Critical Infrastructure | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for the ‘Critical Infrastructure’ Category

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Lake Charles, Southwest Louisiana

In a state as disaster prone as Louisiana has been over the past few years, it’s hard to remember that when something bad does occur, it doesn’t impact everyone. I was reminded of this when I sat down for lunch with two friends in Lake Charles, LA. Over bowls of gumbo, I asked Ernie Broussard, the Executive Director for Planning & Development for Cameron Parish, “So how are things with the oil spill and the ruined shore line?”

Before he could answer, George Swift, the President & CEO of the Southwest Louisiana (SWLA) Partnership for Economic Development sat back in his chair, looked at Ernie and just smiled.

“Well gee Rich, I wish I could tell you but that is one problem I don’t have because I don’t have any oil on my shores.”

Expressing surprise, I looked up from my bowl and said, “What do you mean you don’t have any oil on your shoreline?”

“I’m telling you that it didn’t wash up here. We were ready for it with booms and spill response teams, but we didn’t get any of it this far west.”

Ernie and George then asked me why I thought they had oil on their coastline. I explained that based upon maps and the ongoing news reports on the spill, it seemed there was no stretch of Louisiana or Mississippi’s coastline that didn’t have an oil sheen to it. I assumed that they had fallen victim as well. Docks

Both assured me that while they were waiting and ready for it, they never had to release any boom lines to protect their coastline from the mess that BP unleashed earlier in the year. Needless to say, both of these guys couldn’t be happier about it either.

While Ernie and George had significant empathy for their families, friends and neighbors to the east who were dealing with the mess that seems to have no end, they had other problems to contend with. Their problems though are fortunes that that the rest of the state and Gulf Coast would love to have.

Both gentlemen explained that they had the fortune of dealing with communities where growth and opportunity are availing themselves in spades. While the region is still rebuilding from the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, it still was a place where jobs could be found and investments were ripe for the making. Rita Memorial

Southwest Louisiana is truly a world away from the rest of Louisiana. Whether it is the fact that they have a higher elevation from the southeastern part of the state or they are just closer to Texas, this section of the state has always impressed me as having more of its act together than other portions of Louisiana.

When I first met Ernie and George, it was literally just a few weeks following the wrath of Hurricane Rita. That storm, for whatever reason, is often overlooked by the media and general public when recounting the disastrous storms that have struck the United States. For all of the fury, devastation and media savvy-ness that was Katrina, Rita was actually bigger and stronger when it tore into southwest Louisiana.

Why is it overlooked and often forgotten? Probably because it did not kill the hundreds of people that Katrina did. Furthermore, the region did a tremendously better job preparing for and responding to the storm than its brethren in the southeastern part of the state. The regional parish governments, their leaders and emergency services actually had functioning and productive relationships with one another rather than some of the incompetence that other areas had in place. While the parish governments of southwest Louisiana certainly didn’t agree on everything, they certainly knew how to work together, and that is how I found them back in November-December 2005.

Truth be told, this region had essentially dealt with emergency evacuations three times in 2005. The first was when they were bringing in people from the southeastern part of the state who were seeking refuge from Katrina in the Lake Charles Civic Center, as well as their churches and homes. The second time was when they had to evacuate the Katrina evacuees because Hurricane Rita was making a direct beeline for them. The third time was when they had to evacuate themselves from the path of Rita because no one was interested in seeing the scenes of the Louisiana Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center play out in their community. Despite all of this and having areas consumed by 50-plus feet of water and laying waste to town halls, churches, courthouses and multi-generational family-owned homes, this area demonstrated incredible resilience in being able to weather the storm and move forward.

Back in 2005, I met Lakes Charles Mayor Randy Roach who introduced me to a saying that has stuck with me ever since. He said, “Just hand me a piece of plywood, and we’ll take it from there.”

As simple or even trite as that statement might sound, his message was very simple. It meant that while they may need a hand to get up after a storm, as a people and as a region, they were self reliant, entrepreneurial and confident enough to forge ahead.

Just weeks after the destructive winds and surges of water had taken so much from them, the region had put together plans to enhance its port operations; build business incubators; construct a new and sustainable lakeside waterfront in the City of Lake Charles; and more for the region to have for its future. As a community, they decided to take the fury and consequences of Rita and commit to shaping a renaissance that was true to the values and interests of the region’s citizens; this while also inviting the outside world to do business, invest and even make their home in the area.

You couldn’t help but feel an overwhelming sense of confidence and hope residing in the area. It was incredibly awe inspiring. Whereas other portions of the state were still fighting and finger-pointing at one another over the floods of the 1930s, as well as the Katrina aftermath and who did what to whom, this portion of Louisiana skipped the dysfunctional conduct and hand-waving rhetoric and was full speed ahead on its future. That was then and seeing the results now tells me how right those feelings were.

A gleaming new environmentally conscious waterfront along the Lake Charles waterfront is just finishing construction and will be formally dedicated on September 18. A new regional business incubator at McNeese University will soon break ground and host entrepreneurs of all kinds. Regional highways have been widened and improved. The area is also home to the only newly chartered U.S. bank of 2010, Lakeside Bank, and ongoing construction boom. With regional unemployment (7.2 percent) below the national average, the post-Rita vision for the future, started in late 2005, is becoming the promising reality of today.

As George Swift shared with me in his office later that afternoon, “I hate to say it takes a crisis to motivate people, but unfortunately it does. Rita brought us together as a region like never before,” adding, “We took an unfortunate situation and planned for the future.”

While they realize they dodged a bullet in not having any oil on their shores, George, Ernie and many others know they are not out of the woods yet. With fears that spilled oil remains out in the Gulf and could come ashore in the future, and with the Obama Administration’s drilling moratorium still in place, George estimated that upwards of 20,000 jobs could be lost if this situation continues.

Despites these potential dark clouds, southwest Louisiana remains a place where hope and opportunity have taken root. But like any community in America, forces external to it are always present to cause a problem or two. I have no worries though. All they need is a piece of plywood to continue building their future. They’ll take care of the rest and leave you inspired along the way.

