2010 July | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for July, 2010

Congress has already passed a law allowing state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration

Friday, July 30th, 2010

This morning I published a piece in US News & World Report about the controversy over Arizona’s immigration law and the fight between the federal and state governments. The federal government asserts that Arizona is usurping the exclusive authority of the federal government to enforce immigration law.

To me, what has been curiously missing from the debate is that back in 1996 Congress passed a federal law giving state and local governments (and their law enforcement organizations) the right to enforce immigration law.

On the one hand the federal government is suing Arizona for authorizing local law enforcement to coordinate with federal authorities regarding illegal immigration; on the other hand, the federal government is simultaneously requesting such assistance from local governments.

Below is a brief excerpt. To read the full article, go to: Congress Passed an Arizona-Like Immigration Law in 1996 – Chris Battle (usnews.com)

Back in 1996 it was time to get tough on immigration, and an interesting little law known as 287g was passed. This federal law deemed it appropriate for state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

Want to know what 287g says? Well, just read the law in Arizona. Yes, that law. The one causing protests in the streets of Phoenix, hysteria on cable talk shows and confusion in the courts. The one that empowers state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Featured Feed, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

If the Cargo is not Screened, It Does Not Fly

Friday, July 30th, 2010

By Adam Salerno

Businesses Reengineering the Supply Chain for 100 Percent Screening

When Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the law mandated 100 Percent Screening of cargo onboard passenger aircraft “commensurate with checked baggage.” The deadline for that mandate is this weekend, August 1, 2010. The law seeks to ensure that all 20 million lbs. of cargo is screened in advance of flights for explosive detection prior to transport. As Douglas Brittin, the Director of Cargo Security at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says, “On August 1, if the cargo is not screened, it does not fly”.

In today’s economy, a vibrant supply chain can ensure that companies have instant access to overnight delivery to nearly 85 percent of the world’s population. While a changing world dictates new necessities to secure the supply chain, the need for expedited trade is an important priority that must be maintained. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognizes this fact, which is why we support a multi layered risk based approach to security which maximizes effectiveness and minimizes impact on businesses.

As with any unfunded mandate, the private sector was tasked with financing this effort and working with TSA to ensure this goal is accomplished. The cost has been dramatic. Most air carriers estimate their costs to be in the tens of millions of dollars range. That figure does not include delays or increasing lead time in the supply chain. To add complexity to the issue, the mandate also included all incoming cargo from around the globe be screened. In short, the law forced companies to completely reengineer their supply chain.

To push the mandate out of the confines of the airport, TSA developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). CCSP allows other trusted shippers in the supply chain to participate in the screening process, by securing their facilities, and the chain of custody from manufacturing to the belly of the aircraft. This too proved extremely costly for industry, but something that businesses in all modes of transportation have stepped up for.

Once the domestic deadline is hit, the focus will shift to international inbound flights. TSA needs to step forward at this point and begin to recognize foreign screening methods. Again, because of the nature of the unfunded mandate, it is clear that TSA has not had the resources to pursue this goal yet. However, programs like the German Aviation Security Program or the newly released European Union Framework 300, Rule 185 are comprehensive programs that mirror the basic fundamentals of the TSA program domestically. Working with the international community to ensure that our programs are mutually accepted is essential to ensure that businesses are not duplicating an already burdensome process.

It has been a long and costly road for industry, but with the August 1, 2010 deadline just days away, many are feeling cautiously optimistic that the deadline will be met. Thanks to the ingenuity of the freight forwarders, the airlines, and participants in CCSP, because without their time, effort, and serious investment, a dramatic halt of trade would have become reality. Their investment in security ensured that commerce will continue to move forward at the speed businesses rely on in the air environment.

Adam Salerno is a Senior Manager in the National Security and Emergency Preparedness Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He also manages the Chamber’s Global Supply Chain Security Working Group.

This piece was originally posted on The ChamberPost, the blog for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, International, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

FEMA’s Steps in the Right Direction

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

As the country celebrates the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it presents an opportunity to see how far we have come since the enactment of one of our country’s great civil rights laws, but it is also a measure of how much farther we have to go. When it comes to this anniversary and FEMA, Administrator Craig Fugate has let it be known that he recognizes how much there is for his agency and our country to do in making sure people with disabilities and special needs are not forgotten during times of emergencies/disasters.

In posts on the FEMA website, as well as a post contributed to CNN, Fugate shares in moving terms the consequences of forgetting those who need an extra hand.

While many will cynically see these efforts as pure “Washington spin” to coincide with a particular historical anniversary, they are actually very bold steps. Fugate has essentially put himself and his agency front and center on the public stage and declared, “the previous status quo of handling these issues does not cut it. We have to do better and we will do better.”

In a town where people of every political stripe are looking for measures to point out one another’s shortcomings and failures, Fugate has put his agency and his professional community (emergency management) on the line to address needs that have been dramatically under served and unacknowledged for far too long.

Washington is full of people who make promises and bold statements but have little courage or willingness to deliver or back them up. Fugate has shown again his ability to be the un-Washington guy by admitting the shortcomings of the past while carving a path towards a better future. He did this early in his tenure by taking on the emotional issues associated with dealing with children in emergencies and disasters, and he appears to have no reservations about taking on this equally necessary and emotional issue as well.

With the recent signature of an MOA with the National Council on Independent Living and his other public comments, including those made in his confirmation hearing (Spring 2009), Fugate has laid down the very performance metrics by which he and his colleagues will be held accountable. That’s a metric that I don’t think any other DHS leader has put upon themselves or their departmental component, and it is worthy of note.

There are no wiggle words associated with what he’s offered either. While he has not promised that everything will be perfect, (an impossibility for any organization, especially one that works in disasters), he has gone on the record that all of us will see the improvements in planning, operations and performance when it comes to the disabled/special needs communities. Such improvements are twenty-plus years overdue.

For those of us who have full mobility, we can not begin to appreciate the fear, frustration and angst of those who can not exit a building with ease during an emergency. Maybe that’s why I and others feel with the bold and personal commitments by the FEMA administrator that we’re taking the steps in the right direction. The way he has given his word on these issues is different from the promises of the past. He’s made this personal.

