue today than it was in the past.  The telling part was that they all emphasized that the public in general and the majority of the highly interested parties had no idea of the true magnitude of the threat.  Paller quoted a letter from the head of British MI5 to the top 300 firms in the UK.  In it the counterintell chief said that any of the firms who do business (any business) with China were having their computer networks (and those of their lawyers) attacked with the same frequency and intensity as the government networks, and by the same assets.  Lewis said simply that the US was a target rich environment, and that we were in (not heading for) a strategic conflict, waged in the cyber area.

Minihan also used the analogy of an iceberg, saying that the part of the threat with which we were familiar (hackers, DDoS attacks, etc) was only the “unstructured” threat.  The “structured” threat (coming from peer competitors and highly organized groups) was part below the water, and thus the real danger.

They all agreed that good leadership was the overlooked key to better (not perfect) cyber security.  Only if leaders (CEOs vice CIOs or CISOs) got involved would an entity make real progress.  Fredericks mentioned that the DSD was meeting with the CEOs of the DIB companies to make this point and solicit their help to protect these critical assets. 

There was quite a bit of discussion of regulation, private / public partnerships and how these could help the effort.  No conclusions were reached, but two very interesting points were made.  One was that NIST was ill suited to set the standards for cyber security, because it didn’t know anything about security.  It was likened to asking someone who didn’t know how to build a building to devise the building codes.  The other interesting point was when Lewis (one of the authors of CSIS’s “Report on Cyber Security for the 44th President”) sighed and said that perhaps, “Cyber Security is just too hard for the US to achieve.”  His obvious discouragement was disheartening.  He also discussed the role of the White House in cyber briefly.  He mentioned that his report called for a separate organization similar to the US Trade Rep, while others wanted an Operational Cell in the Executive Office of the President.  Still others were calling for an entirely new agency.  Again, his discouragement with the lack of forward movement (after so much potential) was evident.  Paller said that since the government knew the threats the most completely, they should set the specifications for security products.

All next agreed that we must begin doing realistic exercises that include cyber attacks, not simulations, but real attacks.  This was seen as the only way to pursue improvement.  Lewis again had the most interesting comments, when he said that the threats to Critical Infrastructure in not the big problem, but the threat to intelligence and information is our biggest worry.  The former “may” happen, the latter is happening everyday, and at a huge cost.  In reference to supply chain security, Paller also said that it is impossible to find an implanted threat once it is inside software or hardware.  He went on to point out that building it all in the US is not a panacea, as the enemies could still plant malware through agents or insiders. 

In final comments, Lewis said that we’ll never get rid of social networking tools like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.  They improve productivity, and frankly younger workers will quit if they don’t have access to the tools with which they “grew up with.” Paller added on to this train of thought, saying that they real “weapon” of the future (today really) is the techie who can design systems that attack and defend while still allowing everyone to use the tools they have come to love.  He also said that of the big federal integrators, SAIC had the inside track on supporting the cyber efforts, because they were doing the most to develop cyber warfare personnel.

A last personal note, I looked around the room and saw six Navy uniforms, and none from any of the other three services.  Maybe the others were busy, but it was clear the Navy is taking this seriously.

A Death Sentence for Registered Traveler

Monday, August 24th, 2009

Defying one fatal blow after another the (insert here: Private-Company-slash-Transportation Security Administration’s) Registered Traveler (RT) program has managed to survive in a way that would make Lazarus envious. After a federal court prohibited Verified Identity Pass/Clear, now out of the RT business, from selling the personal data of its participants, there seemed to be no resurrecting RT. Yet the House Homeland Security Committee, in a bi-partisan letter – truly an act of God -  criticized TSA ’s decision to destroy the data it collected on RT participants. The Committee demanded TSA hold onto the data in the event RT one day gets to feeling better and rises again. Congress’ love affair with this program has saved it from the death cart yet again.

This love – or perverse Thanatology – motivated the House to pass the strongest language to date urging a trusted traveler program (Section 233, HR 2200). But still not mandating it. A mandate would look too much like ownership.

RT’s flaws will, and should, always inhibit outright ownership. Although rendered obsolete by an improved passenger checkpoint design, unnecessary by an experienced workforce and travelers, and insecure by ‘clean skins’, RT’s life line, and presumably biggest beneficiaries, continue to deflect the Grim Reaper’s looming scythe.

No pulling the plug on this dying Grandma. Yet a ‘death panel’ would certainly be a most sympatric act.