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Statue

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

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Bay St. Louis, Waveland and Gulfport, Mississippi

It’s hard to say what the real ground zero of Hurricane Katrina was. For most Americans, they think of the City of New Orleans. They remember the raw and emotionally powerful images of human anguish at the Superdome, the Convention Center, the dramatic rooftop rescues by Coast Guard helicopters, as well as the watery carnage of the Lower 9th Ward.

For as awful as each of those events were, similar catastrophes were experienced by St. Bernard and Jefferson Parishes, as well as Plaquemines and Slidell, LA. While the media certainly covered the earth-shattering events that occurred there, it seems to me that the Gulf Coast of Mississippi seems to have been lost in the coverage. Five years ago, I distinctly remember taking a helicopter trip from New Orleans over to Gulfport, MS. As heartbreaking as it was to hover over broken levees and destruction in southeast Louisiana, it could not compare to what I saw in Mississippi. The only word I used to describe what I saw back then was very simply Hiroshima. Areas that I had long known from my time doing work at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, long before 9/11 and DHS ever happened, had literally been wiped from the face of Earth. The destruction was beyond catastrophic.

Catastrophic

From the helicopter, the only discernable structures that you could identify were the makeshift tents that emergency personnel and National Guardsmen had put up. In scanning the area, I wanted to see about one piece of property in particular. The more than century-old bed and breakfast along North Beach Blvd in Bay St. Louis that I used to stay at during my extended stays was nothing but shattered debris. After surviving the “big storm” that everyone in Mississippi had never stopped talking about (Hurricane Camille) and countless other storms in its 100-plus years of existence, Miss Ann’s Bed & Breakfast, like thousands of other homes and businesses, finished their lives in destructive ruin.

In returning there today, the only remnants of one of the storied old homes of the South is the old oak that stood at the corner of North Beach Blvd and deMontluzin.

As sad as it was for me to see that, it can’t compare to the lingering heartbreak that residents there have for their lost homes. A longtime friend of mine who lives in Bay St. Louis, Lynn Francis, took me to the place where the first home she had ever purchased once stood. Turning onto Adrienne Court, Lynn seemed to catch herself becoming emotional and quickly apologized. Telling her to not worry about it, she parked the car and pointed out the car window and said, “This is it.”

Behind the overgrow weeds and shrubbery rested a concrete slap with broken tiles all around it. While the debris of what had once been her home with its inviting screened porch had long since been removed, the place that had once been a source of warmth and pride for Lynn was now a scar upon the land as well as her heart. For as personal as the visit wa Stairs to nowhere s for her, it is the same for any number of residents. It was not an unusual sight to drive around the area and see brick staircases going up to nowhere because there was no porch or home to connect them to.

Driving closer to the beach, steel beams driven into the ground to anchor the frame of the home against the wrath of Mother Nature were all that remained from any number of places residents of the Mississippi Gulf Coast called home. Another set of stairs, these being spiral, again led to nowhere.

While barren concrete slabs and stairs to nowhere are around for all to see, there is also tremendous rebirth in the area. The once shattered bridge linking Bay St. Louis and Pass Christian now rises high out of the Gulf with artistic brass plaques at points along the walkway telling the story of the area. Stately homes that had been wiped out have been replaced by gleaming structures that would probably send most of the hosts of Home & Garden Television into utter euphoria. Brightly colored condos and beautiful new Catholic churches rise up across from the beach. It was hard not to be inspired at the turn around for the devastated but for every high there seems to be another low around the corner.

Walking along the beach were BP crews looking for oil. With screened shovels, rakes and buckets, nearly a dozen people with bright neon vests and rubber boots and gloves were combing the sand for any remnants of the event that truly ruined the entire region’s summer. What they found appeared to be minuscule, but it was enough to remind me as a visitor of what these people have been through. In speaking with restaurant owners, wait staff and others during my visit, any lingering angst they may have had about Katrina and the area’s recovery was replaced by pure venom for BP.

BP Clean up

No one I spoke to believes any of the promises that BP has made in their television and radio ads. Mississippi residents, like their Louisiana neighbors, fully expect BP to find every possible way of getting out of their responsibilities to the region. They see the oil spill as one more knife into the heart of an economy that depends on fishing and tourism. As to the forthcoming claims process being led by Ken Feinberg, the people I spoke with echoed complaints that I heard in Louisiana about what value a forthcoming damages payment for this year’s losses would be if the oil still in the Gulf prevents people from coming to vacation or eat the fish in their restaurants in future years. If the oil washes up again in future years, residents and business owners fear what they have left will become a waterfront ghost town.

As Jimmy Trapani, the owner of Bay St. Louis’ famous Trapani’s Eatery shared during lunch: “I can handle a storm and move on from that but there’s no moving on when that stuff [the oil] is still out there and people won’t come here to eat in restaurants, go into the water or visit here. What the hell am I supposed to do to prepare this place [his restaurant] for that?”

Trapani's Eatery

Despite his frustrations and those of other MS residents, the citizens of the Magnolia State have proven their abilities to reclaim what was lost as their own. They are one with the coastline and have built smarter and stronger as a result of the lessons learned from the natural fury five years ago. As they look west to their Louisiana neighbors, many take great pride that their recovery seems to be coming along at a better pace, even if they are not receiving the lion’s share of media attention and recognition. Many of them are OK with that, but others fear they will remain overlooked by their noisier next-door neighbors.

Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular, has always made for more compelling media attention than the people of the Magnolia State. In the end though, everyone knows that it’s the end results that matter. The Mississippi Gulf Coast has come back from oblivion before, and the residents there are more than confident in their ability to remain steadfast against lingering threats. They’ve done so in a fairly quieter fashion for some time now, and that’s OK.

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

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

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Friday, August 27th, 2010

Plaquemines Parish

Other than cruising along a major piece of highway, there are few places that you can drive in America where you can go 50+ miles and not hit a traffic light. Such is the stretch of highway along Louisiana Highway 23, running straight through the center of Plaquemines Parish. Located just south of New Orleans, Plaquemines is literally a peninsula with the mighty Mississippi River going right through the center of it.

Where most of America has trains, large trucks and airplanes darting in and out of its boundaries, Plaquemines has large cargo ships, super tankers and even cruise ships sailing right down the center of it. It is not at all unusual to be cruising along in your car going 65 and look over and see one of these monstrosities sailing along or stopping alongside the levee walls to wait before they head up or out of the Mississippi.