In taking on the leadership role that will carve the path to the necessary improvements, Fugate has also put this issue into our own individual laps as well. He’s asked us to do our part in the planning, preparedness and response for family, friends, co-workers and neighbors that could use that extra hand. Those actions alone will save countless lives and under those terms, it’s hard not to recognize how personal this issue really is.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration | Comments

Politics vs. Security – A Tale of Two Committees

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Two Senate committees, three chemical security bills and one issue to rule them all – the role of so-called Inherently Safer Technologies (ISTs) in America’s approach to safeguarding communities from acts of terrorism. With DHS’ Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) set to expire in October, lawmakers in the Senate are taking steps to keep it alive. What form the program ultimately takes will depend on whether legislators choose to focus on politics or national security.

Here’s where members agree:
1. CFATS, at least in its general form, needs to be maintained
2. The exclusion of drinking water and wastewater systems from CFATS (or a CFATS-like regime) presents a “security gap” due to their use of hazardous chemicals, such as gaseous chlorine

Here’s where members disagree:
1. Whether the existing CFATS program should be made permanent
2. Whether CFATS should be expanded to include other provisions, such as a requirement that certain facilities assess and/or implement IST

Due to jurisdictional issues in the Senate, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) can only address provisions relating to chemical facilities. The Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee can only address provisions relating to drinking water and wastewater systems.

Both committees held proceedings on chemical security this week. Here’s how things panned out:

HSGAC’s Ranking Member, Susan Collins (R-ME), chose to scrap her own bill (S. 2996, the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010) in order to report out an amended version of H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 – which would now extend CFATS for three-years and excludes IST provisions. It passed 13-0 with bipartisan support.

EPW used Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) bill (S. 3598, the Secure Water Facilities Act) as a backdrop for its hearing. S. 3598, which includes a strong IST component, does not have bipartisan support. The hearing was used to extol the virtues of providing the government with IST mandate authority.

HSGAC, which spent most of its time addressing how factors such as risk, vulnerabilities, and consequence impact chemical security, passed a Republican-drafted amendment with unanimous support and moved us closer to establishing a permanent CFATS program. EPW used a hearing as a platform to play politics.

You tell me who got it right.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

A Message from TSA

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

5 Days to Mandate. Do you have a plan?

Confirm with your business partners. Visit www.tsa.gov/ccsp. Email ccsp@dhs.gov with questions.

Organizations who have chosen not to participate in TSA’s Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) must consider alternative methods to comply with the mandate which goes into effect on August 1st. Alternatives to becoming a certified participant in CCSP include sending goods by truck, rail, maritime, all-cargo aircraft, or working with other CCSP certified entities including Independent Cargo Screening Facilities (ICSFs) and Indirect Air Carriers (IACs).

Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Lip Service and the National Infrastructure Bank

Monday, July 26th, 2010

In 2008, when the then Obama Campaign issued its proposed vision for homeland security, it impressed a lot of people when it described the creation of a national infrastructure bank. This federally chartered structure would fund critical projects around the country by making the necessary investments in roads, bridges, utilities and more.

While not a new or novel idea, the fact that the then-Senator from Illinois’ campaign put the concept into his stated policy positions showed everyone that his team had done their homework in embracing a new and proactive tool to address the need to repair and invest in America’s infrastructures. With interest from Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the concept of the infrastructure bank would allow for a more responsive and attentive means in deciding which structures received funding.

As recent history has shown, many infrastructure projects around the country are funded by an increasingly political appropriations process that seems to reward States and Congressional Districts based more upon political power than actual need. One needs only look at the projects funded by the annual Appropriations bills of the House and Senate, as well as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation, to see who the real winners are. As a result, some of the infamous projects (such as Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” and any number of construction projects in the late Senator Robert Byrd’s home of West Virginia) were able to flourish.

Upon their taking ownership of the White House in January 2009, the new Obama Administration followed through on its suggested campaign policy idea by stating that establishing a national infrastructure bank was one of their priorities. In fact, it was posted right off the White House website and was one of the first items detailed by the new Administration when they took over.

Once again their words offered hope of forthcoming “change.” Giving even more rise to these aspirations, in the weeks before taking the Oath of Office and in the weeks after, the President talked boldly about making investments in America’s infrastructure as a means of getting hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work.

With senior Congressional champions for the infrastructure bank in the wings, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), two of the most senior Members of Congress, were ready to work with the Administration to make it happen.

With the economy in dire shape, the new Obama Administration signed off on a Recovery Act package full of plenty of spending but none of the real change to how infrastructure was funded. To them, the money needed to get out to states and locals as soon as possible, so they used the same old means to fund projects around the country. Once again, the mechanisms of old that had funded projects for decades were once again flush with cash. In the year and a half since then, critics on both sides of the political aisle see a package that did not perform as promised or yield the results anyone wanted.

When the time came for the Obama Administration to put forward its own budget, much to the surprise of many, the national infrastructure bank was nowhere to be found. But there was still hope.

In a May 5 appearance at the Center for National Policy, Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), one of the most passionate Members of the House, encouraged the Administration to “act boldly” in fighting for the infrastructure bank. She asserted that throughout our country’s tough times, our Presidents think and act boldly, pointing to Lincoln’s decision to fund the railroad to reach the Pacific; FDR’s decision to build TVA and other projects during the Depression; Eisenhower’s decision to create a national interstate highway system; and Kennedy’s pledge to go to the moon. It was her hope that Obama would do the same when it came to creating the bank to invest in America’s national infrastructure.

It would seem that her hopes and those of many who want to see the national infrastructure bank become a reality are fleeting. Despite public pleas from some of the country’s leading voices on infrastructure investment issues (e.g., PA Gov. Ed Rendell, CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the US Chamber of Commerce and more), the infrastructure bank remains an idea whose time has not come.

Despite having windows of opportunity with the 2009 Recovery Act, last year’s budget cycle and even this year’s Appropriations process, the Obama Administration has failed to provide any leadership initiative or requisite details on making the bank a real 21st century tool for renewing and investing in America’s infrastructure. Even with Members of both political parties open to the idea and wanting to see how it would operate, the details for this concept seemed to be as vacuous as the leadership to make it happen.