Once and for all a decision needs to be made. One too many sequels of “Weekend at Bernie’s” have already been made. Rather than having the government or a private company sink any more money, time and resources into this patient, an honest prognosis needs to be given by those who will be held responsible if there is a security failure: the Department of Homeland Security.

And the decision needs to be made publicly for the sake of informing travelers and would-be participants. If clearly explained there won’t be any surprises as to why this program, in its current decaying form that only Sam Raimi (”Evil Dead”) could love, deserves a death sentence.

Immigration—In Case you are Wondering, Nobody Asked

Monday, August 24th, 2009

According to press reports about 130 “reform” advocates and leader were asked to come over to the White House and pow-pow on the way forward on immigration reform. “Today’s meeting on comprehensive immigration reform was an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders…” Napolitano said. “I look forward to working with President Obama, my colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor organizations, the interfaith community, advocacy groups and others as we work on this important issue.” So in case you were wondering no one from the Heritage Foundation was at the table.

It is not clear why Heritage did not rate an invitation.

No think tank in Washington has written more comprehensively on immigration and border security reform issues. Heritage studies and statistics are frequently cited by Congressional members during floor debates. When the Bush administration tried to push through comprehensive reform in 2007, a senior team from the White House made a special trip to Heritage to discuss the bill with Distinguished Heritage Fellow, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese (who was a key player in the last major reform debate in 1986) and other Heritage scholars. After the bill, crashed and burned senior officials the Department of Homeland Security came to Heritage to meet with conservative groups and assess how they had gotten it wrong.

Nor are Heritage scholars estranged from this administration. They sit on various high level advisory groups for this administration. Heritage scholars were even asked to brief the White House on the proposal to merge the National Security and Homeland Security Councils.

Nor is Heritage opposed to immigration reform. After the 2007 bill, Heritage analysts were quick to outline an alternative solution, an ”honest plan” that was practical and compassionate, respected the rule of law, and did not require a mass “amnesty”.

By doing little more than holding a cheerleading session for a failed approach to immigration reform, the White House has done little to engage the American people in discussing real and honest solutions. Instead, they have only further polarized an already divisive issue.

Is the POTUS Too Distracted to Deal with Cyber Threats?

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

We all know that President Obama has a lot on his plate right now.  He is still trying to get the economy moving, North Korea is being troublesome, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, and of course there is the contentious Heath Care Reform debate.  As a citizen, I am sympathetic to the President’s plight, as a cyber security specialist, I am running out of patience.

The promise was made during the campaign that cyber security would be a priority.  Melissa Hathaway was kept on by the new administration to do an informed and thorough review in 60 days.  We all applauded.  Ms. Hathaway and a very small team worked for 60 days straight, with no days off to produce the review, and turned it in on schedule.  Then the trouble began.  The President had other issues, and the review languished in the White House while the President’s advisors haggled over the words and for whom the promised Cyber Coordinator would work.  We began to worry.  Finally, on the 29th of May, the review was released with a full Presidential public statement and endorsement.  Our worries seemed to have been misplaced.

Well, May 29th seems a long time ago.  Not only do we not yet have a Cyber Coordinator (Will everyone please stop calling the position the “Cyber Czar”, it will be anything but!), but Melissa Hathaway has quietly resigned from the government, as has Mischel Kwon, the Director of US-CERT.  These two are on top of Rod Beckstrom’s (Director of the National Cyber Security Center) earlier departure.  There is still a debate inside the Executive branch as to who is in charge of cyber security (NSA, DHS, DoJ, DNI).  This just has to stop, and that can only be done by leadership.

There are competent people coming in behind these stalwarts folks from the previous administration, but there seems to be a bad current running here.  Instead of gaining ground on this pervasive problem that is plaguing our economy, society, and security, we seem to be losing it.  We must reverse the trend.

President Obama is clearly one of the most tech savvy leaders we have ever had.  He understands the magnitude of the problem.  He is the rock star of American government right now, however if he is not personally pushing an issue, it appears that nothing moves forward.   That should change; it must change.  No man, even one as talented as President Obama can personally address every problem.  Others in the government must pick up the slack and begin to work the issue of Cyber Security.

Perhaps Health Care Reform and the Economy are bigger issues than cyber security.  My concern is what the effect will be on our health care system or the economy if an adversary conducts a massive cyber attack that cripples several banks and the stock markets, or takes control of the electrical grid that runs our hospitals, or corrupts the medical information system that guides proper treatments.  If we do not improve our security, the benefits of any reforms could be short lived.