River

Plaquemines is also a very rural community. With Mississippi River-rich soil, orange and other citrus groves, and grazing cattle dot the landscape. Further adding to the Parish’s landscape are small harbors of fishing boats that venture out into the Gulf for the day’s catch. Despite all of this Mark Twain-like tranquility, it is safe to say that Plaquemines has been through the ringer for the past five years.

When Katrina struck, surges of water in excess of 50 feet crossed over the levees, parking shrimp boats in the center of the Highway 23 and farmer’s fields while cattle and other farm animals were left dangling in the surrounding trees. It also wiped away hundreds of homes and businesses and put the lives of several thousand of the Parish’s residents in scenarios few of us could imagine. It was in many ways an almost Salvador Dali painting of oddball images to comprehend, but they were very real to the region.

For as stark as it was for a number of Plaquemines residents to live in tents with their families for just over six months (until FEMA trailers were put in place and power and water lines were installed), like the area they call home, they were rustic and stuck it out knowing that things could and would get better.

While the communities of tents may be gone, they have been replaced with larger mobile homes, larger travel trailers as well as reinforced steel structures. The few single family homes that you do see are raised up twelve to fifteen feet so as to give them a sense of protection from the water, should it ever arrive again in such an unwanted fashion.

For as bad as Katrina may have “knocked them on their ass,” as one long time resident described to me, “it is BP that has driven the knife into their hearts” and may have given them what several residents believe to be a truly fatal blow.

Not far from the rustic harbors that are home to shrimpers, oystermen and other fisherman are the shorelines and marshes that were stained by the BP oil spill. Tar balls and oil-soaked marshes and beaches became part of the Plaquemines world this year. As a result, part of the professional and personal livelihoods of many in this community – fishing – ceased to exist. To only make matters worse for many of them, the Obama Administration’s moratorium against new oil drilling projects in the Gulf put even more professional livelihoods and their personal economic recovery on hold.

It’s an open debate by many Plaquemines residents as to what is worse: the impact of Katrina, the BP oil spill or the drilling moratorium. One thing they can all agree on is their concern about their future. Boat

Despite its physical limits in land (some areas of the Parish are only a mile wide), Plaquemines is a gold mine when it comes to fishing, hunting and as every Louisiana license plate reminds you, “Sportsman’s Paradise.” It is also home to one of the country’s and world’s largest estuaries, where crab, oysters, ducks, migratory birds, shrimp and more make their homes. The water and land are truly intermingled into the way of life here, and many residents fear the oil-soaked marshes and recently cleaned beaches contain an environmental time bomb just below the surface that will go off in the coming years. Fears are genuine that the ecosystem will be radically altered in such a way that it will destroy not just the nature they dearly love but the way of life that has been with them for generations.

Compounding the fear is the belief, already echoed by new Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu that BP is “poised to cut and run.” The constant BP media advertisements about “being here to make things right” rings hollow for the vast majority of the people I have met with this week. They’ve heard all the promises before. With Ken Fienberg taking over the BP-funded $20B compensation and clean-up fund and offering the region’s affected residents and businesses six months to take a settlement or go to court, a number of the Parish’s business owners and residents feel like they’ve another potential disaster on their hands.

If they take the settlement money, they give up their rights to sue BP for future damages. The funds they take from BP may or may not help them out, especially if years from now problems with the environment negatively impact the fishing, business operations and way of life they cherish.

marsh

To date, over 28,000 tests have been done by government and independent researchers on the Gulf’s seafood, and the tests declare it safe to eat. The White House, along with the Louisiana Seafood Promotion & Marketing Board, are doing everything they can to assure the American public (and world) of the safety of the Gulf’s natural bounty. Despite those assurances, the perception problem for Gulf seafood harvests is enormous. Those fears will only be compounded if the seafood-loving public turns its back on purchasing Gulf shrimp, oysters, redfish and more. That will be just another blow to people who have had more than their fair share of pounding over the past five years.

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, but then again, life in Plaquemines has never been simple or easy.

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Five years ago, my life, like the lives of millions of others, changed. I was one of the thousands of people who went to the Gulf Coast to try to help, to do anything to address what can only be called the summer of ultimate hell. Two monster hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, smashed into the coastlines of Mississippi and Louisiana killing hundreds, costing billions and forever changing our nation.

This week I’ve come back to the Gulf Coast to retrace many of the steps I took five years ago. Along the way, I’ve reconnected with people I worked with back then and have taken a good look at the lives, land and future of one of the world’s most unique places. For as much as the news media will offer their five-year retrospectives on the anniversaries of these two unprecedented and tragic storms, it can’t begin to capture how much lives have changed here.

New Orleans Katrina memorial

While the street cars still go up Poydras Street, the music and debauchery overflow on Bourbon Street and the glass and facade of the Convention Center in New Orleans are pristinely intact, the wounds left by Katrina remain raw for some.

In some parts, any mention of the word “FEMA” will give you an almost instant reaction of fury. Like flipping on a light switch, some of the people you speak with will almost instantaneously recount for you their nightmares of frustrations, paperwork and bureaucratic battles that boggle the mind. After they finish releasing their angst about FEMA, many of them will then go into a blistering listing of the faults they see with the State and local governments who weren’t ready to deal with any semblance of Katrina’s fury.

If you talk to business owners and their employees in New Orleans and ask them how business is going, many of them will smile and look at you with a brave face and say, “Everything is fine.” But in the next breath they admit that things aren’t as good as anyone would like. Doors may be open but cash registers and sales are not ringing up.

Despite the tremendous rebirth of New Orleans with its new and refurbished hotels and restaurants, the crowds of tourists and conventioneers that once made the Crescent City one of the country’s most popular destinations, people just aren’t coming here.

Whether it is because of the country’s lingering economic woes, fears about the ongoing violence and crime wave that the city has encountered, or just post-Katrina and Gulf oil spill fatigue and wanting to stay away, I couldn’t help but recognize how light the crowds around the area were. Even from the moment I arrived at New Orleans International Airport, I noticed how empty the airport was. Even the plane coming here was smaller than the one I took just a year ago… and even that wasn’t full.

All of the things you think of when you say New Orleans – jazz, great food, debauchery, Mardi Gras, beads and more – are all back and in vibrant color with one exception: crowds of people.