This is a profound disappointment for those of us who champion critical infrastructure issues. It’s an even greater disappointment when you consider the state of our infrastructure across this country. The ASCE Report Cards and other studies have been blistering in their assessments of America’s infrastructure, but for reasons that defy any sense of logic, the Administration and Congress continue to fund the very mechanisms that have failed to improve our infrastructure standing for the past quarter century.

A famous quote attributed to Einstein comes to mind, where insanity is defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The Obama Administration has had three exceptional opportunities to start a new page in how we fund our country’s infrastructure needs. Instead, they keep singing the same tune as their predecessors, as opposed to being the professed “change” they promised to voters. That is a measure in which no one can take pride or claim accomplishment.

Maybe in the new Congress, they will fulfill Rep. DeLauro’s vision and “act boldly.” Maybe they will also find the courage to change their tune and deliver the real leadership and necessary details this initiative really needs. Until they do, the only accurate term to describe their position on the infrastructure bank is “lip service” and that is never in short supply in Washington. I guess some things never “change.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

Should We Seek Cyber Attribution?

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Several news items of late have addressed the thorny issue of cyber attribution; that is, the ability to identify the sources of Web and network attacks. For cyber companies and some government agencies, attribution is the Holy Grail. Without attribution, there can be no real retribution for cyber attacks. If you don’t know (with certainty) who did it, you cannot respond. If you cannot respond, even if you have the means to do so, you become an impotent giant and therefore have no deterrence.

The counter augment, made last week by several experts before Congress, is that if we develop a means of attribution (technology that attributes cyber attacks to the criminals who conducted them), soon bad governments will get it too. They will surely use it against dissident elements inside their own countries to suppress free speech and abridge other civil rights of all sorts. Some folks in the United States worry that our own government will use technology of this sort for similarly nefarious purposes.

So, should we consciously forgo the possibility of deterring bad guys from cyber crime, cyber terror and cyber war because the technology could be used badly? I think the answer is clearly “no.”

Even if the United States and our democratic allies chose not to pursue the sort of technology needed to attribute cyber attacks, repressive countries will still eventually develop their own and use it against their people. We should be as vigorous as possible in discouraging the repression of civil rights, but we cannot give up the possibility of adding to our own protection.

This is one of those situations where national interests trump our idealist desires. If we could keep the attribution technology away forever, you might have an argument, but that is a pipe dream. We should develop it as soon as possible, keep it as closely held as we can for as long as we can, and then use diplomacy to mitigate its improper use. In some cases, that is the best we can do.

Posted in Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Intelligence, International, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Secrets in the News: Classified Crossings that Go Too Far

Monday, July 26th, 2010

For the second straight week, Washington, DC and the nation are reeling from headlines and news coverage of events on the national security stage. Last week, it was the Washington Post’s series on Top Secret America, which details the explosive growth of the intelligence apparatus since 9/11. This week, it is the release of nearly 92,000 pages of classified details on the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

While the Post series had the cooperation of the public affairs operations with the various intelligence agencies, combined with the exhaustive research work of the series authors and support staff, the stories this week come courtesy of the WikiLeaks website. Described by CNN and other media outlets as a “whistleblower site,” WikiLeaks has effectively pulled back the curtain with U.S. military and intelligence documents that give no-holds-barred descriptions of the state of U.S. combat operations. Based upon what has been reported, the picture these documents paint is not very promising. While certainly making for an interesting and fascinating read, the release of these documents and the recent Post series begs the question: “Is there anything the media will not share?”

Despite the valid questions raised, I still have tremendous misgivings about what the Post printed last week, as I believe that in identifying the physical locations of critical public and private sector operations, the Post put every person at those places at a risk of greater harm from those who wish to do us harm.

As for the WikiLeaks postings, I find it equally deeply troubling that the President, his senior National Security Team and our military leadership can not obtain unvarnished reports without having the risk of someone, somewhere posting them for all to see. What has been shared is a tremendous violation of trust amongst military/intelligence personnel that goes beyond the traditional Washington leak to a reporter.

The actions taken by this leaker are also illegal. As anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows, when entrusted with such information, your mouth is to remain shut; you share nothing with anyone who is not properly cleared. If you have a problem with what you read and want to raise an objection, there are ways to do so without violating the code of trust you swore to uphold. If you break these tenets, you’ve committed a crime. Period.

I’m sure if the leaker of these documents is caught, he/she will claim all of the First Amendment, Freedom of the Press rights he/she can muster, but in the job they are supposed to be in, they are not acting as a journalist. They are acting as a criminal. Every military leader, including our Commander in Chief, should be afforded the ability to get unvarnished reporting of what is or is not happening on the battlefields where our military personnel serve and not have to see it spread over a newspaper or on the Internet for the world to also see.

The leaker in this case has a unique agenda to pursue and that should not be overlooked or forgotten. Regardless of whether the information is classified or unclassified, every leak to a reporter is about imposing an agenda for further distribution. It is obvious that the person behind this leak has grave reservations about a fight our President has declared “worth fighting.”

That is an argument that good people on both sides of that issue can debate, but doing so at the expense of releasing classified information is a bridge too far.

I am not naive enough to believe that everything in Afghanistan is going swimmingly. Nor do I believe that every word from our political and military establishment is absolute truth. But I am disturbed that in era where our media is in an ever present game of “gotcha,” media outlets feel the need to take one more step to share details that are classified for very good reasons.

For as interested as we may all be in what is really happening in the intelligence community and in Afghanistan, there is also a responsibility to not reveal everything. That is a line I think individuals and organizations like the WikiLeaks source, the Washington Post and others seem to cherish crossing. That’s an agenda in which I find little comfort.

Posted in Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, counterterrorism | Comments

End the Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Here’s a piece I recently published in Roll Call about the disparity in sentences handed out for possessing powder versus crack cocaine.

End the Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

Elena Kagan’s nomination for the Supreme Court has once again reminded America that fairness and equal treatment are fundamental to the success of the rule of law. One of the most important criminal justice debates in recent history centers on the substantial difference in prison sentences for crack versus powdered cocaine possession, a disparity that has not only encouraged a misapplication of limited law enforcement resources, but more importantly, has been the source of unequal punishment for basically identical crimes.