Cyber Security cannot languish on the back burner.  With respect Mr. President, you either need to direct someone to deal with this issue in your stead, or re-engage as soon as possible.  Everyday we waste in distraction allows our enemies to gain more ground.

The Honor, Hassle and Headache of Hosting the World – Pittsburgh & the G-20

Friday, August 21st, 2009

When it was first announced that my hometown of Pittsburgh had been selected to host the G-20 Summit I have to say I was genuinely thrilled at the news.  The entire world was going to see the “City of Champions” as I know it – a place where great neighborhoods and excellence in commerce, education, medical care, and not just championship sports teams reside.  The one-time industrial city once known for its choking, smoky skies because of the 24/7 steel plant operations has transitioned into city of corporate skyscrapers, world-class medical and educational centers and a spectacular skyline. 

While there is a tremendous honor in hosting an event like the G-20 Summit, there is also the tremendous hassle and headache that come with it.  That is what Pittsburgh is experiencing now. 

Like other cities around the United States, Pittsburgh is a city with budget problems.  While the city is home to major corporations such as PNC Bank, PPG, US Steel and others, the economic recession has left it with more debts than income.  That’s a serious problem when you’re about to host the world, and have to foot the bill. 

Labeled as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) given the significance of the event, the US Secret Service will oversee security operations for the G-20 Summit.  In partnership with the City of Pittsburgh’s Police Department (only 900 or so members strong) and State and regional law enforcement departments, an unprecedented mobilization of police will take to the streets to ensure public order.  It is forecast that an event of this type takes a police presence of 4,000 strong.

Why so many? 

When you look at the recent history of similar events, in cases where the world’s political leaders assemble (e.g. political conventions, presidential inaugurations, other summits, etc.), they are not just an exceptional target for terrorists, but also for protestors wanting to make their voices and presence heard and seen. 

While NSSE’s are extraordinarily complicated, if you talk to anyone involved with one of them, or any other large scale event, hosted by a major city, they will all tell you one thing they don’t want to happen to them – Seattle.

Memories of the violent protests that rocked the City of Seattle in 1999 when it hosted the meetings of International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization remain fairly strong. No city is looking to have its showcase moment in front of the world’s media ruined by broadcast images of burning cars, smashed storefronts and chaos in the streets.  The camera footage recorded of the 1999 meeting did that and told the world something that was more than obvious – Seattle was completely unprepared to deal with the event and the violence unleashed by some protestors.

Since then, cities in the United States and around the world that play host to major events have improved overall event planning and coordination between the organizers and host cities; trained and mobilized significant numbers of police to support the events; provided designated areas to ensure that protestors can peacefully exercise their civil rights; and increased information sharing among public safety and emergency management personnel prior to, and during, the event. 

Hence the hassle and headache that Pittsburgh is experiencing now.   

While the White House finally opened its checkbook last week to provide more than $10M to help cover the region’s costs associated with the G-20, they, along with the US Secret Service, are not providing the leadership or information necessary to answer a number of important questions about this event.

Numerous Pittsburgh groups, as well as many from outside of Western Pennsylvania, have applied for permits for assorted parades, camps and protest rallies during the summit.  In attempting to work with these groups, the city has either given them an outright “no” to their request or told them their applications are in limbo pending decisions by the US Secret Service.

Further compounding the hassle and headache associated with the G-20 hosting honor is what this event will do for daily life in Pittsburgh. 

Business owners and employees that already battle traffic to get to and from work don’t know when or if they will even be able to get there because of security restrictions. 

Parents don’t even know if their kids will have school during the Summit given the traffic and other restrictions that will be imposed to safeguard the heads of state and other dignitaries. 

While the event may still be a few weeks off (September 24-25), its well past time for the White House and US Secret Service to step up to the plate and be better guests to the people of Pittsburgh. 

Everyone in that community fully understands the security needs and precautions that need to be undertaken to protect the president, his family and all of the other visiting heads of state. 

While respecting those needs, the federal government should also respect for the protestors, and their civil rights to be peacefully heard.  Whether you believe their cause to be righteous or ridiculous, they have a right to peacefully assemble and give voice to whatever it is that fires them up. 

The prevailing and apparent attitude of “We’ll get to you when we get to you” about what areas should be cordoned off for security needs is not helping the city, its businesses, schools or citizens plan or prepare either.  Such an attitude only makes the situation worse.