Every community that goes through a traumatic Katrina-like disaster experiences some type of fluctuation with its population and tourism, but I couldn’t help but feel a sense of lingering fear among the friends and people I’ve met along the way, all waiting for the other shoe to drop. New Orleans

While it would be easy for anyone of us to point to this summer’s Gulf oil spill as that shoe, especially given that it is just down the road for many of the area’s residents, the fear that there is something else that is going to happen seems to hang over the heads of many of the people I’ve spoken with.

People here are genuinely frustrated and suspicious of government, and it’s hard not to blame them. They’ve heard so many promises, seen so much corruption, and been plagued by bureaucracies and incompetence for so long that they just don’t want to hear from Washington, Baton Rouge or City Hall anymore.

In contrast to those experiences, they have seen and continue to see the incredible warmth, care and generosity that comes with having so many people and different service organizations rebuilding homes and restoring properties that most of us would have abandoned long ago. That, along with the victory of their beloved Super Bowl Champions, the Saints, has given them all a bit of hope that they can overcome any remaining obstacles.

But amongst that hope and football pride there is also a sense of exhaustion and looking for a break. Not to sound like an old country song, “but if it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.” This could easily be the refrain of the anthem that has been playing for them over the past five years. While New Orleans and the overall region are no longer knocked to their knees as they were during Katrina, they are certainly looking for that moment that gives them the second wind they need to keep moving forward with confidence and hope.

Maybe you, your family or your friends who are paying a visit might help bring that second wind along.

In fact, I’m thinking of going out to Mothers for Po boy and Pat O’Briens for a hurricane. Why don’t you join me?

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

New Orleans street

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

The National Cyber Awareness and Education Campaign

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Those who read my Security Debrief posts or my Tweets will recognize (maybe with a groan) that one of my “issues” is the lack of action in Awareness and Education with regard to cybersecurity. It is not a sexy, nor a potentially lucrative issue, but I believe with all my heart that it is the foundational piece of any eventual “solution” to our cyber woes. We will never really “solve” this, but if we are to remain in the game with the bad guys, we must do better than we are now.

Last week I participated in a conference hosted by NIST. It was designed to progress forward with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE – a really unfortunate acronym). For two days, we discussed the Awareness efforts being led by DHS, examples of seemingly successful education efforts in the Maryland area and some points of view from industry.

The NICE program has four pillars:

Awareness (for the general population);
Education (aimed mostly at K-12);
Training of the Federal Work Force; and
Professional Certification.

I will comment on the first three, as I do not consider myself truly qualified to opine on the Professional Certification program.

In regard to Awareness, DHS clearly recognizes the importance of the program. They have put some serious assets against this need, but frankly, it is way too little and way too slow (one hopes it is not too late). They are planning six town hall-style events for the coming year. Yes, I said SIX. When I questioned Bruce McConnell, the counsel to the Deputy Under Secretary for National Plans and Programs, as to this paucity of engagements, he sheepishly admitted that it was not enough, but it was all they could do at this time.

I have said before that based on my experience in speaking outside the Beltway, the Feds could deploy speakers to every local Chamber of Commerce, every Kiwanis Club, and every PTA meeting in America to do a basic presentation on the cyber threats, general issues, and basic cyber hygiene methods, plus Q&A. It would be eaten up by the American public, who is starving for information in this area. DHS’s answer is to solicit volunteer “Ambassadors” to do this task. Great idea, but nowhere near sufficient.

Education is likewise weak at this time. We need a course on cybersecurity taught to every student K-12 and college, every year. The dynamic nature of the subject is such that you never “arrive,” so we need to teach it over and over. The goal is not to make everyone a computer engineer but to reinforce best practices and basic skills that would make the entire system more resilient. Dribs and drabs will not work and will be less than a band aid.

Work Force Training for the federal work force is probably fine, but NICE should also push for Work Force Training writ large. There is no distinct line between the Federal system and the networks of all their private sector partners. Therefore, we need to develop workforce training programs for the American Work Force, not merely the Federal one. I recognize the magnitude of this, but we will get what we pay for. Additionally, we must acknowledge that this sort of training is needed by the entire workforce, not only for the IT folks. If we target only those who are already technologically proficient, we will have failed.

Bottom line of Bucci’s rant is this: we need to make Awareness and Education a real priority and expend the money, time, and personnel to do it correctly. Simply put, the present NICE plan is good but too small. God bless the folks who are working so hard to make this successful. Let’s give them the assets and backing to succeed.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Homeland Security Still MIA on EMP

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

As Matthew Harwood’s August 5, 2010 article in Security Management reminds us, Homeland Security has not “taken seriously the threat that a high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon could fry the nation’s power grid[.]”

As the article notes, Dr. Michael J. Frankel “warned the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that a terrorist organization or a rogue state could detonate a nuclear weapon either above the United States or close to its shores, creating an electromagnetic pulse attack that could severely damage the country’s electronic infrastructure.”

Frankel is executive director of the EMP Commission, which was created in 2001 to study the national security threat an EMP attack could pose to the United States.

While most of its work is classified, the commission has released two unclassified reports: one in 2004 and another in 2008. According to the article “Frankel believes DHS has the expertise in-house to tackle EMP preparedness but needs a Senate-confirmed leader to lead the charge. Already DHS has taken action against nuclear terrorist attack scenarios but continues to ignore the threat of an EMP attack, he said, even though the commission provided the department with 75 unclassified recommendations to mitigate vulnerabilities and promote resiliency in U.S. critical infrastructures.”

If anything, Frankel underplays the scope of the threat. The catastrophe would not stop at our borders. Most of Canada would die, too. Its infrastructure is integrated with the U.S. power grid. Indeed, without the American economic engine, the world economy would quickly collapse. Much of the world’s intellectual property (half of it is in the United States) would be lost as well. As a result of these loses, the Earth would likely recede into the “new” Dark Ages.

It is doubly strange that DHS has dedicated so little to this threat in that similar devastating effects could occur as part of a natural disaster. For example, scientists have long held that intense solar flares could produce similar effects. In addition, there are many other kinds of disasters – from cyber attacks to storms – that can incapacitate infrastructure. Furthermore, preparing for “worst case” scenarios would also improve America’s ability to cope with lesser disasters.