In March, the Senate unanimously approved the Fair Sentencing Act, legislation that reduces the disparity in sentences for crack and powdered cocaine possession, from 100 to 1, to 18 to 1. Now it is up to the House to approve the bill and rectify a sentencing mandate that is simply unjust.

Skyrocketing crack use in the 1980s brought with it a rise in violent crime and pervasive fears about the highly addictive narcotic’s long-term impact on society. At the time, crack was believed to chemically induce violent action and was seen as a society-crushing epidemic. The consequences for possessing the narcotic were therefore made severe; Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, setting, among other things, stiff sentences for possessing crack.

But the amount of crack cocaine needed to trigger the five- and 10-year mandatory sentences is significantly less — 100 times less — than that for powder cocaine. Specifically, a conviction for possessing 5 grams of crack (equivalent to about the weight of two pennies) guarantees a five-year prison sentence. It takes 500 grams of powdered cocaine to trigger the same mandatory sentence.

I first came across this matter while a Member of Congress in the ’90s, serving on the House Judiciary Committee. In reviewing data on federal prosecutions and sentences from the 10 years since the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was enacted, it became apparent that the disparity between powdered and crack cocaine sentences was failing on two points.

First, it did not consistently lead to the prosecution of major drug traffickers and sellers; it led to increased prosecutions of small-time dealers and peripheral supporters, such as boyfriends or girlfriends.

Second, with a better understanding of crack — its chemical properties and effects on the body — it was becoming clear that the courts were giving different punishments for the same crime. Powdered and cooked cocaine are chemically the same. Further, crack does not inherently cause violence; rather, violence is a product of the drug trade and the historically violent trends in areas where crack is predominantly used and sold. Thus, giving substantially longer prison sentences for crack over powdered cocaine is as illogical as it is unfair.

While head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I talked with front-line agents and drug task force officers who said the sentencing disparity was undermining community confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. This sense of inequity can have real impacts in the day-to-day fight against illegal narcotics; a perception of inequality makes it more difficult for agents to receive cooperation from informants and others. Yet another challenge resulting from the law — disparity harms rather than helps our federal anti-crime efforts.

This is not a partisan issue, though some have suggested that rectifying the disparity falls along party lines. Kagan has supported reducing the disparity for some time, though she second-guessed earlier efforts, believing such a reduction would not garner the needed Congressional Republican support. But this doesn’t hold across the board. There are Republicans who have supported rectifying the disparity for years (author case in point), including President Ronald Reagan, who proposed a 20-to-1 differential between the two forms of cocaine.

Now that Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) have led the Senate in passing legislation to reduce the sentencing disparity, the time has come to resolve this issue and provide citizens with fair justice. Approving the Fair Sentencing Act will support equal treatment for all under the law, a principle upon which our country is founded.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration, Narcotics | Comments

Data Mining Tools for Law Enforcement?

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Recently, there’s been a trend toward some agencies purchasing new data mining tools for their needs at fusion centers. It is great to see this investment in technology, but watch out – many of these solutions don’t have any inherent method for capturing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Request for Service (RFS) data, which fusion centers use to track case management activities.

Also, these new data mining tools typically don’t communicate bi-directionally with Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS), nor can they communicate with National Data Exchange system (NDEX), the FBI’s information-sharing platform.

In fact, many of these software vendors don’t understand these systems need to comply with 28CFR23, the federal guideline that governs intelligence sharing.

Let’s review the four types of data that law enforcement officers encounter in their work:

1. Open-Source Data – Anything from the Internet, newspapers, other public sources [No prohibitions to sharing]

2. SARs – Information reported by citizens or police; no identifiable crime being committed but something’s suspicious [Can be shared between agencies under National SAR Initiative]

3. Investigative related – Evidence or information collected from a crime that has been committed with a goal to prosecute or prevent crimes [data sharing polices vary widely]

4. Intelligence – Important data in assessing threats to the community; proactive, strategic analysis conducted and patterns of activities are identified; resources focus on problem at hand, be it street gangs or organized crime [28CFR23 governs this type of data – If information rises to level of reasonable suspicion, then it can be entered into an intelligence system and shared with other agencies.]

All four types of data streams have separate and distinct laws governing what law enforcement can and cannot do with them.

Agencies want to ensure that they are holding data consistent with all the rules and regulations. But if the data mining technology companies have not considered any of the aforementioned issues, their tools are putting fusion centers at risk of violating statutes, laws and regulations.

One fusion center I use as an example vetted vendors with this criteria, and instead of settling for a one-size fits all intelligence analysis system, it selected one vendor for information/intelligence management and another for analyzing the information managed by the other system.

This is what should be happening more often – using the right tool for the right job.

Bottom line: Look for technology companies that know the compliance landscape.

Posted in Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland State & Local, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, counterterrorism | Comments

Building a 21st-Century Strategy to Counter Piracy and al Shabaab

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

The piracy question and how to deal with it is huge and is about to become a much larger question in the global supply-chain management continuum. I, like other folks, would like nothing more then to send in the Marines and clean out the nest of pirates. But alas, the days of gunboat diplomacy are of a bygone era.

We now engage our adversaries with not only guns and bullets, but also batteries to run our high-tech systems. Increasingly more important is the new adage, “bring lawyers, guns and money.” Nation building will take a great deal of finesse and understanding, as well as forceful measures.

One of these first opening salvos has been fired by the White House, though it seems to have been ignored by the business community with an interest in these matters. The Presidential Executive Order (EO), issued in April 2010, prevents U.S. citizens/entities from making payments to certain named individuals. It also has the potential to prevent any payments to individuals or groups involved in or supporting piracy in Somalia.

The regulatory guidelines for implementing this EO are yet to be promulgated, but given the recent Shabaab attack in Kampala, Uganda, in which at least one U.S. citizen was killed (a crime being investigated by the FBI), one can reasonably expect the enforcement issue of the EO to be forthcoming.