How? 

First off, it further antagonizes the protestors, especially the ones who already feel the government is out to get them and is already hostile to what they stand for.  Some of these parties are already hell-bent to cause chaos and violence.  By blowing them off and not communicating about where they can protest only adds to their disenfranchisement, gives them new recruits and additional excuse to rage against the machine.

Second, when the White House and the heads of state leave town, it will be the people of the Western Pennsylvania left to deal not just the final expenses associated with the Summit but also the lingering feuds, lawsuits and problems that come from strained ties between the public safety and law enforcement agencies and the businesses, citizens and activists that call the area home. 

The fact that we are four weeks out from the Summit and answers can not be given to some basic questions does nothing to help my hometown to prepare to host the world. 

No one is asking or expecting the White House or Secret Service to divulge state secrets or security protocols by being more forthcoming with more details, but after.  After all of the NSSE’s that we’ve had in this country, we should have down what works and what doesn’t. 

The prevailing silence of the White House and Secret Service to keeping a community informed and allow for respectful planning and information sharing between citizens, protestors and their community’s public safety leaders does not work; nor does it make them as good a guests that they could and SHOULD be.

Such are the hassles and headaches of hosting the world.

Heard on the street: Libyan terrorist release like another “bomb going off”

Friday, August 21st, 2009

Heard on the street:

“Watching the Libyans dancing in the streets and giving that guy, a terrorist, a guy who mercilessly killed hundreds — watching all that on the news this morning made me sick. It was like a whole new bomb going off.”

Mexico Continues Border War

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

In what has been a lightly reported story this past week – but one for which it is impossible to overstate the importance of – President Felipe Calderon terminated 1000 customs officials (700 in some reports) from their positions as inspectors at ports of entry throughout the country.  Compared to their American counterparts, manning the ports of entry along our shared border, Mexican customs officials are not as well trained and are allegedly more vulnerable to incidents of bribery and corruption.  The terminated officers were replaced with better-trained officials and temporary military personnel in an effort to both provide better security and boost tax revenue (unlike the United States, Mexico receives a significant portion of their national tax revenue from customs duties).

This is another indication of the dedicated and serious manner in which President Calderon has continued to wage war with the drug cartels that exploit the border for their own illegitimate purposes. Also, it is another indication of the support we must give President Calderon through the Merida Initiative and our own efforts to combat southbound weapons and cash shipments.

Good Information & An Interesting Conference Call

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Yesterday, DHS, in partnership with the Commerce Department and Health and Human Services (HHS) released new guidance to the private sector on preparations for the 2009-2010 Flu Season.  With heightened concern over a resurgence of the H1N1 virus, the Administration is pulling out all of the stops to educate schools, businesses and the American public about the forthcoming vaccine, as well as measures that that every person should take to protect themselves from H1N1 infection and more importantly, what they should do if they become ill.

In an accompanying conference call with private sector members to further elaborate on the newly released details, DHS Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Rand Beers introduced President Obama’s Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett who emphasized the importance of the newly released guidance, but also the fact that H1N1 preparedness and response had the full attention of the President and every part of his Administration.  

From there the call was turned over to experts from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) who gave an exceptionally good briefing on the newly released guidance and how it had been modified since the earlier H1N1 outbreak that occurred in the US this year.  The CDC presenter who was identified as RADM Redd (sp) shared that the infections models they were working from were getting away from 1918 Flu outbreak model that killed thousands.  He emphasized that the CDC and others had learned an awful lot about the H1N1 virus and are still learning more, hence the need to revise the earlier CDC guidance and outbreak/infection models.  

While encouraging everyone to get the vaccine when it becomes available, he also emphasized some common senses measures to limit the Flu’s spread.  These included frequent hand washing, staying home if you are ill, and making sure that employers put in place policies to accommodate the need for workers to stay home to care for family members as well as provide for telework options.

All of the presented teleconference information was very valuable and well presented, but even more details are available at the following sites:

The Federal Government’s Official Flu Website

Guidance for Businesses and Employers to Plan and Respond to the 2009–2010 Influenza Season

Preparing for the Flu: A Communication Toolkit for Businesses and Employers

As interesting as the conference call was, the fact that DHS’ new Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Alexander Garza and the Private Sector Office were not part of the call was also intriguing to me.  Recognizing that the conference call was not meant to have a cast of a thousand voices speaking, DHS’ Office of Health Affairs and Private Sector Office have played very active outreach roles over the past few years in educating the private sector and general public about Pandemic Flu.  They’ve made substantive contributions to building a foundation that the new DHS Administration is building off of and I hope they will continue to be allowed to play substantive roles in future efforts.