DHS should start to take practical steps now to mitigate the damage inflicted by the most catastrophic disasters imaginable later.

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

Hertiage’s Homeland Security Panels – Bucci Speaking on Cyber and Maritime

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

Next week, the Heritage Foundation will host “Homeland Security 2010: The Future of Defending the Homeland.” This will be a week-long series of panels aimed at providing a good background for Congressional Staffers new to Homeland Security issues. Heritage did this last year, and it was an excellent event. It should be informative and helpful for the folks who provide the leg work for our Legislative Branch.

This program is diverse. The event begins on Monday, August 23, focusing on maritime security. Two panels will look at this huge area from the civilian and military standpoints.

I will sit on one of the panels and will look at the immense task of achieving maritime security and what has been done so far in pursuit of it. My time as the Deputy Assistant SecDef for Homeland Defense included a great deal of focus on this crucial defense domain.

On Tuesday, the attention will shift to Science and Technology, with two panels looking at the role of fundamental science in security, specifically bioterrorism. Day Three’s panel reaches out to the private sector on its pivotal roll in Homeland Security. It will cover Critical Infrastructure Protection (most of which is privately owned), and the expanding role of the private sector in response since 9/11, Katrina, and the Gulf Oil Spill.

Thursday turns to my favorite – cybersecurity. The actual titles of these panels are intriguing: “Big Brother and the Civilian Network” and “Cyber Nukes: War and Terrorism in the Cyber Domain.” I will be presenting on the latter panel and will look at one of my pet subjects, the growing potential for cyber terrorism once terrorists are enabled by cyber criminal networks.

The five-day program is rounded out with panels looking at the role of state and local government in our response to terrorism and the overall preparedness, response and recovery system.

This outreach to the Staffers is a laudable and worthy task. These (mostly) young citizens are highly educated and very motivated to serve their members in the task of creating an effective legal underpinning for our Homeland Security efforts. By gathering together a diverse group of academics, practitioners, industry types and pundits, Heritage provides an excellent menu of topics from which the staff personnel can choose to augment their knowledge, and with whom they can debate and discuss the issues.

I am very happy to have been asked to participate, and I will be prepared for a great deal of learning and free flowing discourse. The panels are open to the public and all are welcome. I highly recommend it.

You can RSVP for the panels and find out more by visiting The Heritage Foundation’s website.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Seriously? Congress is still pushing for 100 percent maritime scanning?

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Below is an excerpt of a piece I wrote for US News & World Report about members of Congress, including the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, calling for Customs and Border Protection to get in gear and meet their crazy congressional mandate of scanning 100 percent of all maritime cargo. They claim TSA did it with air cargo, so why can’t they do it?

Seriously?

Back in 2006, before George W. Bush’s approval ratings dropped through the basement into somewhere around the fourth circle of hell, it made political sense for the congressional Democrats to attack the Republican administration on cargo security. They were fighting to regain control of Congress and had to show that they, too, were capable of protecting the American people from another terrorist attack. They found themselves an effective–if inaccurate–sound bite in accusing the administration of screening a mere 5 percent of cargo coming into the country.

Now that the 100 percent screening mandate for air cargo has come and gone, the usual suspects are turning their attention to maritime scanning. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (again) accuses the department of ignoring the will of Congress and not even trying to meet the requirement to scan all cargo coming into the country.

The effort to ignore the ludicrous intent of Congress has been bipartisan, starting with both secretaries under President Bush (Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff) and now Napolitano under President Obama. The reason for trying to ignore the congressional mandate–according to all three secretaries, the thousands and thousands of professional security officers working in DHS, and most independent security experts–is that it is impossible to meet and, more importantly, less effective than the risk-based, layered security model on which the Department of Homeland Security was founded.

But why let most of the security experts in the world get in the way of the will and superior wisdom of Congress?

Read the full story at US News & World Report.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Maritime & Seaport Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

Potential Change in the Nature of TSA Enforcement?

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Since its inception in 2001, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) approach to enforcing its rules generally has been a cooperative one. Recognizing the burdens on industry from new security regulations and a difficult economic environment, and understanding that harsh enforcement actions can be counterproductive, TSA generally has sought to educate and train rather than punish. Monetary fines have been uncommon, and serious punishment – steep fines or greater severity – have been rare. While this approach has worked reasonably well, there is reason to believe it will not last forever.

A common catalyst to a “harder” enforcement approach (e.g., more frequent and larger fines) is public focus on instances of noncompliance.

A recent example of such a catalyst is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which has transformed the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service into the new “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement” – enforcement is now part of the name.

The likelihood of public focus on noncompliance is related to at least two factors: the passage of time and the industry’s ability to affect a broad cross-section of the public.

Both factors weigh in favor of an eventual turn toward harder enforcement. First, TSA is still a new agency but, as time passes, the likelihood of a significant rule violation by the regulated industry increases. Second, TSA interacts constantly with a broad cross-section of the public, which is one of the reasons that TSA problems quickly draw broad public attention.

Another possible catalyst to a harder enforcement approach is the growth or diversification of the regulated industry.

When the regulated industry grows and/or diversifies, regulators may be more inclined to take a harder approach to enforcement as a way of signaling seriousness to industry participants.

Hard enforcement actions are often an efficient way for regulators to deliver a message to a large or diverse set of industry participants. When the participants are few in number or homogenous, education and training by the regulators may be sufficient, but a “severe fine” warning message is more likely to be carried quickly (by the trade press, lawyers and others) to a large or diverse set of industry participants.

The industry regulated by TSA has been growing and diversifying quickly. Among the recent additions are businesses newly regulated under the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). These businesses, now approaching 1,000 in number, have to be regulated by TSA without a proportional increase in TSA resources, making an eventual resort to a harder enforcement approach more likely.

For all of these reasons, TSA-regulated companies would be wise to focus on compliance efforts as though TSA were going to take a harder approach to enforcement.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

The Battling Bills of Chemical Security – Much Ado About Nothing?