Shabaab is known to have sworn allegiance to bin Laden and Qaeda, and this Shabaab attack will clearly articulate the connections between piracy ransoms, Shabaab and the broader global war on terror. The probable outcome, in my opinion, will be the Lloyds, Joint Hull & Joint War Committees declaring that they will no longer underwrite insurance for kidnap and ransom in this arena. And now the lawyers and money come to the forefront.

In order to operate the critical sea lanes in the Gulf of Aden and the Somali environs, government resources from concerned nations will need to be deployed. The United States may not be the principal user of these lanes, but we are likely one of the principal end-users of the output from the associated supply chain. For this reason, it is important that we gain understanding and proactively look for how we engage the piracy issue. At least 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is privately held, and therein lays the bulk of the responsibility for defending those nodes. Building coalitions across industry and national borders, sharing information and supporting combined military action when needed will be a key effort to meeting the threat.

In one of his first acts of president, Thomas Jefferson met the challenge of pirates. Now, 200 years later, we face a similar situation, which will indeed need lawyers, guns and money. It will also take intelligence, technology and collaboration.

Posted in International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security, counterterrorism | Comments

The New Face of Aviation Security?

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

The hunt for someone to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began in 2009, but it wasn’t until June this year that the Senate confirmed John Pistole as administrator. Pistole was the third nominee for the job, after two earlier hopefuls pulled out (see Southers and Harding). Security Debrief followed the confirmation process every step of the way and found the latest development in this week’s Air Cargo Week.

If you visit TSA’s website, you’ll find Pistole’s photo, which looks like this:

In Air Cargo Week’s Arrivals & Departures section, there is a note on Pistole’s confirmation (first bullet, right column). But the photo referenced is clearly not John Pistole.

Who is this man? Nominee #4? A hero cargo pilot? The publisher’s cousin?

It’s Chris Battle, Security Debrief’s founder and editor.

That’s some good PR.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Military & Homeland Defense, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

Did Richard Clarke’s Cyber Book Miss It?

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

You always feel a little shaky when you are planning on asserting that someone else is wrong. You feel more so when it is someone who is known as darn near a prophet in the particular field. However, no one has ever said that I was unwilling to express my opinions, so here goes.

Richard Clarke, former adviser to multiple presidents, the Cassandra who warned of a coming attack before 9/11, now has a hit book out on the threat of a coming cyber war, why we are unprepared for it and what we must do. The book, “Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to do About It” (written with Robert Knake), is now being widely read. One recent attendee at a major one-day cyber security symposium in Washington opined that it seemed every one of the speakers had referred to the book. I was there too, and this is a bit of hyperbole, but several did mention it. While not everyone agrees with Clarke, his opinions in the areas of infrastructure and cyber security cannot be easily discounted.

I will not attempt to do a complete review of the book, because several others have already done so and because so many people have already read it. I do want to point out, however, two areas where I think Clarke missed the mark in his thinking. I am also adding to the mix remarks and Q&A Clarke did at the very fine Aspen Security Forum at the end of June, which I had the pleasure of attending.

Truth in writing: these are two areas which might be considered my pet rocks. I have written and spoken on both, and while it is daunting to disagree with a “big guy,” in this case, I cannot be intellectually honest if I just let it go.

The first area is the usefulness of wide-spread cyber education and awareness for the American people. Clarke basically discounts this as a waste of time. He says the benefit of such an effort is about nil. You cannot properly train every grandmother and retired auto worker to be a computer scientist. Clearly he is right, but just as clearly (to me anyway), that is not the point.

Right now, experts say that nearly 80 percent of cyber incidents could be stopped if people would merely have good cyber personal hygiene. In other words, if they would understand where not to go, what in general not to open, why they should have protective software, and why it must be updated regularly, many would do it. Also, many of those same “everyman” folks could apply the same hygiene principles they would use at home in their jobs, thus giving us improvements on two fronts.

Look, we are obviously never going to stop the big sophisticated penetrations simply by intellectually arming the masses. The high-end 20 percent require a completely different approach. Nor are we going to get everyone who uses a computer to do all the “right things” anymore than we can get every driver to stop speeding or rolling through stop signs. People are people, and many will do unhelpful things, even if they are told how to avoid them. However, to give up on this front and dismiss all education and awareness efforts as of no use is intellectual conceit. We can better “arm” our population, and most of them will respond. Let’s close the doors we can and at least shrink the opportunities the bad guys have to attack. This is NOT a battle that will only be fought by our high-end “mounted cyber knights.” We have to engage all our citizen yeoman as well.

The second area Clarke dismisses is the possibility of a significant terrorist cyber event. He, like many other experts, seem to think that it is simply impossible for a terrorist organization to have the wherewithal to pull off a “real” cyber event. Well, if you define it as only so large as to be an all-out cyber war, his position has validity. If you think, as I have written and spoken about, that a terrorist attack could focus on a specific geographic and single sector target, it is indeed quite feasible.

Terrorists no longer have to develop their own cyber army; they can rent one from the multiple criminal networks that exist and who regularly sell their services. By keeping their target restricted enough (one small city, the electrical grid in one part of the country, one specific bank, etc.), terrorists could pull it off. Terrorists do not have to bring down our entire system but only do enough to provoke fear and reaction. They could also use cyber as a significant enhancer for a more traditional attack. Police in many cities worry that someone will hack their dispatch systems and route responders to an ambush or route them away from real events, a tactic that might ensure more people die from an attack and one that will truly shake public confidence.

Clarke is “right” when he says public education will not solve the cyber problem and when he says that no terrorist group is capable of conducting cyber war on America. He is wrong to dismiss the value of that education and awareness in mitigating everyday dangers and difficulties, and he is wrong to give the impression that a terrorist cyber event would be of no consequence.

We cannot throw these babies out with the bathwater. Read Clarke’s book, particularly if you need to get a better understanding of the cyber threats we face. It is well written and a fairly easy read for a tough subject. But please do not think that because Clarke gives the two areas of education and terror short shrift that they are not significant. That would be a costly mistake.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Terror Strategic Analysis, counterterrorism | Comments

Congress Heal Thyself (yet again)

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

How many times must the story be told of the mal-effects from the mishmash of Congressional turf battles over the Department of Homeland Security before something is done? Today’s latest entry is a well-done NPR story (no, that isn’t redundant) entitled, “Who Oversees Homeland Security? Um, Who Doesn’t?”