Transportation Security Administration’s Public Engagement

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

This week, National Public Radio did a story on the use of social networks by government agencies. It called out the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.  TSA’s engagement with social media is essential given the dynamics of today’s world, especially for a government agency that interfaces in-person with 2 million people everyday in our nations airports.

Passenger research shows that when people understand the “why” of security, they are more likely to comply. So travelers who are educated in advance though the web have that “ah ha” moment and are more likely to understand the reasoning behind security regulations when they get to the airport. This makes them less likely to take out their frustrations on security officers.

TSA deals with challenging issues that may seem to defy logic, such as the new regulation to give your full name and birth date to the airlines when you book a flight. “Why is this necessary?”  “How does it have the potential to make things more convenient for the traveler?” TSA’s summer Ad Council campaign answered these questions.

Recent body imaging technology pilots also raise public concerns. “Must you go through the machine?” (It is optional.) “What are the other options?” (You can opt for a physical pat down.) “What does the image officers see actually look like?” (There are two different technologies in use. To see the most widely deployed technology, millimeter wave, visit the TSA YouTube site and watch a demo 60 Minutes taped.)

When so many travelers are making reservations on-line, this is exactly the place to reach them and communicate — before they get to the airport.

Cyber security is a valid concern, but so is getting accurate, timely information in the hands of the customer. TSA recognizes they are part of the national dialogue and they see the value in having a voice in the conversation.

Nancy’s Courage

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

In reading Dan Fowler’s article, “Emergency Management Chief Decries ‘Culture of Entitlement’” in CQ this morning I was struck by the frank talk and courage of the comments made by National Emergency Management Association President Nancy Dragani.  While speaking at a Heritage Foundation Forum, Dragani noted the shift of our culture from one of personal responsibility to one of expectation and entitlement in terms of disaster and emergency response.

Instead of taking the individual initiative to prepare and respond to an emergency, it was her view that people are expecting someone to take care of those steps for them.  According to the article, she noted the pendulum shift towards this attitude of citizen entitlement following the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

While I was not at the Heritage event (I wish I had been), I find her remarks, as reported, as very commendable and even courageous.  She spoke not just from experience (she leads the State of Ohio’s Emergency Management Agency), but from a sense of reality.  Dragani’s voice is one more that echoes the reality check about what the public expectations from FEMA and emergency management at all levels should be.

Citizens have a distinct responsibility to take steps to safeguard their families, businesses, communities and themselves.  Outsourcing your personal responsibility is not responsible at all and contributes nothing to the resilient fiber of our country or its communities.  In taking the steps towards personal readiness, there are still those among us who need an extra hand and assistance.  As such, there is a role for government and communities at all levels to provide that hand when it is needed.  

We have all seen the results of when personal, community and government preparedness fail and it’s not a lesson any of us want to see repeated.

Kudos to Nancy for stating the obvious and having the courage to say it.  

That’s not often the case when dealing with these issues for fear of being pilloried by the media, the blogosphere and Congress for stating the truth.  

She did it and it was well said too.

An Apology to Our Readers

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

We would like to apologize to our readers for the technical difficulties experienced over the last two weeks. Our server was going through its death rattle and we had to put it out of its misery. We apologize for any inconvenience, and do not expect any more down periods.

How Many Reports Does It Take To Act?

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

The front page, banner headline of today’s Washington Times states the following: “Disaster plans leave the disabled behind.” In what they term as an exclusive, Times Reporter, Audrey Hudson reports on the findings of newly issued report by the National Council on Disability that details the gaps that exists in including the country’s disabled population in emergency planning.

While I am THRILLED to see this issue get front page coverage from a major newspaper, I shake my head in utter frustration that we’ve added another report on something that we already know as fact.  That criticism is not meant to be a slam on the National Council on Disability and the great work they’ve done in assembling their report, “Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People With Disabilities.”  Rather it’s an expression of my own personal frustration that we continue to talk and talk and talk about this issue and present report after report after report and the ball does not appear to move down the field to make the necessary changes.