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Late last week, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) unanimously approved a bill to extend the DHS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program for an additional three years. The bill will next move to the Senate floor sometime before the end of this congress for a showdown with a bill passed out of the House sponsored by Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. At that point, you’ll probably see some additional amendments that could change the current complexion of the bill to make it more palatable to draw more votes. What the senate bill doesn’t presently incorporate are many of the features of the House bill. The Thompson bill includes several contentious provisions, including “inherently safer technology (IST)” review, chief among the attention-getters.

IST is great idea in theory – and is actually a fairly straightforward and simple concept. You take one chemical process that involves a “high-risk” chemical, you identify a “lower risk” chemical that provides a similar functionality, and you do a switcheroo. Disregarding the costs of the lower risk chemical as well as the costs associated with re-engineering the process to accept the new chemical, IST sounds pretty simple, right?

Maybe, maybe not – here’s an example that illustrates the additional costs and considerations of chemical process re-engineering that should hit home for those in the National Capital Region (or the DMV, as I’ve recently learned).

DC’s Blue Plains Water Treatment Facility, one of the nation’s largest water treatment facilities, elected to change its disinfection mechanism from gaseous chlorine to sodium hypochlorite after an evaluation of the unique operational and risk characteristics of the facility. The utility’s process change did not come cheaply, perhaps as much as (if not more than) $12.5 million in capital expenditures and an annual chemical cost increase from $600,000 (for chlorine) to $2 million (for sodium hypochlorite). But the Blue Plains folks did not make this decision because they were forced under a regulatory program – they made the decision based on an evaluation of the threat, vulnerabilities and potential consequences of a chemical release. And the most interesting wrinkle to this process change? The decision to switch was made before September 11, 2001.

Looking at IST in the larger scheme of chemical facility issues, IST is really just a component of a more complex trade off assessment, going well beyond merely switching out chemicals. Internal business decisions happen every day that include a variety of factors – including process evaluations – that ultimately consider the true “cost” (whether directly financial or indirectly risk-driven) associated with an action or process. Essentially, when costs are too high, they are addressed.

For example, following the enactment of CFATS and the passage of the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 (DHS is in the final stages of developing a regulatory program for AN), a not-to-be-named-company in the farm supply business ran the numbers and determined that the cost of compliance with the two DHS programs was just too great, so they stopped selling AN in bagged form. They just stopped selling it and consequently removed the regulatory exposure entirely. Now there’s a business decision – just drop the product because the margin that was previously thin in an unregulated environment evaporated. Net effect? The end user is going to have to find another company that has either accepted the reduced or non-existent margins, or they’ll just have to find a replacement chemical. That’s what I call a “top-down” approach to IST.

On the flip side, here’s a “bottom-up” example of IST. As it stands now, there’s a chemical covered by CFATS that has a very close “chemical family” relative (so to speak) not covered by CFATS. The folks that manufacture and sell that unregulated chemical are having a field day with this competitive advantage.

Think about it, the costs of compliance have to be recouped somewhere. They’re not going to be internalized, so the regulated product price goes up and the consumer bears the burden of compliance. The unregulated chemical? No compliance costs, no burden on the consumer, so the consumer is going to make a decision on its own and go buy the unregulated chemical. Not because it’s necessarily safer but because it’s cheaper.

So what does the company selling the regulated chemical do? Probably go out of business or stop selling that chemical, as in the example above. The most interesting thing about the entire situation? There’s empirical evidence indicating the two chemicals are pretty darn close when it comes to explosive energy, so while the chemicals are essentially interchangeable from an application standpoint, they’re also theoretically interchangeable as an IED precursor.

What’s my point? IST happens every day; process decisions are made every day out in the chemical supply chain. Despite Congressman Thompson’s position on whether the Senate did the country a disservice (and to be fair, he could have been referring to the other provisions, like closing the water security and maritime security gaps), IST decisions happen right now without any regulatory requirements and are a natural result of the mere existence of CFATS. And to be clear, the IST provision in the House bill doesn’t mandate IST in most cases; the bill just requires IST reviews for the higher-risk facilities and provides the Secretary authority to direct an IST in certain highest of high risk cases.

The higher level message here is that you don’t have to bake an IST requirement into the regulatory structure to ensure chemical companies make trade off assessments and the corresponding decisions. So there’s no real loss by not having a stringent IST requirement included in the Senate bill. Companies are going to make IST-like decisions anyway in order to cut costs and reduce regulatory exposure; in fact it’s already being done!

As soon as you introduce a regimented process that requires a third party to assess an internal IST evaluation, you further handcuff the process. Not to mention the fact that there are other mechanisms already in the CFATS program that can ensure the security of those high-risk chemicals, namely the security standards. On that note, if DHS is concerned about certain high risk chemicals at certain sites, they can leverage the ambiguity of the security performance standards to set a security bar so high for the facility of concern that the costs of compliance for physical security will be overly burdensome. Once it’s too costly to secure, the facility will identify an alternative process with less burdensome security measures. The net effect is an IST decision. That right there is an IST lesson learned from CFATS compliance to date – companies will drop chemicals if they can avoid compliance costs.

To wrap this whole thing up, for those out there sitting on pins and needles as the CFATS expiration deadline looms – CFATS isn’t going anywhere. Besides, too much effort has been put into building the program, both in the public sector (inclusive of the Executive and the Legislative Branches) and in the private sector (inclusive of the regulated companies and the cottage consulting industry resulting from the program).

If you think there’s a lobbying effort out there that’s trying to water down CFATS, there would be another lobbying effort to ensure that CFATS remains and the cottage consulting and compliance assistance industry it generated doesn’t go anywhere. Which brings up an interesting point: after whatever law is enacted that extends CFATS, can the White House claim that it saved or created the jobs of all those CFATS consultants?

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Science & Technology, 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

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

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

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

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

Is the NSA’s “Perfect Citizen” Really Big Brother?

Monday, July 12th, 2010

OK, let me get this straight: a private sector company INVITES the National Security Agency (NSA) to place sensors on its privately owned network to help the company protect itself from unauthorized and unwanted cyber intrusions. Perfect Citizen, as it is called, is a program to detect cyber assaults on critical infrastructure, be they publically or privately held. The NSA will deploy sensors in critical infrastructure computer networks to detect a cyber attack.

With the U.S.’s eavesdropping agency working in private sector networks, some have worried that Perfect Citizen (a hideous name by the way) constitutes too much government monitoring in the private sector, conjuring comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984.