It is past time for the Congressional leadership of both parties to act. If Congress really wants to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” from government programs, it can start in its own House (and Senate). Make it a campaign pledge for Members running for re-election that they will eliminate the overlapping, duplicative and outright idiotic oversight structure that Congress currently imposes on DHS.

The American people have no problem with Congress holding DHS accountable – they just don’t want the Department charged with protecting us from bad people and bad things to be held hostage by 108 Congressional committees and subcommittees. It is past time to correct this problem.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Science & Technology | Comments

The Disturbing Value of the Washington Post’s Work

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

There is always something in the media that captures the conversation of people in Washington, whether it is some unfortunate gaffe that a political figure makes, some new gossip about a government official’s missteps, or the latest poll numbers identifying the rising and falling fortunes of one political power over another. This week seems to be different though.

In a series of front-page exposes entitled, “Top Secret America,” the Washington Post has essentially blown the cover off a number of classified programs and their geographic locations around the country. Using public sources and their own talents as investigative journalists, Post reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin have put together a very impressive piece of work that raises a number of important questions about the explosive growth of the intelligence community since 9/11.

These questions (most notably, “What are we spending billions of tax dollars on?” and “What difference are these investments making?”) echo questions that have been raised by both sides of the political aisles over the past few years. The ability to spend money without thinking or an overarching strategy is a skill that Washington has long perfected to the detriment of American taxpayers. Priest and Arkin’s work highlights some of the waste of tax dollars, particularly those instances where multiple intelligence players are conducting the same intelligence analysis work as their peers.

Shining a light on those actions and raising the questions of why we are doing the same thing multiple times over is certainly of value. But Priest and Arkin and their employer, the Washington Post, have also done something of disturbing value that benefits no one but those persons foreign or domestic that wish to do us harm.

By identifying the geographic locations of some of our country’s top secret facilities (government and private sector) and surmising who does what and where at those spots, the Post reporters created an operative target list that is literally synthesized and ready for use by people whose allegiances are not in American’s best interest. While they used publicly available sources and had the cooperation of the public affairs offices of many of the federal intelligence pieces highlighted in the article, the authors seem to have taken the extra mile to share things that frankly need not be shared.

In the Editor’s note about the series, the Post does share that the newspaper removed from their map graphic the geographic locations of several sensitive facilities. As commendable as that may be, that which the Post details has potentially grave consequences for the men and women who work at those facilities. The fact is that every one of those facilities had a bull’s eye on their front door last week. After this series and its wide online dissemination, that bull’s eye just got a whole lot bigger.

There are very good reasons you are not allowed to photograph inside security screening areas (e.g. airport screening areas).

There are very good reasons that the President and other dignitaries’ motorcade routes are not published in the newspaper.

There are very good reasons that when you go to Google Earth or other digital map services some areas are not available for downloading and printing (e.g. Camp David, MD; Area 51; etc.).

There are also some very good reasons that organizations like the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial Information Agency, and others in the public and private sector do not actively place neon marquee signs outside their locations and say “WE DO INTELLIGENCE WORK HERE!”

Is there signage outside many of these facilities to denote who they are?

For many of these structures there is, but that does not mean any of them want to be featured on a local Chamber of Commerce tourism map. Each of those facilities is spread out around the country for reasons of politics, duplicity, expertise and assignments. None of them has made it a policy of publicly waving a flag to say, “Hey look at me” to draw attention to themselves or the people who work there.

Maybe the Post forgot about the 1993 shootings outside of the CIA’s Langley Headquarters, when Mir Amal Khasi got out of his car with an assault rifle and fired away at CIA employees killing two and injuring three more.

Maybe they’ve forgotten about the numerous shootings that have occurred at the Pentagon over the years by those individuals, whatever their grievance, who decided to open fire or display some type of weapon.

While CIA HQ and the Pentagon are much more publicly known (and accessible structures) than many of those identified by the Post series, the fact remains that the people who work at these lesser known facilities are much more vulnerable for potential harm than they were before. Lesser-known targets are easier to strike than the higher value and publicly recognizable ones. Those structures often have their own security forces to safeguard the perimeter. Some of these others facilities may not. As this series continues to be shared by friend and foe alike, the security posture at those locations is certain to change as terrorists, lunatics and the disenfranchised have been given a hefty menu of targets of opportunity.

According to the Editor’s note, as well as the reporters’ public comments, the Post is not interested in causing any personal harm. Unfortunately, their actions speak louder than their words.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, counterterrorism | Comments

E-passports Key to Border and Travel Security

Monday, July 19th, 2010

A top-rated lacrosse team representing the Iroquois Confederacy apparently won’t be competing in the world championship of the sport their ancestors helped invent. The United Kingdom—which is hosting the tournament—has indicated it will deny entry to the team because its members are not traveling on U.S. passports. The players are understandably upset that despite years of training and commitment, they won’t be able to compete for a championship. In addition, the team members and their supporters have made this an issue of Iroquois identity. However, the British authorities are correct that the decision is a matter of border and travel security rather than Iroquois sovereignty. Iroquois passports, which contain hand-written elements, simply aren’t as secure as the latest generation of U.S. passports.

To terrorists and other criminals, travel documents are as valuable as weapons. Altered passports and visas, or genuine documents obtained fraudulently, allow bad actors to cross borders in the course of planning or carrying out operations. Recognizing this, many countries in recent years have implemented higher security standards for these travel documents so they are considerably more difficult to counterfeit or for an impostor to use should it be lost or stolen. These upgrades significantly enhance the security of international travel. This is one reason, for example, that all citizens from newly designated Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries are required to travel on electronic passports.

Electronic passports, or e-passports, contain a biometric identifier, either a digitized photo of the bearer or fingerprints or both. Digitized photographs and other biometrics are important because they are harder to substitute or alter than glued or laminated photos, for example.