As frustrated as I may be on the continued talk and lack of movement on this issue I can not begin to imagine the frustration and angst of the disabled and special needs populations in this country.  I am not a patient person by any measure.  I never have been, and the odds are I never will be, but how this population has held their tongues, bitten their lips or whatever they’ve done to restrain themselves from exploding in anger is beyond my comprehension.  Visions of the famous rant, “I’m mad as hell” from the movie Network come to mind when I think of how upset some of them probably are when living with this perpetual lack of action to this situation.

It should not go unnoticed that the Council’s report is the third major report issued this year that puts the brutal facts and shameful reality of our lack of preparedness when it comes to the needs of special needs populations in this country.

Earlier this year, ANSI’s Homeland Security Standards Panel, issued “Emergency Preparedness for Persons with Disabilities and Special Needs,” and Save the Children issued their report “Disaster Decade Report.”  These reports and now the Council’s lay it out for every American to see where we failing and what we need to do to make things better.

Each of these reports offer approaches as well as sensible, common sense solutions to making our preparedness as communities, families and citizens better.  While it’s great to have statistics, facts and plenty of documentation to reinforce the compelling arguments about what we need to do, my question is how many reports does it take to act?

In an August 4th hearing before the US Senate’s Ad hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, FEMA Administrator, Craig Fugate has given indications that he’s ready to make some of the necessary changes.  God knows he’s got enough reports, evidence and justification to act.  My only hope and prayer is that he’s given the leeway and resources to make things happen to improve this situation because it’s not just some of us that are impacted by these current shortcomings – it’s all of us that are affected.

I don’t think we need any more reports on the obvious.  We just need action.

Obama: Immigration bill coming this year; Obama: No, it’s not

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

Depending upon which media outlet you read, President Obama asserted that comprehensive immigration reform is or is not definitely (not) coming this year (maybe).

The Politico logs a headline that reads: “President Obama: Immigration bill coming this year.” On the same day, CQ Homeland Security asserts: “Obama Says Immigration Overhaul Will Slide to 2010.”

Got that?

The confusion can’t really be blamed on the President. The confusion seems to creep in from the personal — what, hopes? confusion? — of the different media outlets.

Credit CQ Homeland with getting it  more right.

As the Politico story acknowledges, somewhat confusingly — Obama said he expects to have a draft of an immigration bill by the end of the year, which is kind of like telling somebody the check’s in the mail.

Under fire from immigration reform supporters who say he’s not moving fast enough, President Barack Obama said Monday he expects to have a draft immigration bill in Congress by year’s end — but that lawmakers wouldn’t begin to seriously debate the issue until next year.

He acknowledged that the fight for comprehensive reform would be difficult, saying, “Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. . . . There are going to be demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable.”

Meanwhile, the reporter for CQ Homeland Security is a little more straightforward:

Immigration reform isn’t off the president’s agenda, but it does seem to be off the table for this year, according to statements President Obama made at the summit with the presidents of Canada and Mexico Monday.

Obama said Monday that while he expected to see draft language for a comprehensive immigration bill in circulation by the end of the year, he did not expect lawmakers to “start acting” on the bill until next year — after completing work on health care, climate change and a financial regulatory overhaul.

“I’ve got a lot on my plate, and it’s very important for us to sequence these big initiatives in a way where they don’t all just crash at the same time,” Obama said.

Trucking, Tariffs, and the “North American Union”

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

On Monday, President Obama concluded meetings with President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Cabanas Cultural Institute in Guadalajara, Mexico during the North American Leaders Summit, leaving unresolved the need to undo the harm created by a policy he helped implement while in the United States Senate – a ban on cross-border trucking.

Under the often vilified 1994 North America Free Trade Agreement, the United States is required to allow Mexican trucks the ability to travel within our borders as long as the vehicles and drivers met identical safety standards applied to U.S.-based truckers. To address this requirement, in September 2007 the U.S. Department of Transportation implemented a one-year demonstration program authorizing a limited number of Mexican trucking companies to perform long-haul operations throughout the United States to test the feasibility and safety of a permanent program. Earlier this year, the program was effectively terminated by the current administration.

Despite a flawless safety record, an international treaty requirement and the positive economic effects, many fought the pilot program as a further assault on American jobs by foreign competitors and another incremental march toward the greatly feared (and utterly imagined) “North American Union.” Currently, goods driven from the interior of Mexico arrive at the border where they are transferred to another truck with driver that crosses the border and clears customs. The cargo is then transferred to a third – U.S. based – shipper and delivered to its final destination. My niece could spot the glaring inefficiencies in this current system. She’s seven.

Under the proposed cross-border trucking program, one driver would be able to take cargo from the interior of Mexico, all the way to any point in the United States without switching rigs or drivers. The increased efficiency for the consumer is obvious to all.

Well, maybe not to everyone. Under increasing pressure from domestic truckers and unions, last year Congress passed legislation prohibiting the creation or operation of any cross-border trucking program. Opponents latched onto concerns with the safety of Mexican trucks as a pretext for killing the program (despite rigorous standards implemented by the Departments of Transportation on both the federal and state levels). At that time, Senator Obama voted with the majority in the Senate to kill the program.

Inevitably- and as is their right under the NAFTA treaty – in March 2009 Mexico instituted devastating tariffs on a range of (mostly agricultural) U.S. goods in the amount of $2.4 billion. Affected industries have howled about these tariffs and it looks like the Obama Administration and the Senate are starting to realize that protectionism – which picks economic winners and losers – is unsound.

Domestic trucking operators fear (somewhat justifiably) the negative impact this trucking program will have on their business. They are concerned that foreign shippers with lower fuel and labor costs will take away jobs that domestic shippers previously handled. They also worry that in this rough economic time, flooding the market with more trucking competitors will harm all companies.

However, these fears don’t take into account the increased business gained with reverse shipments – delivering goods far into Mexico – something that was not allowed previously. Additionally, domestic shippers discount the possibility of increased business as more trade barriers fall and the border becomes a greater economic engine. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that these protectionist efforts cost American consumers in excess of $400 million a year. Oh, by the way, U.S. and Canadian trucks have crossed the northern border interchangeably for many years and there is still a robust domestic trucking industry in Michigan, New York, Washington and other northern states.

The Mexican tariffs – ironically characterized by free trade opponents as blackmail – have had an impact. Companies across the country are feeling the heat and demanding a solution, and people are taking note. Late last week, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, former Commerce Secretaries Norman Mineta and Carlos Gutierrez, and former U.S. Ambassadors to Mexico James Jones, Tony Garza, and Jeffrey Davidow drafted a letter to President Obama imploring him to settle the trade dispute. The Obama Administration has (refreshingly) noted that the current limits are less about safety and more about protectionism, thus undercutting the primary argument for the restrictions. The Senate Appropriations Committee has taken up legislation to address the tariffs and allow more trucking, but likely no legal resolution will be in place until October.

In the current economy, America needs as much business as possible – particularly business with one of our most robust trading partners. Trade barriers, whether in the form of tariffs, regulations, or domestic preferences, hurt businesses in the long run. Efforts to limit trade, particularly those based on pre-textual erroneous safety arguments, are bound to failure.

From reports coming out of the North American Leaders Summit, it does not appear that there will be a quick solution to the issue. Let’s hope that Presidents Obama and Calderon stay on the ball and reach a solution sooner rather than later to help businesses further spur cross-border trade and travel, especially those already damaged by the tariffs and trucking ban.

Unregulated small boats pose greatest vulnerability to U.S. maritime security, says Coast Guard Commandant

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

Admiral Thad Allen, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, has been on a mission for going on three years now: To raise awareness of the security vulnerabilities presented by small boats on America’s largely unregulated and unrestricted waterways.

It’s a tougher mission than you might think. When the man responsible for protecting our waterways speaks about his number-one priority, people listen right? Well, that depends.

As Allen notes, recreational boating is big business in the United States. And boaters bristle at the notion of new regulations. Some, Allen observed, even seem to think the right to go where you want in a boat is carved right into the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights up there with gun-ownin’ and free speechifying.

And just about every congressional district has its share of water – whether in the form of coastline, rivers, lakes, ports, gulfs, flooded streets or whathaveyou. Which means the politics of regulating small boats ain’t, as they say, bean bag. After all, what member of Congress in his or her right mind would want to go back to an angry district and take a stand on a potentially explosive national reform issue. …Er, okay, let’s rephrase that … what member of Congress in his or her right mind wants to go and take another whuppin’ from voters and constituents on something like recreational boating after the scars they’ve gotten in the health care debate?

So what’s the political answer? The usual … ignore the problem until you just can’t ignore it anymore. Toss in a red herring, if necessary. Congress has done both.

Despite repeated testimony from the Commandant about the need to address small-boat vulnerabilities in the United States, Congress has failed to even establish a serious conversation on this issue. Instead, the entire maritime and port security focus of the political class has been an unhealthy obsession with cargo security.  Not that cargo security itself is an unhealthy obsession – but the overly simplistic solution legislated out of Washington was to mandate the scanning of 100 percent of all cargo entering the United States. Yes, that’s right, every one of the 12 million or so containers entering the country’s ports every year.

Unlike telling weekend boaters that they may need to register their watercraft, telling the private sector that it must find a way to scan every piece of cargo is a politically popular position that comes with no (direct) cost to the federal government. Never mind that it would likely cripple the supply chain and result in less security over the long run.

As Allen has previously (and repeatedly) observed: Small boats pose a greater threat to port security than the “nuke in a box” scenario. “All of our threat and vulnerability assessments for the major ports around this country tell us that while containers are important, we may be thinking too container-centric since the events of 9/11, and the notion of a water-borne improvised explosive device needs to be dealt with,” Allen told an audience of the Surface Navy Association.

While Congress is urging that untold resources be dedicated to examining the contents of millions of cargo containers (regardless of the likely threat level of individual containers and shipments), a terrorist could simply motor an explosive device via a small boat right up to a liquid gas facility. Or just about anything else. Because there is no – none, nada, zip – regulatory infrastructure in place to prevent it.

Sound far-fetched? Remember the USS Cole?

Or how about this one: Mumbai? The Pakistani terrorists who rained gunfire on residents in the Indian city of Mumbai got into position by beaching a small watercraft in an unsecured area, guided by the kind of handheld GPS devices you could pick up at Radio Shack, and simply walked into the city to launch their attack.

During a Coast Guard media pen and pad hosted by Allen last week, he returned to this theme and noted several ways in which small boats could be easily used to inflict damage:

  • Using a shoulder-held rocket from a small boat strategically positioned. (Remember that rocket-propelled grenade launchers are a commonly used weapon among al Qaeda and its ilk.)
  • Delivering a weapon of mass destruction via a small boat
  • Using a small boat to deliver an improvised explosive device (as with the Cole)
  • Strategic landing of terrorists (as with Mumbai)

Allen compared to the regulation of the airways, which also have recreational users, to the lack thereof when it comes to the waterways. In aviation, practically everything is controlled; in maritime, practically nothing is.

The Commandant noted that there are a number of different approaches that could be considered, from the use of registration, as in the aviation sector, to less comprehensive tactics such as prohibiting waterway access near facilities of national security significance. He appears open to compromise and new ideas. He just wants to get the debate going.

“It shouldn’t take a public event to start a debate,” he said.

Indeed.

Crash and Burn Immigration Reform

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

Reuters reported Friday that, President Obama “expects Congress to overhaul the country’s immigration system…”early next year.” Speaking to Hispanic reporters at the White House, Obama said he hopes a bill for comprehensive immigration reform will be drafted by the end of this year.” He has tasked Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano with working with Congress to draft the bill. This is a prescription for disaster…and here is why.

First, the bill adopts the same tried and failed strategy trotted out by the Bush administration, starting with massive amnesty and then loaded down with a bunch of provisions to buy-off as many constituent groups as possible. It is impossible to imagine how such a bill could get through Congress. If anything, the politics of immigration have become more divisive since the recession kicked in.

Second, tasking the Homeland Security Secretary to “take the lead” is a tragic mistake (mimicking another failed Bush strategy). Secretary Napolitano just gave a great speech last week trumpeting the importance of the department’s role as the steward of the national security enterprise.  But it will be impossible for her to exercise leadership if people perceive the department as being used for “partisan” purposes…and immigration reform is a political minefield. There are already plenty of signs of problems. Although she has touted the new administration’s policies as “smart and tough” enforcement, on close examination they appear to be anything but. As I wrote in the DC Examiner last week, that’s a problem “if Americans don’t feel confident their government will enforce the law, they won’t be interested in immigration ‘reform.” In taking the lead on writing legislation, Napolitano will be distracted, attacked for partisanship, and likely be no more successful in crafting a compromise than Chertoff.

A quote attributed to Albert Einstein goes, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Practicing immigration reform insanity is a tragedy. America needs to jump start its economy. Part of the answer is getting employers the legal work force they need, so that they can grow their businesses–which in turn will grow more jobs, the high-paying rewarding jobs Americans want. Rather than pave the way for serious immigration reform, the White House seems to be playing politics with the issue.

©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.