But how in the world does Perfect Citizen constitute “Big Brother”?!?

It still amazes me that the only entity that some American citizens seem to be afraid of in the cyber realm is own government. Yet, the same people demand that the government protect them from cyber attacks.

Come on folks, you are asking the impossible. When anyone says “security,” these individuals (and organizations) scream “Privacy!” What they really mean is privacy from the government. They do not seem to give a hoot about marketers, criminals or intelligence organizations from other countries reading anything and everything they have in digital format.

However, I do get the feeling that if these individuals’ identities were stolen, a bank account emptied, or their computer used in a BotNet to support a crime or terrorist incident, they will scream just as loudly that “the government should have done something!”

I am sorry that the NSA’s activities scare people. Much of the agency’s “scary” reputation is due to overblown Hollywood depictions of the organization (thank you “Enemy of the State” and other like films). I have worked with the NSA as an Intel Collector and while in the Pentagon’s Front Office. There are few organizations in the Federal Structure as obsessive about following the rules as the people at the Fort. These people are true patriots who do what they do to protect the Constitution and the American people, not to threaten them. The NSA is an American treasure, and we should be giving them raises, not attacking their integrity.

Perfect Citizen is NOT Big Brother. It is a program that is done only at the request of the people who own the infrastructure on which it resides. I predict that as this program goes forward, more firms will opt to join in. In fact, I also predict that once it starts to work for the Defense Industrial Base companies (which already have the best public/private info sharing arrangements in industry), others will clamor to join. Cyber Industrial Espionage is killing American businesses and will continue to do so until we can put effective monitoring capabilities in place. Perfect Citizen is good first step.

Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

The Value of Aspen

Friday, July 9th, 2010

As we continue to swelter in the ongoing summer heat wave, it is easy for me to reminisce about my recent visit to Aspen, Colo. Tucked amongst the Rockies with its clean air, fervent green and majestic views, a town known primarily for its skiing with the rich and famous was home to what was, simply put, the best conference program I have ever attended.

The first annual Aspen Security Forum put forward a program that I can only describe as pleasant, informational waterboarding. By the time each of the presenters and panelists were done, my hand was dead from writing so much and my head hurt from being given the firehouse treatment of a candor and content overload.

With a venerable “who’s who” of notable names in the national security arena attending the two and a half day program, attendees had the opportunity to hear first-hand from the men and women who have served or continue to serve in some of the most demanding positions in the world. It was literally very hard to turn around and not see a face that you did not recognize from some recent event or news program, sharing insights on our country’s national and homeland security challenges.

While the presented content was outstanding, the best part about the entire program was that the overwhelming majority of notable speakers and presenters made themselves available to engage with the attendees. All too often, speakers rush in, deliver their canned pitch, say thanks to the crowd and are whisked away by their aides to get back to the office, leaving actual human contact an afterthought. To have the many distinguished speakers stick around and engage in that lost art-form of “CONVERSATION” was an absolute pleasure.

Hosted by Clark Ervin and the Aspen Institute, this was the first time they had put on a program with this particular focus. You can call it beginner’s luck if you want, but they put together a top notch effort that literally became a “must attend” for anyone who is interested in national and homeland security issues. Fortunately, for those who weren’t able to attend the program, it was taped for later broadcast by C-Span, hopefully sometime this summer. I have to tell you, there is a significant portion of C-Span’s programming that can cure insomnia, but when they broadcast the presenters and panels from the Aspen Security Forum, it will be as NBC used to call it, “Must See TV!”

To understand why I write that, here’s a rundown of some sessions (with video hyperlinks):

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

When your opening speaker travels all the way from Kabul to Tel Aviv to Aspen to take part in the program, it’s a pretty good indicator that the organizers are up to something big. That was especially true with Adm. Mullen. Coming off a week where Gen. McChrystal was taken out by a large Rolling Stone and replaced by Gen. Petraeus, and then traveling to Afghanistan and Israel to assuage any fears and concerns they may have about the big changes, Mullen made news by essentially not making news. While his comments about the state of the nation’s counter insurgency policy dovetailed those of the White House’s, the plainspoken manner in which they were delivered conveyed the gravity of the situation our military forces are faced with in Afghanistan. His comments about Iran’s nuclear ambitions – “They’ve given us no reason to trust them” – also spoke volumes about what few measures the Administration has left at its disposal in dealing with them.

Aviation Security Panel

There is probably no other facet of the post-9/11 world that Americans gripe about more than dealing with aviation security, but as the CEO of the Air Transport Association (ATA), Jim May, said, “What’s your alternative?” Joined by Erroll Southers of USC’s CREATE Program (and the first Obama Administration nominee to lead TSA) and Christopher Bidwell of the Airport Council International, this panel laid on the table the very real threats and frustrations that accompany this portion of the security environment. One of the most interesting things discussed was the use of full-body imaging devices by airports to screen passengers. While recognizing the civil rights and privacy concerns that people have about them, Jim May of ATA shared that he thought they should be mandatory. When it came to addressing the Government Accountability Office’s recently issued criticisms of TSA’s Behavioral Detection efforts, May and the other panelists pointed out that this program was part of many layers of security, and there was no one-size-fits-all solution or silver bullet that would reduce the aviation risks faced today.

Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush

There are many things that have been written and said about Fran Townsend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush (43), but the word “shy” is not one that would be used to describe her. The only thing that could possibly surpass the candor of her public comments when she was working as a government employee was her candor in being a former government employee. With no holds barred, Townsend explained that, “We have a reason to expect we can connect the dots this time” given all of the post 9/11 work that has been done.

In a more than hour-long conversation with Walter Isaccson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, and the Security Forum audience, Townsend pounded on the fact that much still needs to be done to improve information sharing amongst intelligence and law enforcement agencies across the board. Her declaration that there still needed to be a senior level official or “Cabinet Agency,” but “not a czar,” to “pound these government agencies into submission to do information sharing.” Her proposal that an NGO, public-private partnership, rather than a solely government-led approach to address the growing cyber security risks, was also interesting.