In addition, e-passports contain a microchip that holds the digitized photograph, fingerprints (if used) and other information visible on the passport data page. The data written to the chip is protected from alteration by the use of a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) digital signature. When an e-passport is scanned upon entry, the face of the traveler, the data on the data page, and the data on the chip will all match if the traveler is the person to whom the passport was issued. As a result, border officials are better able to intercept suspect travelers and speed entry of legitimate ones.

E-passports also incorporate several other, more technical security measures (such as watermarks and the like) to guard against fraud or other tampering. Just as important as the security of the document itself is compliance with international standards for reporting lost and stolen passports. The INTERPOL Stolen and Lost Travel Document (SLTD) database – which is the preferred repository for these reports – is used at primary passport inspection by countries around the world to detect those who travel on fraudulent documents.

The United States should continue its efforts to encourage countries to not only produce and issue secure travel documents, such as e-passports, but also, to establish a daily, automatic means of reporting lost and stolen passports to INTERPOL. Both of these measures are requirements of the U.S. VWP because they close gaps exploited by terrorists and other mala fide travelers. Indeed, the Iroquois themselves recognize the benefits of more secure documents, having nearly completed a transition to a new generation of passports.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

GAO says TSA May Miss Air Cargo Screening Mandate

Friday, July 16th, 2010

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released its review of the Transportation Security Administration’s Air Cargo Screening program. The report, requested by several members of Congress, audits the TSA’s program for achieving the Congressional mandate to screen 100 percent of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft by August 2010. For anyone in the business or closely following the issue, the report offers no surprises. (For those unfamiliar with this security challenge, check out the roundtable discussion on air cargo screening that I moderated in May.) If anything, the report illuminates the major hurdles TSA continues to face in achieving the 100 percent screening threshold.

What the report doesn’t do – what it wasn’t intended to do – is determine whether TSA’s program to screen all air cargo improves security. Assuming that the directive to screen every single piece of cargo improves aviation security may be a misplaced assumption.

What the report doesn’t conclude may be more illustrative of the problem with our government’s attitude towards homeland security. A more instructive use of the time and resources that went into generating this report would have been for the GAO to audit the quality of the nation’s air cargo screening program.

One way to accomplish this would be to start with a risk assessment – threat, vulnerability and consequence. Indentifying the weaknesses in the existing process for sending freight by air on passenger aircraft would instruct TSA where to focus its resources. It would also ensure that any weaknesses could be strengthened. And it could also help to develop objective metrics to test the security measures’ effectiveness.

Of course, the law is the law, and GAO’s audit merely considered whether TSA would meet the mandate. Not surprisingly, TSA most likely will not meet the mandate. And even if it does, there are still problems with key areas of the program, like the certification of screening technology, the authenticity of the methodology for calculating the percentage of cargo screened, and the screening of cargo coming from outside the United States.

The report found that TSA’s voluntary Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) has failed to attract most of the shippers that would benefit from participation. The CCSP isn’t well populated and participation levels aren’t what they should be to inoculate the industry against more invasive and harmful regulations. A strong showing by shippers over the next several months will be needed to provide evidence that the industry is serious about achieving the mandate.

The report certainly hits on all the areas where TSA needs to make improvements to satisfy the law. Overall, this is instructive for complying with the law. Whether each of these efforts reduces the risk of passenger’s being harmed is uncertain.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Management & Administration, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

The Earth-Moving Message Not Heard

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Like much of the National Capital Region, I am shocked we had an earthquake this morning. For people in Washington, DC, an earthquake is usually a shocking news story – like when a President has an intern do more than sharpen pencils; someone changes political parties and changes the balance of power; or when there is a major budget announcement and you find your life’s work is no longer funded.

But we had an honest to goodness 3.6-on-the-Richter-Scale-earth-moving experience. In typical DC fashion, this has generated the usual Beltway news hysteria. On the ride in this morning, radio stations of every genre were taking callers describing how the baseball caps fell off their TV; how their dog started barking uncontrollably; and their fears that construction workers had hit a gas-line in their neighborhood.

I thought the reactions I heard were hilarious, but they reminded me a lot of the reactions that most people in this area have when there is a forecast for snow. At the drop of a hat, people seem to run straight to the grocery and hardware stores to stock up on bread, milk, eggs and toilet paper while fighting with someone over the last available snow shovel in a 50 mile radius.

Now, our Nation’s Capital is built on a swamp; a fact proven by some of our wretched summers and watching some of the behavior captured on C-Span. But just because we live in an area were awful humidity, murky ground and mosquitoes find favor does not mean we are immune from all of Mother Nature’s furies. From the record snowfalls of earlier this year; oppressive humidity; destructive thunderstorms; flash flooding and more, our area is full of hazards. [And notice I didn’t even mention the threats associated with terrorism, our horrible traffic or riding Metro!]

This area has plenty of reasons to be on edge, and this morning’s earthquake gives us another. That’s where I thought this morning’s media failed us. While they all accurately described the events of 5 AM and what impacts the earthquake did or did not cause, I did not hear one of them talk about PREPAREDNESS.

Today’s earthquake is another one of those teachable moments when our media sources, public officials and more can be talking about having a plan, making a kit and being prepared. As fun as it is to hear the anecdotal stories of who did what when the Earth moved, none of those stories will save a live or make a positive difference if we don’t take the individual positive steps for our families and our businesses – if we don’t do the basics of being ready. That’s a message that needs to be reinforced at every available moment, and I hope people wake up to that fact and start talking about it.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

Reflections from the White House Cyber Anniversary

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

On short notice, the White House gathered a distinguished group of industry, academic and government types for a one-year anniversary of the President’s speech on cyber, hosted by Howard Schmidt. The President spoke for 10 minutes as well. No press attended, but an attendee gave me this summary of the event. A lot of what was said was known to all, but it was interesting to hear how they are bringing it together — especially the emphasis on industry partnerships, which every speaker (including the President) emphasized.

The main attendees, beside the POTUS, were: Howard Schmidt; DHS Sec. Napolitano; DoC Sec. Locke; Dep SecDef Lynne; and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. A good number of the attendees were staff from Schmidt’s office, as well as from DHS, OMB, OSTP and DOD. If there were Hill staffers there, they were not in evidence.

Howard Schmidt opened up by talking about four thematic areas his office is pursuing:
1) Raise price of success for adversaries (legal penalties, increasing cost to attack by harder targets)
2) Resilience/recovery after an incident
3) Protecting privacy and civil liberties, and
4) Industry partnerships – (on info sharing, introducing new technology, technological vulnerability reduction, and specifically, on the National Incident Response Plan, National Cyber & Communications Incident Center, and National Strategy on Trusted Identities in Cyberspace).

Schmidt later talked about the need to move from strategy to action, including through cooperation with Cyber Command and moving FISMA from reports to continuous monitoring and practical metrics. He asked for involvement in Cyber Awareness month this October.

Sec. Locke then spoke about the issues importance across DOC, especially at NIST and NTIA. His main points included:

Cyber is about confidence (consumers, businesses, military/trade secrets)
NTIA recently led activity to install DNSSEC at the root of the domain name system, working with ICAAN and Verisign
NIST is working with NSA to reconcile civilian and national security cyber standards
DoC wants to lead in working with industry to identify best practices
They are working with wireless groups on mobile computing security
NIST is leading the new version of the CNCI education initiative, the National Initiative on Cybersecurity Education or “NICE” (this also involves DHS, ED, DOL and OPM)
DoC is convening an Internet policy task force, addressing, among other things, privacy copyright, ecommerce
Regarding cybersecurity, there will be a 7/27 symposium and comments on cyber policy
Locke sees the private sector as a creator/innovator; the relationship should not be adversarial

The President then arrived, previously unannounced. He was accompanied by Dep National Security Advisor John Brennan. He spoke generally without notes, talked knowledgeably about his emphasis on cybersecurity working through Howard’s leadership. He cited the economic and social benefits of the internet and the need to protect that resource, in consultation with industry. He then discussed progress on a number of specific initiatives, including:

NSTIC
plan/capacity for unified incident response
stronger partnerships
R&D (broadband, health IT)
cyber education

DHS Dep Under Sec Phil Reitinger then led a panel that included Ed Amoroso from ATT, Curtis Brunson from L3, Edmund Schweitzer (electric industry), the CIO from St Judes on bioinformatics, Ari Schwartz from CDT, and Chris Painter who is Schmidt’s Deputy.

The panel did not say much that was new, though Painter asked for industry input on how to harden targets, and made the point that we need to move the security action away from end users, as this will never be as effective as handling it earlier in the chain (e.g., among Tier one providers).

DHS Sec Napolitano closed by noting that cyber was one of DHS’ five key priorities, including protecting civilian networks and working to protect critical infrastructures. She noted that Einstein would be deployed in all agencies by year-end, but did not discuss Einstein 3. She then announced eight winners of the “Cyber Challenge” on how to raise awareness. Most were small entities or individuals, but Cisco and Deloitte were among the winners as well. There was some Q&A, during which Vint Cerf humorously apologized for not making the Internet more secure at the beginning.

I love celebrations, but we really need to move forward more aggressively. Thanks to my colleague who attended the event for the summary.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Word to the Wise On Terrorism and Counterterrorism in Africa

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

Terrorism in Africa, like all questions of strategy and of strategic consideration, is context specific – to time, space, actors and events. Generalizations of terrorism in Africa, past and present, are most unwise and unhelpful. Countering terrorist threats in Africa requires a deep understanding of Africa – from subregion to subregion, country to country, and small folk community to small folk community. Thus, as I teach my students, understanding terrorism and counterterrorism in Africa requires knowledge of Africa, first and foremost. Policymakers would be wise to follow suit.

For the past two years, I have taught a senior seminar to upper division undergraduate and graduate students called “Terrorism in Africa.” Three years prior, before the announcement of the formation of U.S. Africa Command, I was hired to be the Africa desk officer for an intelligence and terrorism analysis team working for the U.S. Government. To say that I have an interest in what transpired this past weekend in the Ethiopian Village restaurant and the Kyadondo Rugby Club in Kampala, Uganda, would be an understatement, to say the least.

The near-simultaneous attacks (approximately ten minutes apart in two different Kampala neighborhoods, Kabalagala and Lugogo) against civilians watching the World Cup finals match between Spain and the Netherlands herald a qualitative advance in the capabilities of the Somalia-based terrorist organization al Shabaab, which has claimed allegiance to Osama bin Laden and credit for these attacks. But before we begin worrying about future terrorist attacks in Africa and shifting our resources (diplomatic, intelligence, military and economic) to the next so-called battleground against al Qaeda, it is prudent to consider what terrorism is in Africa and what is needed to counter it.

Historical and geographic factors impinge directly on the meanings of terrorism in Africa. Do Africans consider immediately what occurred in Kampala on July 11 acts of terrorism? The question is more difficult to answer for Africans than for non-Africans. Uganda, the source of the Nile River, has been intimately linked to events in neighboring Kenya and, therefore, Somalia.

During the reign of its three leaders since independence, it has faced interstate and intrastate war, civil strife, and insurgency. To pundits who are speaking and writing today about the recent attacks in Kampala, the rationale for the attacks is the participation of the Ugandan People’s Defence Forces in the African Union Mission in Somalia. In short, this is pay-back from al Shabaab for meddling in the affairs of Somalis, and Burundi may be next.

Stepping back from such insightful analysis, however, we must recognize that terrorism and political violence motivated by Islam has and has not been called terrorism by Africans. In fact, this bears out in the history of Uganda itself: in late June 1976, Palestinian terrorists hijacked an Air France plane with Israeli passengers and received safe haven at Entebbe Airport by then dictator of Uganda, Idi Amin. Does this mean that Ugandans have sympathy for terrorists motivated by an extremist interpretation of Islam? Most likely, not. But to answer the question properly, we must develop a thorough understanding of the geography and politics of Uganda. Furthermore, the future terrorist threat of al Shabaab speaks to the heart of the failed Somali nation-state, policy solutions to which require understanding the geography and politics of Somalia. Word to the wise: to counter terrorism in Africa, understand Africa.

Posted in Intelligence, International, Radicalization, counterterrorism | Comments