Bill Bratton, former Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Dubbed by many media outlets as “America’s Top Cop” for having led the police departments of Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, I think Bill Bratton surprised everyone at the program when he explained how the terror attacks in Mumbai, India caused him to change the entire structure of the LAPD. His interview with CNN’s Jeanne Meserve detailed how 60 days after those attacks, he was able to transform his police department with new training, exercises and more. The relatively simply trained Mumbai terrorists were not interested in holding hostages; in fact, they were using so-called negotiations to buy time to kill more people. This showed Bratton that he had to change how his department was positioned to respond to a similar event, should it occur in Los Angeles.

Michael Leiter, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center

For a man that much of Washington thought would have his head handed to him following the failed information sharing efforts surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack, Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), displayed all of the skill and confidence that make him one of a few Bush Administration appointees to successfully transition into the Obama Administration. His description of his job, his work with the President to report on the range of threats to the country and how he thinks information sharing needs to work made this particular presentation one of the most revealing and compelling of the entire program. Interviewed by Michael Isikoff, a former Newsweek reporter and now Chief Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, ended up producing some great back and forth between the two men that was as revealing as it was humorous. This session again explained more about Leiter’s job and the mission of the NCTC than any government report or Congressional hearing to date.

Border Security Panel

Despite the countless GAO and IG reports and the many hearings before the U.S. House and Senate, there was no better overview of America’s border security than a panel made up of:

Bob Mocny, Director of DHS’ US VISIT Program;
Mark Borkowski, Director of CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI); and
Steve Oswald, Vice President of Boeing.

These three gentlemen described what worked, what didn’t, what could be better and what the future may look like on programs that have regularly been making news for years. In presenting the details of these newsworthy programs, they did so with none of the drama or hysterics that are so often associated with the Congressional hearings that have exhaustively covered the respective programs. What each of them said frankly offered more substantive insight than any of the previous Congressional hearings have produced to date. That was an observation made not just by the conference attendees but also by the first-tier media, congressional staff and others who have observed each of these respective programs closely. Truth be told, if you want to know what is really happening with US VISIT and the Secure Border Initiative (minus the belligerent questions and political posturing), spending 90 minutes watching this panel when it is aired on C-Span will be time well spent.

Attending News Media

As I mentioned, the conference was a literal “who’s who” of notable current and former national and homeland security leaders, and the same could be said for the attending members of the media. With CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, the Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu, Newsweek’s/NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, and more, it seemed as if there was a representative from every major news outlet, print and broadcast media in attendance. While many of them were there to serve as session/panel moderators for the various parts of the program, the entire forum was a reservoir of information for them on today’s security concerns and a background on the actions of the past. It was also a treasure trove for journalists in developing future sources for national and homeland security news stories.

Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security

After consecutive 12-hour days of literally (albeit pleasantly) waterboarding attendees with tons of substantive content, it’s hard to figure out how to end a program such as that in Aspen, but they picked a great closer in former DHS Secretary Chertoff. Whether it was the fact that he’s been out of office for almost a year and half and doesn’t have to worry about a 2 AM phone call from National Operations Center about someone doing something vile to the homeland, Chertoff’s candor and demeanor crystallized for everyone the seriousness of the threats we face while also assuring we should continue to go about our regular lives. As one of the very few “senior statesmen” on homeland issues that we have in this country, his conversation with Fox News’ Catherine Herridge conveyed the balance that we need to have when planning for and operating against the range of risks we face.

A wondering disappointment

I can say without doubt that I loved every moment at the Aspen Institute, but I can’t sign off without discussing the one disappointment that I and many others had in the presentation by DHS Deputy Secretary, Jane Holl Lute. Whether it was her discomfort at the conversational interview format led by CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, her fear in the week after the McChrystal debacle, not wanting to say anything to cause problems for herself or the Administration, or the fact that maybe she was having a bad day, her presentation left the overwhelming majority of attendees scratching their heads in wonder as to the real story at the Department.

All of the questions that were asked by Meserve were fair and nothing was out of the ordinary, but Lute’s responses were defensive, sometimes evasive and could have been dramatically better. Time and time again in her hour long session there were questions to which she could have responded with hard and fast examples of the Department’s accomplishments. Instead, she offered simplistic, almost apple-pie like anecdotal responses that left the audience wondering why she wouldn’t answer the most basic of questions.

When she stated, “the [U.S.] border has never been more secure,” and offered no facts to prove that statement, portions of the audience looked around at one another in shock while others openly chortled at the declaration.

When it came time for Q&A with the audience, the tenor of her responses seemed to be even more defensive. When Michael Isikoff asked her about her statement on the border’s security and her metrics to prove that it had never been more secure, Lute seemed to bristle at the question. She firmly retorted, “The Secretary has been very clear on what those metrics are,” and effectively cut him off.

Lute’s response referred to the speech Secretary Napolitano delivered at CSIS the week before, when she declared, “the U.S. border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo.”

In that speech, Secretary Napolitano detailed a series of metrics to back up her statement, but none of those were shared by Lute with Isikoff or the observing audience. In speaking with Isikoff and some of the other attendees after her remarks, none of them were aware of the CSIS speech and the metrics behind the powerful declaration. To the credit of the Department, Bob Mocny and Mark Borkowski did an exceptional job during their joint appearance on the Border Security panel explaining why DHS leadership is stating things have improved on the border.

It is certainly a debatable point to make a declaration like the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have made in recent forums about border security. When you back it up with information and facts, it provides some measure of credibility and fosters informed debate. When you state it and don’t want to defend it with facts, it leaves people wondering why you would state something like that and not be able to prove it. After her appearance in Aspen, a lot of people were left wondering about the Deputy Secretary, and after viewing her session either on-line or on C-Span, I expect there will be a lot more.

Final thoughts

All of our time is valuable, and God knows we don’t have enough of it, but if you can set your DVRs to record the Aspen Security Forum or go to the Aspen Institute webpage and download panels for your Ipod/MP3 player – DO IT. Think of each of the respective sessions as graduate level courses shared by esteemed faculty who have the real life scar tissue and experiences to tell you what happened and what we can all do better. If you do, I’m confident you will walk away from each session with a lot more knowledge and a bit of a mild headache too. That’s what pleasant informational waterboarding will do to you, but I have to say, it is much more enjoyable amongst the mountains and beautiful vistas of Aspen.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Terror Finance, Terror Strategic Analysis, Transportation Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments