|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |

Sign up for Security Debrief Newsletters



Archive for the ‘Ideology & Public Diplomacy’ Category

« Older Entries

Let’s Not Talk Nonsense About Cyber

Friday, August 20th, 2010

A recent blog post on Wire.com by Kevin Poulsen, “Cyberwar Against Wikileaks? Good Luck With That” was brought to my attention by a good friend. She nominally just wanted my thoughts on the provocative article, but in effect, challenged me to blog on the subject. So here goes.

The genesis of the “controversy” was not the release of the mountain of leaked documents by the WikiLeaks folks, but rather, some of the response it had provoked, and that created a connection to cyber. A pundit had opined in the Washington Post that the U.S. Government had the cyber capability to “prevent WikiLeaks from disseminating those materials.” He was referring to the slightly smaller mountain of documents that have been so far held back (on the advice of newspaper leadership types). These specific articles are apparently potentially more injurious to innocent folks than those already released.

OK, so the pundit was suggesting that President Obama authorize government entities to turn WikiLeaks computers into silicon bricks? Come on folks, educated people should not talk nonsense. Could we “attack” the website’s servers, computers, and other digital infrastructure? Yes, we probably could. That defined a target is well within the capabilities of several different parts of the government, but why in the name of all that is anchored in reality would any President ever do it?!?

Even if you skip right over that pesky free speech and freedom of the press stuff, just from a policy standpoint, it would be entirely self defeating. Using cyber capabilities to silence those with whom we disagree is exactly what privacy and civil liberties advocates fear most about the development of our cyber defenses. If anyone in the administration convinced the President to do this, it would forever torpedo the efforts to husband these capabilities for use in protecting the nation from our external enemies.

Was the release of the Afghanistan documents harmful? Yes, but not hugely so. The documents are for the most part low-level tactical reports at the SECRET level – not exactly the Pentagon Papers of this generation.

What the young soldier who released the documents did was illegal. He had a security clearance and had signed numerous non-disclosure agreements that go with official access to classified material. He knowingly broke federal law and the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. He should and will be prosecuted. But the military failed in its screening of this individual and in its supervision of him. As a result, he took actions that he may regret in the future.

WikiLeaks, however, made no such non-disclosure agreements. I am not defending what they did, and I wish they had not done it. Their actions have hurt the reputation of this country, our efforts to free the Afghan People from an oppressive ideology (however imperfect those efforts may be), and may in the long run get innocent people killed. If the online outlet’s ambitions to publish the documents in full had not been tempered by more mature and experienced news people, it would have been worse.

Basically, the U.S. Military must suck this one up and do a better job of securing its classified documents (they are far easier to steal and transfer than ever before). Clearly, if we have legal recourse to keep other documents from being leaked, we should take them, but nothing more. We must also work even harder at screening our personnel and then monitoring them for signs (public Web postings for example) that they might be considering illegal actions. If anyone is considering taking extra-legal actions involving our cyber capabilities, PLEASE put that option aside. Nothing good would come of it, and lots of damage would be done.

Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

A Mosque of a Mess – Absence of Candor at Ground Zero

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Twenty years ago, I graduated from college as a double major in political science and religion.  When asked by family and friends what I intended to do with those degrees, I explained that I wasn’t quite sure, but I knew whatever I did I was pretty sure to tick someone off by something I said at a dinner table when either subject came up.

Politics and religion have always been lightening rods in life, and the twisting of both issues in the current debate over the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero has proven true the standing axiom that you shouldn’t mix the two.

The debate being fought on cable news shows, talk radio, the blogosphere and water coolers has put America’s always restless role in religion front and center. For a country that believes in the separation of church and state and was founded on the principal of being able to worship or not worship the religion of your choice, our country has long segregated faiths and religions by geography, education and societal norms. While our country has certainly “evolved” in recognizing all people’s civil rights, we can be downright primitive in our categorization of one another’s ways of worship.

Let me state very clearly I am not one of these people that believes the Muslim faith preaches hate, murder and intolerance. Now, there are undeniably elements within Islam that preach and live by such putrid codes, but there are just as many people in the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religions that are in lock step with such less-than-reverent behavior.

Sadly, there is not a religion on the planet that has not been victimized by extremists of some sort, who have taken whatever religious text they deem holy and twisted it into some sort of holier-than-thou justification for violence, murder or other nefarious purposes. Furthermore, every religion preaches respect and tolerance of others, and this is another area where we all fall remarkably short.

Such is the debate we have today.

In the sweeping rhetoric that has gripped the recent mosque debate, I’ve sadly not heard much distinction between those who are fighting for the soul of Islam against the extremist elements as those who seek to perpetuate it. For many in this debate, they’ve created a simple equation that Islam = anti-everything we stand for and have fanned whatever flames they’ve wanted to fan.

The fault for this condition lies in the hands of everyone involved in the current debate. From those who are against it, because they believe the mosque will be a trophy center paying homage to the 9/11 attackers, to the organizers/developers behind the project.

If the mosque organizers had proactively come forward at the beginning of this national debate to say their facility was about reclaiming their faith from those who bastardized it to justify mass murder, while also educating the public about the widely practiced non-violent aspects of Islam, the tenor of our national conversation on this subject would be remarkably different.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. The lack of candor and disclosure by the mosque organizers/developers about what they stand for, who is funding the project and what they believe has only created an information vacuum that has been filled with inflammatory rumors and rhetoric from every corner.

For as much as I believe that there is a right for the organizers and developers to have a mosque in lower Manhattan, I also believe the organizers and developers have failed in appreciating the sensitivities that people have for blood-stained soil. They have fallen into the same traps that Wal-Mart has fallen into time and again when it tries to build stores near historic properties; that a group of Catholic nuns fell into when they wanted to build a chapel adjacent to a Nazi concentration camp; that Disney ran into when it wanted to build a theme park near some of Virginia’s hallowed Civil War battlefields; and so on.

Any piece of land where blood has been spilled has a cultural radioactivity to it that cannot be appreciated until someone steps on it for purposes other than homage to those who died on it.  Once tread upon, emotions become raw and reasonable dialogue and understanding is often the first thing out the window.

That’s where we are today.

It is my hope that the developers/organizers will select another site that will enable them to tell the world what Islam is really about, what they stand for, and so forth. By doing so, they can demonstrate that their faith has tolerance and respect for others. An actionable demonstration of that respect and tolerance for what has been deemed by many as “hallowed ground” would go a long way in muting some of the rhetoric of the past few weeks.

Unfortunately, the developers/organizers current practice of silence and lack of candor plays to the worst of fears and suspicions of people and that allows the anger and hostility to perpetuate even further.

Politics and religion have always found ways of doing that, but that is something I learned a long time ago.

Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Management & Administration | Comments

For Victory over al Qaeda, Build the Mosque at Ground Zero

Monday, August 16th, 2010

By Justin Hienz

Radicalization and violent jihad are phenomena intimately linked to the United States’ homeland security efforts. Those who buy into transnational terrorism’s violent ideology are threats to America, but just as important to U.S. security is how the American public understands and responds to Islam.

On Friday, President Obama weighed in on the continuing debate over whether to allow construction of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York City. Celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan with invited guests during a Friday dinner, the president said:

“I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan.”

A strong statement. A bold statement. A statement of leadership on our country’s values. In commenting on the proposed mosque (albeit indirectly), Obama sent a message to the country – the mosque should be built because our national principles demand it. Well said, Mr. President.

But then, on Saturday, Obama amended his statements for reporters. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, he said:

“‘I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque” near Ground Zero. ‘I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.’”

Did I miss something? His position on Friday seemed fairly clear, particularly because the mosque-in-NYC issue had been made so salient by constant media coverage. What else could he have been talking about? Yet on Saturday, the President’s stance was far less sure.

For those unfamiliar with this matter, the debate revolves around whether an Islamic Center can be housed in a building planned for a location two blocks – 45 Park Place – from where the Twin Towers once stood. The building would be open to all faiths, and the proposed name, Cordoba House, refers to a Spanish city where Muslims, Christians and Jews once lived together in peace.

Nevertheless, headlines have focused on the key words “mosque” at “Ground Zero” because it grabs attention and sells. This has served to inflame a national debate, with known opponents of the mosque sticking dead on message, peppering remarks with dramatic key words. There have also been other instances throughout the country where communities have argued against the construction of a mosque in their neighborhood.

A CNN/Opinion Research report shows that 68 percent of those surveyed oppose the mosque. While the question’s wording is somewhat leading, 68 percent is still a significant number, even with a wide margin of error. The ongoing debate reveals a great deal about how some Americans view Islam.

To be sure, those objecting to the Islamic Center are opposed not simply to the new place of Muslim worship but to the idea that anything related to Islam can safely exist so close to the site of al Qaeda’s greatest victory, without dishonoring the dead. This viewpoint is flawed, because it is based on a misunderstanding of religion generally, Islam specifically.

Islam, like all other religions, is dynamic, not static and monolithic. It is diverse across regions and has changed throughout history. More importantly, the concept of “Islam” (much like the concept of “Christianity,” et al.) is not standard across the world. An individual’s religious beliefs are unique to themselves because how a person interprets their faith is guided, in part, by forces in their environment, such as economy, lawlessness, poverty, etc. No person’s belief is identical to another’s, and so, to understand Islam as a singular idea and motivator is incorrect.

There is no legal, ethical or American justification for refusing the right to build an Islamic Center at 45 Park Place. It is ridiculous to oppose a house of prayer on the grounds that it is Islamic, citing the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers as evidence of Islam’s inherent problems.

Denying the Islamic Center is tantamount to denying the construction of a Christian church (of any denomination) near the site of the destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for blowing up the federal building) was Christian, but do you expect we would hear the same outcry if the site of a proposed church was adjacent to where that building once stood?

What we are encountering here is an emotional response, fanned by the media, revealing that, even a decade after the attacks on September 11, some Americans still just don’t get it. They don’t understand that al Qaeda and other terrorists are the Timothy McVeighs of Islam. Radicalized believers draw no more support from Muslim communities than militant Christians do from the global Christian population.

Debate is healthy. It’s one of the best attributes of the American social tradition. But if this debate leads to either 1. An action that prevents the construction of the mosque or 2. Further anti-Islamic attitudes preventing an American Muslim’s basic rights, then we have dishonored the memory of those who died on 9/11.

It means we have allowed Osama bin Laden, his followers and other enemies of America to construct a false opposition between Islam and America. “The Narrative,” a monstrous ideology advocating an inherent conflict between Western society and the Muslim faith, is what al Qaeda and other enemies of America believe. We must not perpetuate this lie by suspecting and fearing Islam. We must see clearly that the tragedies on September 11 were the product of terribly misguided people. The bastardized interpretation of Islam that they used to justify their actions does not reflect what most of the world’s one billion Muslims believe. Period.

If this mosque is not built (or if it is protested after it is built), then Osama’s greatest victory was getting Americans to believe what he believes – that there is a war between America and Islam. But if the mosque is built, we honor those killed, because it shows that we are continuing to triumph over bin Laden’s lies. Neither he nor his ideology has a home in America.

Had the President not made those weak-willed statements on Saturday, his initial endorsement of the mosque would have been a step in the right direction for the American people’s perception of Islam. Now more than ever we need authoritative voices to take a consistent stand and guide the public towards a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the Muslim faith.

Justin Hienz is Managing Editor for Security Debrief and a Senior Account Executive at Adfero Group.

Justin Hienz is Managing Editor for Security Debrief and a Senior Account Executive at Adfero Group.

Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Management & Administration, Radicalization, Terror Strategic Analysis, 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

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

NASA’s Mission to Muslims

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

Having worked as a NASA contractor and as an employee, I like to think there is not much that happens at America’s Space Agency that doesn’t surprise me. I was wrong. The recent Al Jazeera interview with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had me staring into my Blackberry screen to make sure it was not another hilarious out-take by The Onion. Unfortunately, it wasn’t and, even the editors of The Onion had to be wondering, “Why is this guy encroaching into our turf?”

In the interview, Administrator Bolden shared that President Obama directed him to do three things:

“”One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”

Like any die hard space enthusiast, I am fully committed to boldly go where no one has gone before, but I never thought that meant catering to one ideology or theology.

Despite the dramatic competition that was the space race to the moon in the 1960s, the human adventure in space has been one of the most transformational and compelling actions we have ever had. Every continent, country and people could take pride in some form of study of the stars, but to select one particular people and their religion and work “to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science… and math and engineering” is political pandering in the worst way.

For all of the good intentions that may be in the President’s direction and Administrator Bolden’s heart for wanting Muslims “to feel good,” I’m more than certain that people of the Muslim religion are perfectly capable of feeling plenty of pride in their accomplishments in science, engineering, mathematics and so forth without the help of a U.S. government official.

If you want people to feel good, respect them – don’t pander to them. People, no matter their religion or ideology are smart enough to realize when you respect them and when you are needlessly sucking up. No amount of pandering (and that’s what it is) by a senior Administration official is going to restore or improve the standing of America in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Having had the pleasure of working at NASA for many years, I can attest to the fact that if you wanted to feel good it was exceeding your requirements; doing the research and hard science; executing your mission and sharing the lessons learned with those who wanted to learn more about our universe as well. Those were (and remain) daily actions completed by Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of other religions (or no religions) that were proudly part of the NASA team. Nowhere in any of those actions did it include pandering to any particular people or their faith. Adopting it as one of the “foremost” missions of the Agency is to boldly go where we don’t belong.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Watch Your Mouth – Words can be the Real WMDs

Friday, June 18th, 2010

As every person knows, words have consequences. They can raise someone up or tear them down. Depending on how they are used, words can change the meaning and significance of events. They can also ruin someone’s career, and the past days and weeks have given us example after example of just that.

In each of these instances, prominent people have essentially opened their respective mouths and inserted their feet with such speed that everyone around them is in a collective gasp of shock, saying, “What did you say?”

Important points can be instantly invalidated when the wrong words are used at the wrong moment, regardless of what the speaker intended with their comment. Each of the above mentioned cases proves that without a doubt, but it’s not just prominent people who say the wrong thing at the wrong time. For all the countless (and recent) examples of famous people saying something improper in front of live microphone (e.g., Vice President Biden’s F-bomb); a television camera (e.g., CA GOP candidate Carly Fiona opining on Sen. Boxer’s haircut) or some other public venue (e.g., NV GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle), everyone one of us has some episode in our lives that we would love to take back, when we opened our own mouths and promptly inserted both feet.

All of those examples and events certainly provide moments of public (or private) laughter and fodder for late-night comedians, but when the wrong words are used in moments of stress and crisis (e.g., Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan conflict), their consequences are graver.

Accomplished careers can be vaporized in an instant. With a perpetual 24-7 news cycle and social media replaying the gaffe forever more, the wrong words become in effect an epitaph that will forever haunt an individual (e.g. “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job,” “As of now, I am in control here in the White House,” and “Let them eat cake“).

None of this is fair but neither is life. It is a fact of life that in times of crisis, words can cause more harm to a situation than the event that originated the crisis. Making it worse is almost never the intent of the person who opens their mouth, but when operating in any highly toxic environment where crisis and stress are the unfortunate operative norm, what you say does matter in ways like never before.

That’s a fact that no one can be or should be cavalier about either. Everyone can fall victim to this situation, but words have consequences. They always have, and that’s why they can be the ultimate weapons of mass (and self) destruction.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

Another Mexico Victim: Mission Trips

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

With summer quickly approaching, many church groups are making plans for the various mission trips that they sponsor for adults and youth. For the people who participate in these annual trips, they are more than a chance to get away. They present opportunities to engage communities in the United States and around the world and work on various service projects that help their fellow human beings. In the United States, places like post-Katrina New Orleans, Appalachia and other areas with economic challenges and post-disaster problems have benefited for years from the fellowship of many hands repairing old structures, building new ones and bringing faith into action.

Mexico has also been a place where many mission trips have taken place. For years, churches of all types have traveled south of the border to aid impoverished communities with irrigation systems for farming, building construction and repairs, and other projects. These Mission trips are often times in addition to the trips sponsored by churches and other charities that bring healthcare services to people who can not afford it or do not have access to it. All of these actions are emblematic of the human charity and decency  that every religion preaches and that we are all capable of achieving. Unfortunately, such grace and generosity has now become another victim of the on-going violence in Mexico’s increasingly bloody drug cartel wars.

Like those at my own church, Heritage Presbyterian in Alexandria, VA, mission trips planned for this summer are being canceled on account of the unrest south of the border. While there have been no publicized or direct threats made to specific missionaries or charitable groups, the uncontrollable violence makes each visiting mission trip a prime target by the warring drug cartels for kidnapping, assault and murder. In short, anyone and everyone is a target in Mexico.

Not a day goes by when gruesome headlines about the ongoing Mexican violence are not available for us to see. Furthermore, when U.S. consulate officials and Mexican public officials, police officers, military personnel and regular citizens are daily targets, there is no chance that well-intentioned Mission groups will not find themselves in the crosshairs of violence.

In hearing my church make its announcement about canceling this summer’s mission trip to Mexico, there was genuine heartbreak and disappointment at being forced to make this difficult decision. For the past several years, Heritage members have traveled to repair homes and improve infrastructure in Mexican villages while also assisting with healthcare and educational services, which are few and far between. Their efforts, like those of other congregations around America, have been an incredible lifeline to people who desperately need help.

While the needs of many of these people remain ever-present in Mexico, the ongoing violence makes it next to impossible to support any type of humanitarian service operation in that country.  To go there puts the well-intended in harm’s way and risks bringing further pain and hardship to those who already have it hard enough.

Needless to say, it is politically sensitive for anyone in the U.S. government, particularly the U.S. State Department, to advise against visiting Mexico. As one of our country’s leading trading partners and a destination for thousands of American tourists, it would cause a firestorm of controversy if the Secretary of State where to step in front of a bank of microphones and say, “Stay away from Mexico.”

While the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, Defense, etc. have all made numerous public comments about the unrest raging in our southern neighbor, political diplomacy necessitates carefully worded statements of support and warning about what is happening there.  Furthermore, a declarative statement of the kind mentioned above would communicate a complete lack of confidence in Mexican President Calderon’s ability to secure his country. No one from the Obama Administration would understandably want to do that, but when communities of faith cannot go into a community to perform public service projects that serve those in dire need because they are not safe, you know how fragile the situation has become.

History records that people of faith have long risked their lives to promote their respective religion’s views, but few if any churches are willing to risk the lives of their members in today’s Mexico. When comparing that decision to those early missionaries who indeed risked it all for their faith, some might call such actions cowardice. It’s not. Rather, it is a painful act of courage in recognizing that there are those times when stepping forward to do good may cause more harm.

Heritage’s decision and that of other congregations is an uncomfortable realization that by going to Mexico, they risk giving the drug cartels an even more lucrative target – do-gooder Americans who can be kidnapped, ransomed and even murdered. If that were to occur, an already uncontrollable situation would become even more so. Staying away is the safest and most sensible option any mission organization can make under the current circumstances.

It is also a difficult decision because people who need a hand will not be getting it. They remain trapped in a culture of violence that spares no one. Their victimization is only further multiplied while hands across the border, ready to serve, remain out of reach.

Until this situation is ultimately resolved, there is only one thing the hands on both sides of the border can do. Pray for it to end.

Posted in Border Security, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Narcotics | Comments

Could Goldman Sachs be the Next “Major Threat to Homeland Security?”

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Have Goldman Sachs focused on their operational risks to the exclusion of all else, to the extent that their destruction is now politically convenient in the current US climate, and what tools could be used to achieve that end?

I began, two weeks ago, by writing a blog entitled “Has Goldman Sachs caught the Blackwater Disease?” However, the more I explored the issue, the more I believe that the implications stretch wider.  While I am not a fan of the concept of the “Perfect Storm,” I do believe Goldman Sachs has ignored non-financial risks at their peril. This blog is not a reflection on whether Goldman Sachs are good, bad or indifferent; it is a reflection upon how disregarding all risks can create the conditions to destroy a company, just when that company appears to be at the top of its game. This blog explains those conditions affecting Goldman Sachs, makes comparisons with what happened to Blackwater, and explains how the downfall of Goldman Sachs as they are today might be affected.

Unlike the health care bill, immigration or the wider economic woes of the country, the conduct of the investment banks and how they brought the U.S. to the edge of financial collapse is an issue that can be made personal. Thus far, Capitol Hill has cried foul about “investment bankers” and criticized the banking industry, but they have not targeted any one institution particularly.

Simultaneously, the TEA Party is rising. The TEA Party recently held their first convention, which has been likened to a first date – the various groups have been communicating for a while, and now they want to see if they can work together. The TEA Party is increasingly being seen as a voice for the silent majority that whilst long silent, now want their country back. They demand a return to responsiveness to the electorate by politicians and the cleaning up of Washington, DC; the finance industry is the significant designated bad guy.

It is not a great leap to understand that the TEA Party, representative of the silent majority, must be a very attractive demographic for a President and Congress that have alienated many over the healthcare bill, are looking down the barrel of mid-term elections and need to begin to repair that damage. They need a scapegoat, and at the moment, there is truly no scapegoat bigger than Goldman Sachs.

There have been a range of allegations in newspapers recently, not least in the New York Times. The role of Goldman Sachs in the downfall of AIG and their profiteering from it, their financial engineering of the Greek debt, and then shorting as a result of their knowledge and other allegations, all contribute to the image of Goldman Sachs as an organization committed only to their bottom line with no thought for their country, Main Street or the welfare of anyone but themselves.

Goldman Sachs stand by every action they take as being both legal and in the interest of their employees and shareholders. An investment bank with their influence everywhere, their profit margins and bonuses are driven both by advising and market participation. The reports about the AIG relationship are that their active reluctance to seek a third party valuation and setting low valuations on arrangements with AIG hastened AIG’s demise. Not only did these acts hasten AIG’s demise, but a percentage of those funds went to GS to settle obligations – obligations that have since significantly increased in value, making GS more money on the backs of the taxpayer.

Just as Eric Prince was perceived to have influence at court through his relationship to the Republican Party and the White House, so Goldman Sachs is perceived to have influence through the penetration of its alumni into government – the joke “Government Sachs” isn’t so much a joke as a loose description.  Hank Paulson ran Goldman Sachs, Tim Geithner came from there, as did Neal Kashkari, who ran the original TARP fund. It does not take a conspiracy nut to argue just how much GS profited from the decisions of the organizations, “off the taxpayer’s back.”

Thus far, there have really only been allusions as to these relationships and their effect on government policy.  However, desperate times call for desperate measures, and one can effectively argue that the Democrats are getting desperate. Since gaining control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, it’s easy to perceive that they have done nothing with them, and the loss of Senator Kennedy’s seat to the Republicans must have sent shock waves through the party.

“When a president realizes he can achieve nothing domestically, he turns to foreign policy” (with grateful acknowledgement to Arthur Hodgeson); when a Democratic president is under pressure, he finds a fall guy. For Clinton, it was Microsoft and the anti-trust showdown. For President Obama, it may well be Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs is a strong, well-financed institution that is positioned to fight such demonization and investigations hard, but, ironically, that makes them all the more worthwhile a target.  A strong fight played out in the media where the Democrats can lay the corpse of Goldman Sachs, painted  as the root of all evil that brought about the downfall of the modern financial system, would play well with certain demographics.

The movement would start with more formal investigations.  Do not forget, the media component has already begun in the New York Times and other media profiles and investigations, just as it did with Blackwater.  At some point, when instinct or numbers suggest it is time, a Congressional Committee or two will begin to become officially interested, and a Special Investigator will be appointed.  At that point, it will be clear the game is afoot and sides will be drawn. The Special Investigator may find evidence of activities that are contrary to the interest of the United States and its citizens, and here, it becomes interesting.

Just as RICO has been put to some very interesting uses over the years, the Patriot Act is drawn broadly; in the wrong hands with a passionate agenda and sufficient evidence that the interests of the US were compromised, it could be that Goldman Sachs are open to a form of asymmetry that, until now, they never contemplated.  It’s clear nothing would give many in the country greater pleasure than television pictures of Goldman Sachs executives in handcuffs, arrested under the Patriot Act for the wrong done to the citizens of the United States.

What is the comparison to be drawn, it will be argued, between attempting to kill a couple of hundred people on a plane and driving millions into joblessness and across the poverty line?  Questions of the role of the government and its responsibilities will come into play, and provide a wider pulpit for the Democrats to argue just how seriously the Republicans forsook the nation over the past decade. I understand that many will dismiss this scenario as a fiction that “could never happen here.” To those people, I suggest they return to Tom Clancy and remind themselves of how someone flying a plane into a building can only be fiction.

Goldman Sachs would fight, and most outside Wall Street may underestimate just how much fight an organization that regards itself as elite has and is prepared to use to protect its position. When confronted with death, an organization will do whatever it takes, and Goldman Sachs certainly has the influence and muscle to go all the way – personally, actions such as trying to get the President impeached and flooding the electorates with anti-incumbent advertisements (thanks to the Supreme Court) would be the tip of the iceberg.

How were the conditions for this demonization created?  Goldman Sachs, in pursuing their operational goals of financial success for the firm and their shareholders, lost sight of the bigger picture.  Perhaps they have such confidence in their power and financial base that they believe the Government and elected officials would never vilify them, and under normal circumstances this would be true.

However, these are not normal circumstances and normal perceptions simply do not apply. I again emphasize that this is not a recommended course of action nor a judgment of Goldman Sachs, but simply an explanation of the worst case scenario for them –one that seems to be slowly growing in likelihood each day.

How did this come about?  It appears that Goldman Sachs, true to their culture, focused on the financial risks to themselves and their clients. They aggressively control downside risk, and equally aggressively grasp opportunities, or the upside risk. However, financial and operational risks are not the only risks that affect a business, and the other risks are changing in just as volatile a manner.  Understanding this is critical to businesses, and an important argument for non-core components of businesses in demonstrating their relevance.

That Goldman Sachs have caught the Blackwater disease of being the personification of an industry at the wrong time is certain; the question is what will happen as a result.  The real question is whether one regards this scenario as likely, and commits the ultimate heresy of shorting Goldman Sachs.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration | Comments

New York’s Terror Trials – Lessons from Nuremberg

Monday, January 4th, 2010

I was watching a History channel documentary on the Nuremberg trials recently … because that’s the kind of weird stuff I do on weekends, which my wife and children do not appreciate. As fascinating as it was to me, my five-year-old felt that it did not live up to the standards of Spongebob Squarepants. Fair enough. However, I do believe it offered some insights and “teachable moments,” as our President likes to say, when it comes to the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of the bloody terrorists held at Guantanamo. In particular, the example of Hermann Goering as the leader, apologist and chief propagandist of his own gang of war criminals.

Let’s put aside the matter of whether holding the trial of some of al Qaeda’s most ruthless associates on American soil is a good idea or not. Whether it creates an irresistible temptation for their brethren to make a statement on the streets of New York City, the very den of the Great Satan. Whether it gives foreign war criminals undue access to America’s justice system, in which technicalities can be twisted and deformed by clever attorneys to clear the way for acquittals of clearly guilty criminals. Whether it presents the grandest stage of all for some of the world’s most effective propagandists.

The decision to hold the trials in New York has been made. So instead, let’s focus on what can be done to minimize al Qaeda turning the trial into a publicity bonanza for its radical and violent agenda. Imagine Khalid Sheikh Mohammed cross-dressing as Hermann Goering, and we might imagine and prevent some of the ways in which the al Qaeda operative plans on turning this venue to his advantage.

From the outset, Goering staked out a claim to be the leader of the defendants at Nuremberg. He would use this position to inspire and intimidate his fellow defendants into following his defiant lead and presenting a unified front. Perhaps because he was indeed one of Hitler’s right-hand men, the prosecution played into the hands of Goering’s claim to be the spokesman for all and seated him at the head of the dock, thus ensuring his prominence. In doing so, perhaps the prosecution thought it was setting Goering up for a more dramatic fall when he was found guilty. (There was about as much expectation in 1945 that Goering would be found guilty as there is today for Mohammed). The result, however, was to highlight Goering’s twisted charm, provide him with a bully pulpit for his propaganda, and cement his authority over the other prisoners.

Mohammed should not be given the same kind of elevated status, despite his role as the self-proclaimed mastermind of September 11. The very fact that he already brags about his role as the leader of this atrocity suggests he plans to embrace his prominence with as much swagger as possible. If we play into his hands, he too will be given an undue opportunity to dominate the trial and intimidate the other prisoners. He should be thrown into the middle of the gaggle of thugs, no more prominent than any of the other criminals, just another small-minded murderer and crackpot who believes that God has ordained his violence. The world is filled with men who believe God wants them to murder for some holy cause, and Guantanamo has a disproportionately high number of them. Why give Mohammed a unique status as some kind of super-terrorist and interpreter of the sins of the West in the name of God?

Another mistake from the prosecution during the Nuremberg trial was to bring in too many lawyers with too many documents to prove their case. Such documents are important, clearly. However, when it comes time for a trial, to engage the public debate, the prosecution must find the right balance between overwhelming the public – and make no mistake, regardless of the venue, this is about making a case to the international public – with a mind-numbing swath of legalese and paper, and highlighting the key evidence that will capture the public imagination. Reviewing the Nuremberg case: At the very same time that Goering was at his manipulative and rhetorical best, the prosecution was swimming in a sea of documents. The documentary film maker pans his camera across the courtroom during these periods, and even many of those folks in the room, in the midst of this historic proceeding, were stifling yawns.

Be selective about what evidence is necessary to be put on display. And every prosecution team should include a public relations professional who can provide input on the strategic messaging that emerges from the evidence trail. Certainly, the lawyers should have the final say, but they should be given guidance from those who aren’t too close to the laborious period of research and discovery. In the case of some attorneys and law enforcement officials, one is reminded of PhD students defending their doctoral dissertations, unable to leave out the slightest fact or even trivia that may bolster their case – no matter that the overall message gets lost as such details are hauled forth in layer after layer.

It was not until the prosecution moved on from paperwork, no matter how important, and displayed visual evidence – photos and film of the horror of the concentration camps – that it was able to recapture the public imagination – and condemnation of the prisoners. Documents and rhetoric, no matter how damning and brilliant, can never match the power of images. As difficult as it may be for the American public to live through 9/11 again, the United States should come prepared with a diverse library of visual evidence. The courtroom – the literal one in New York, as well as the larger one of public opinion – must be left outraged and aghast at the horror inflicted by Muhammed and his fellow terrorists.

Finally, and most importantly, the officers of the court must not allow Mohammed to turn the courtroom into his grand stage. If a criminal proceeding is the decided venue for bringing Mohammed to justice, then he must be afforded the same opportunity to defend himself as other defendants. Otherwise, the entire proceeding can too easily be dismissed as a kangaroo court. However, he should be given no more latitude than absolutely necessary.

One of the most interesting insights into the Nuremberg trial was that the judge, Francis Biddle, perhaps in an effort to prove the superiority of the American system of justice over the tyrannical and corrupt Nazi system of justice, bent over backwards to give the Nazis every opportunity to strut and propagandize. Under normal court proceedings, the prosecutor is given leeway to interrupt, inject and generally box in the defendant. Biddle repeatedly gave Goering free reign to marshal all of the charm and intellect at his disposal and to often turn the prosecution on its head.

Equally, important: The United States better come prepared with prosecutors who are as charismatic and egotistical and willing to engage in theatrics as we can expect the master propagandists of al Qaeda to do.

“If you all handle yourselves half as well as I did,” Goering boasted to the other prisoners, “you will do all right.” The prosecution was forced to bring in a trial attorney who was as crafty and quick on his feet as Goering before the trial was able to get back on track and the prosecution was able to regain the upper hand.

The BBC provides an excellent insight into just how well Goering took over the proceedings at Nuremberg and manipulated the prosecution, even the chief prosecutor, Robert Jackson:

When it came to his cross-examination [Goering] prepared carefully and in the opening exchanges with the American chief prosecutor Robert Jackson he emerged an easy winner.

So frustrated did Jackson become with Goering’s clever, mocking but evasive responses that at the end of the session he threw down the headphones he had been wearing to hear the translated answers and refused to continue.

I am not convinced that giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a criminal trial, with all the trappings enjoyed by American citizens, is the proper course of action. Al Qaeda launched an attack on America more bloody and atrocious than anything we have seen since Pearl Harbor. Nobody suggested putting the Japanese in court. It has been suggested that trying al Qaeda via a military tribunal will elevate the organization to a level of legitimate war fighters. Well, al Qaeda is a band of war fighters. They have no qualms about targeting innocent civilians; they make no exception for children; they have no conscience and do not respect the Geneva Convention nor the concept of crimes against humanity. Nonetheless, just because they do not use conventional tactics does not make them any less a militant band of terrorists who have declared war on the United States and have repeatedly shown a willingness and competence to execute that war. What is the old axiom about not re-fighting the previous war?

Nonetheless, a criminal courtroom has been chosen as the venue. That being the case, the United States should come prepared to expect a show trial, to expect preening and theatrics, to expect al Qaeda to turn this venue into the greatest propaganda venue ever handed them. And we better come prepared to beat them at their own game.

Posted in Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration, Radicalization, counterterrorism | Comments

Interview with Chertoff in 2009 Year in Homeland Security

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Rich Cooper, Security Debrief contributor and Principal with Catalyst Partners, recently published an interview with former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in the 2009 The Year in Homeland Security.

Below are some highlights from the Chertoff interview. You can read the full interview, along with other Cooper articles, by visiting the 2009 The Year in Homeland Security.

Mr. Secretary, looking back at your nearly four years of service at DHS, what are the accomplishments that you are most proud of and what were some of your greatest frustrations?

Michael Chertoff: Well, the bottom line, the accomplishment that was most significant is the fact that we did not have another successful attack against the United States. I think in many ways that’s the ultimate measure. At a somewhat less high altitude, I would say we dramatically changed and increased the security for people coming into the country. We transformed the way we deal with people at the ports of entry, not only bringing 10-print biometrics into effect, but also biographic collection and analysis based on commercial airline data.

We have more robust requirements for crossing our land border in terms of documentation, and even between the borders. You know we built 630 miles of fence, more than doubled the Border Patrol, and according to the reports I got from the Border Patrol just about a month ago, there’s been essentially a two-thirds reduction in the flow [of illegal immigrants] across the border. In some areas where we used to have thousands a day, there are now five or six a day.

What’s the most serious threat to the homeland today, and how do we address it?

Michael Chertoff: In terms of consequence, I would say biological terrorism is the most serious threat. It’s not a threat that I think is imminent, although we’ve had an attack in 2001 with anthrax. It is also one which would not be impossible to fabricate in a short period of time because the raw material for a biological attack occurs in nature or you can just have the know-how. So I would say if it was of high consequence, that worries me the most and I do become concerned.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Party-Crashing Salahi Couple Provide a Chance for House Homeland’s Moment in the Sun

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

It’s been observed by many over this past year that the House Homeland Committee has lost a lot of its ‘umph.’ It’s hearings, while covering a range of important issues, have not garnered much attention or for that matter, resulted in some of the big policy and programmatic changes that some of the Congress’ other committees have produced in the same time period. There may be many reasons for that.

Part of it is the on-going jurisdictional battles the House Homeland Committee has to face with more powerful committees (e.g., Transportation & Infrastructure, etc.).

Another reason is the departure of some very senior and distinguished committee members (e.g. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) – the smartest guy in Congress on cyber security issues, etc.). As a result, the Committee has not had much time in the sun. That will change on Thursday morning and all because of two egocentric, reality TV wannabes who showed up uninvited to places they don’t belong.

Bumping an already scheduled hearing, “Moving Toward More Effective Immigration Detention Management” with the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) has called the entire Committee membership together to grill U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and America’s newest pariahs, Tareq and Micheale Salahi, about what did and did not happen last Tuesday night at the White House State Dinner.

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked and publicly answered about the protection of our President, his family and Heads of State. God knows there are probably a few members of the White House staff and Secret Service who have been transferred to a radar station in Nome, Alaska as a result of the Salahis selfish and self-indulging behavior (“Look at me! Look at me!”). The fact remains, however, that this is a horrific breach of security, and it is my sincere hope that Thursday’s hearing addresses this issue rather than becoming a finger-pointing show trial-circus – which it has every possibility of becoming.

I can picture much of the questioning already. There will be the raised voices of several members, all waving their hands and arms expressing how serious they take this matter. (My money is on Reps. Peter King [R-NY], Chris Carney [D-PA], Bill Pascrell [D-NJ], Jane Harman [D-CA] and Mark Souder [R-IN] as being the most “animated.”) All of it will make for great YouTube highlights and quotable quotes for the 24-7 news cycle. Their “animation” is certainly deserved, but this is the moment for this Committee to show its value and maturity and not stoop to some of the TV performances we have seen in many past congressional hearings.

If Thursday’s hearing becomes just a session to beat the hell out of Director Sullivan and further mock the Salahis, the Committee will blow the opportunity they have been given. If the Committee membership doesn’t think Mr. Sullivan knows the consequences of what could have happened with other ill-intentioned gate crashers, they are kidding themselves. Sullivan and the entire Secret Service know the costs and are already moving faster than Congress could ever imagine correcting the failures of last week.

As for using the hearing to further mock the Salahis, that’s a waste too. These two people don’t merit any more attention than they have already received. There are as many owed creditors, disgruntled family members and employees willing to talk about them and expose them for what they are as there are media outlets willing to saturate us with every gross tabloid detail.

It’s ultimately up to Chairman Thompson on how this all turns out, depending on how he runs the hearing. My hope is that he grabs this opportunity to show that the Committee is deserving of more respect than it receives from its congressional peers and the larger homeland community. If he’s able to keep Thursday’s assembly from turning into a TMZ-media circus, he will have seized the opportunity before him. If he doesn’t, I’m sure the writers of Saturday Night Live will be at the ready to chronicle whatever unfolds and turn it into something we will all be talking about next week.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Congress Heal Thyself (Con’t – ad nauseum)

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Once again it is time to revisit the issue of Congressional meddling into the operations of DHS.

As has been well established by many commentators, myself included, the only item from the 9-11 Commission’s Report that has yet to be implemented is the consolidation of congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.

Yesterday another former DHS official joined the one-sided debate. Greg Garcia, former assistant secretary of cybersecurity and telecommunications at DHS, said that Congress had treated DHS like a “whipping boy” in its “hyper oversight” activities – hindering the Department from fulfilling its mission. As reported by NextGov this morning, Garcia participated in a roundtable event where he “called out” Congress to practice what it preached to DHS officials. Apparently Garcia does not grasp the concept Congress has rarely taken its own advice – freely dispensed to others but rarely taken to heart in its own operations.

Sadly, it is no longer news that Congressional oversight is based upon a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude.  Hypocrisy does not find a monopoly on Capitol Hill, but it surely seems to be comfortable there. That is a very difficult reality for idealists.

Still, Garcia is right in pointing it out and I ,for one, am happy to have him join the debate. Now if only someone in Congress would respond in a manner other than scheduling another hearing or calling for another private briefing with DHS officials.

Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

The Other Threat to the Energy Industry: Environmental Protester Preparations for Copenhagen 2009

Friday, October 30th, 2009

While there has been a sustained effort to protect the energy industry, particularly nuclear facilities, from terrorist attack, in the run-up to the Global Environmental Conference in Copenhagen later this year, another threat is emerging – environmental protesters.

Greenpeace alone has a solid record lately of anti-whaling and related activities, but their environmental activities against power stations globally have been less prevalent in the last decade. This is rapidly changing. During the G8 Summit in Italy in June, Greenpeace occupied four coal-fired power stations and a coal ship in Italy and draped a banner over Mt Rushmore. At the G20, they conducted a banner drop from a bridge in Pittsburgh. They’ve conducted effective protests at Tar Sands Oil Extraction facilities in Alberta, Canada and banner drops at Niagara Falls. Most recently, they managed to infiltrate the UK Houses of Parliament, gain access to the roofs and welcome Members of Parliament back to work with banners draped around the building.

Greenpeace is joined by other groups, including Camp for Climate Justice, which organized the attempts to over-run and shut down the Ratcliffe-On-Soar power station and the occupation of Didcot this week (both in the UK).

Recent targeting has been broad; trains and ships delivering fuel to coal-fired power stations have been targeted, as have the offices of energy firms, their suppliers and associated businesses. During the Climate Camp in August, the offices of a PR firm that works for E.On was occupied.

The threat to energy is primarily financial and operational, and like all protesters, environmentalists are asymmetric in their approach. They find either targets of high emotional impact or photogenic targets likely to be regarded as low-threat for terrorist activity, and therefore, security that is more easily penetrated. While some facilities may have lower security standards, the financial ramification of being out of commission for a few days is nevertheless significant.

It doesn’t take much to disrupt an energy facility. Tactics such as hanging personnel from structures, creating obstruction and other activities pose risks to energy facilities. Although there has been an increase of non-confrontational tactics in some instances (e.g., at the Tar Sands, the protest was conducted, positive media achieved and everyone gone by the time the police arrived), in other locations, they have been prepared to stay in place for days.

At this time, energy firms should be reviewing their procedures and tactics for dealing with protesters and the tactics they will likely use.

Sam Rosenfeld is the Chairman of the Densus Group; the Densus Threat Centre produces the Demonstration Report and Threat Analysis, a bi-weekly report of recent activities that identifies trends and makes recommendations about planned activities and likely threats. Details can be obtained at www.densusgroup.com, or by e-mailing demonstratorthreat@densusgroup.com.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Law Enforcement, Radicalization, counterterrorism | Comments

RT = Revived Traveler?

Friday, October 16th, 2009

During his confirmation hearing Thursday, the nominee for Administrator for the Transportation Security Administration Erroll Southers indicated his strong support for a risk-based Registered Traveler program.  His confirmation appears pretty likely so hopefully his arrival at TSA will signal a new willingness to consider RT and other risk-based programs at the TSA checkpoint.

The tortured saga of RT is pretty well known.  Just as private sector providers had built out a promising network of airport locations, over 200,000 loyal subscribers, and an impressive regime to biometrically-verify pre-approved travelers at the checkpoint, TSA pulled the rug out from RT in the summer of 2008.  Then Administrator Kip Hawley discontinued the security background check of the program, meaning applicants were providing both biometric and biographic information that was never even reviewed by DHS for security risks.  Viewing RT as solely a front-of-the-line program, investors grew increasingly skeptical of the financial viability of RT as month after month went by at the end of the Bush Administration and then as the Obama Administration waited eight months to nominate Southers.  Finally, in June, investors in the major RT provider, Verified Identity Pass, pulled the plug on VIP’s CLEAR service and the collapse of their RT network brought down other smaller players as well.

The reluctance of TSA to support the RT program came during a time when TSA made great strides in strengthening the other aspects of its layered security regime for aviation. RT applicants still would be operating in an environment where TSA is deploying a myriad of counter-terrorism programs including: Secure Flight pre-flight watchlist reviews, behavorial profiling teams, checkpoint security equipment, baggage screening equipment, canine teams, air marshals, trained flight attendants, strengthened cockpit doors, and armed pilots. The RT security background check would be just one aspect of vetting RT applicants flying aboard commercial aircraft.

Of course TSA has made a reasonable argument in warning against turning off portions of the security process that might detect a “clean skin” terrorist with no record.  However, TSA needs to review what changes at the security checkpoint can be made if they have the impact of having millions of travelers provide significant assurance that they are not a threat by passing an initial and daily background checks and confirming their identity at the checkpoint. The current TSA position requires even individuals with the broadest security clearance possible to get in the same line, see the same screeners, and utilize the same machines as a transiting load of international passengers who just arrived from a country know to host Al-Queda cells. This makes no sense.  Congress appears to agree, including language in the House-passed TSA Reauthorization bill that would require TSA to review the viability of RT.

While airport wait times have decreased in past year due to declines in travel and improvements in TSA processes, TSA should look to RT as a powerful tool when the economy recovers and our airports and skies are more crowded than ever before.  There is also a powerful linkage with the CBP Global Entry expedited entry program that could be developed to maximize travel facilitation and demonstrate a unified DHS agenda.

The comments of Mr. Southers are a promising start to a reevaluation of RT.  The private sector is ready to provide the funding and marketing to build an effective security partnership if TSA and DHS are willing to rethink this important issue.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Sticks and Stones

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Dear Congress:

Over the past year, you’ve made me (and the world) serve as unfortunate witnesses to the death of political civility.  At a time when the economy is in the toilet, when we’re fighting (and perhaps losing) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when healthcare is becoming a fading memory, and we’ve got to worry about Ahmadinejad trying to get his hands on a nuke with all the fervor of a Wall Street fat-cat chasing down a government bailout, you seem more concerned about finding ways to belittle one another than fulfilling the oath to serve.

For a group of soothe-saying silver-tongued pros, Congress has been diving so deep into the rudeness dumpster that you’re making Kanye West look like a southern gentleman.  Gone are the days when elected officials understood that representing their constituents with dignity was part of the job; that in addition to serving as a voice for the people, you are supposed to be exemplifying what’s good about our nation.

After calling the President a liar, steamrolling the minority for no other reason than because you have the numbers to do it, cheering America’s loss from Olympic consideration, rolling your eyes when discussing a bipartisan solution to winning the war in Afghanistan, and booing the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to our national figurehead (despite the fact that he never even asked to be considered for it) the nation is awakening to a sad truth – nothing is getting done!

Stop your incessant need to do anything and everything possible to help  “the party” get, add, control, or maintain a higher number of seats than the “other” side and start doing your job.  To put it in terms you’ll understand, stop acting a bunch of bratty toddlers and get to work.

Sincerely,
America

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, 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, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

Thai court considering ‘Merchant of Death’ release

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Today, the Washington Times published my editorial piece on the potential release of Viktor Bout, also known as the “Merchant of Death,”  from a Thai prison.  Many US and international agencies believe Bout poses a significant threat to our national security, and I could agree more.

Washington Times Op-Ed: Thai court considering ‘Merchant of Death’ release

If Americans think we have problems with the recent disruption of a suspected terrorist cell in New York, they haven’t seen anything yet.

An appellate court in Thailand appears primed to uphold a recent lower court ruling that will unleash Viktor Bout, universally known as the “Merchant of Death,” back on the global community. To say that Bout is upset with the United States after spending more than a year in a Thai prison would be a gross understatement.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Council (NSC) and the Department of State, not to mention the United Nations, many other countries and several international human rights groups, had been tracking Bout for several years, and all believed he posed a formidable risk to our national security and the global community.

Bout, whose legendary character is the basis for the movie “Lord of War” and the subject of the highly successful book “Merchant of Death,” has been held in prison since his arrest by Thai authorities. Bout, who many intelligence experts think is a former KGB agent, fell for an extraordinarily complex DEA undercover operation that lured him from Russia to Thailand for the sake of consummating a major arms deal with undercover DEA operatives, who he thought were representing the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Read the full op-ed from Michael Braun at WashingtonTimes.com.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

Capabilities, Not Uniforms, Are What Matter on the Border

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Jurisdictional in-fighting has a lot to answer for.  The pursuit of bureaucratic dominance after 9/11 gave us the divorce of counter-terror from counter-crime, creating a duopoly that is massively expensive in terms of money, manpower and effectiveness.  Illegal immigration and smuggling are becoming a major focus of manpower, and runs the risk of the same bureaucratic wrangling that sacrifices effect and efficiency in the name of departmental primacy.

Let me be clear – it’s of less importance which department protects the border – what matters is that the border is effectively protected. 

This isn’t a question of the military versus law enforcement in terms of managing the border – this is about the fundamental principles of how the US Government addresses and solves problems.

I certainly understand Wendell Shingler’s argument that policing the border is a law enforcement responsibility, and don’t disagree with that fact.  However, the question should be whether law enforcement, under their current manpower, structure and budget, are able to fulfill the role.  If they cannot, then they have to be given support until they are able to build sufficient internal capacity to manage on their own.

This blog focuses on the discussion of capabilities – a capability is the integration of doctrine, policy, training, personnel, equipment, equipment support, logistics, media operations, political effort, intelligence operations and any other considerations required to “close a capability gap.”  In other words, all the pieces of the puzzle needed to solve a problem.

The perceived requirement to decide between a military or law enforcement solution is a completely false one, and must be examined at length.  Posse Commitatus, like so many laws, had its time and its place.  However, here it complicates the situation without adding operational or political value, and this debate is going to recur as the discussion develops about the military brigade tasked with domestic operations in support of disaster relief or other tasks.

Anywhere else in the world there would not be an argument about whether the military or the police should take responsibility for this type of problem.  Instead, the military would be tasked to support law enforcement as part of their responsibility to support the civil authorities in achieving a task of national security.  The military would allocate the specialist capabilities that are far more appropriate to the role than law enforcement currently has in order to allow law enforcement to achieve their mission.  If the problem is seen to be a long-term, and if military capability is under pressure and must be released as soon as possible, a capability development program to assess the problem and then allocate integrated training programs and equipment procurement strategies should be put in place to provide the necessary capabilities for the law enforcement community.

The bottom line is that we should always be thinking of what effect we wish to achieve, and the best manner to achieve that effect given the resources to hand.  Where there is Department lead, as there always should be, the question should be about how to best manage that problem in the immediate, short, medium and long term in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

The Department of Homeland Security should step up, identify what they want to achieve, where they think they have issues and sit down with the military for a no-holds barred “here’s the problem, how can you help us fix it until we’re fully capable ourselves” session.

Government co-operation, not competition, is critical in serving the citizens.  Without cooperation, the eventual resolution of this issue will resemble the bureaucratic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

No Gold Medal in Trade and Tourism

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

By Douglas Doan

The White House says that President Obama is taking the unusual step of personally lobbying the international Olympic committee in order to help create jobs, spur tourism and promote economic growth for the US and especially his home town of Chicago.   Certainly, the President should promote trade and tourism, but it is a pity that he can’t get DHS fully on board and willing to make a similar commitment.

Trade and tourism to the US have never returned to pre-9/11 levels, and foreign tourists cite the tedious, inefficient, and frustrating DHS policies at our airports and ports of entry as the biggest turn offs, resulting in several billion dollars a year in lost US revenues.  And yet, most curious of all, fixing the problem is not a DHS priority.  In fact, DHS is busy making the problem even worse.

DHS has spent all of its time and effort aimed at the security side of the equation and has lost no opportunity to bring new and expanded security processes and equipment to airports and official ports of entry.  These accumulative efforts have, without question, tightened security.  But at the same time, they have caused additional problems and created new frustrations for legitimate trade and travelers.

Take for example what happens at the airport.  International arrivals are immediately queued up to clear CBP passport and documentation checks.  Most often, CBP does not have enough inspectors manning the inspection lanes (despite a nearly 100% increase in operating budget over the past 6 years), so travelers are queued up into longer than necessary lanes.  Once they get through that gauntlet, it’s time to pick up the luggage and then negotiate the next line formed up for baggage control.

Get through that wicket and then it’s time to, once again, get into the TSA line, take off your shoes, belts, put the little bottles in the plastic bin, and move through the TSA gauntlet before hustling down to the gate to catch your connecting flight to Disneyland.   Assuming that a tourist is able to get through all of this without missing a flight, by the time they arrive, the kids are exhausted, and quite often folks start to wonder why they didn’t stay home and escape the aggravation.

Making DHS activities at airports and ports of entry more efficient is not that difficult.  CBP and TSA officers at airports could easily be cross trained in airport operations, allowing DHS to move needed officers to wherever they were needed most to help keep travelers moving.  Our current operations are essentially large stovepipes, with TSA officers doing their thing, CBP officers doing something else, and not a lick of cooperation or resource-sharing between the two.  What a waste.

Unfortunately, neither Secretary Ridge, Chertoff, nor Napolitano has ever expressed much interest (at least yet) in forcing sub-agencies to work together, share resources, and cooperate towards a common goal.  TSA and CBP remain rigid, standalone stovepipes determined to operate as independent agencies.  Equally frustrating, contracts and IT upgrades at our airports and ports of entry are rolled out with a complete disregard towards improving inefficiencies and speeding the flow of legitimate trade and travelers.   The one and only concern is improving security at all and any costs.

Of course, the real irony is that one of the stated goals of Osama-bin laden was to get the US to panic and impose economically, self-defeating policies and procedures on itself.   For those that have forgotten, the Bin Laden specifically targeted American economic might and power.  The World Trade Centers were, above all else, symbols of American economic power that he hope to destroy and “bleed” the American economy.   “Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he said  In subsequent rants, Obama went on to talk about how Americans could be scared into adopting policies and procedures that would lead to our own economic ruin.

Sadly, Bin Laden’s strategy has largely been successful.  The economic damage caused by long lines of stalled trade at our borders, frustrated travelers, and foreign tourists and visitors that have given up on making trips to America, has probably now exceeded the economic damage caused by 9/11.   And we did it to ourselves, giving Bin Laden a victory he did not deserve.

Restoring some sort of balance between the legitimate needs to secure the borders with the simultaneous need to restore the United States position as a nation that welcomes and respects legitimate trade and travel is not going to be an easy undertaking.   In places, like Detroit, Buffalo and southern Texas, foreign visitors once made frequent trips across the border from Canada and Mexico to shop, take in a meal, or go to a sports event.  These frequent crossers are disappearing.  Turns out the hassle, long lines, and aggravation in crossing the border are no longer worth the effort, and these tourists are just staying home.  It will not be easy to change those perceptions.

One bright spot has been the recent unexpected decision by Secretary Napolitano to recruit Maria Louisa O’Connell as an Asst Commissioner of CBP.  O’Connell brings real experience with the trade and travel industry and knows all too well the problems and frustrations, having served previously as the President of the Border Trade Association.  It was a brilliant move and was cheered by trade and travel experts all along the border.  It’s a good start in the right direction.
Too bad that the President did not take some of the DHS officers with him to Copenhagen to press the case for tourism and trade to America.    Now that’s a story that they need to hear.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Anticipating What Is Next In Homeland Threats

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

The Heritage Foundation is holding an interesting series this week focusing on Homeland Security and bringing together a number of people who have served in the early years of the department to share enlightening dialogue on their insights and expertise.

One thing is for certain, it is hard to take credit for what hasn’t happened. In the years since September 11, 2001, twenty-four terror plots have been disrupted in the United States. This is top of mind given recent arrests in Denver and New York.   The thwarted plot looks a lot like a very well planned out attack on major transit that was well along in the planning and, perhaps, even close to the execution phase

Despite these recent developments, the American public suffers from complacency.  As the years pass it is very easy to get in the “it couldn’t happen to me mode.”  The American public should fight this urge – it is essential that we not become complacent.

We seem to be relatively good at learning from our past, but how are we at anticipating what will come next?  September 11th put the focus on airline security, knowing more about the people who are coming into our country, and getting various law enforcement and intelligence agencies talking and sharing information. It hasn’t always been easy, but we’ve made progress and we continue to debate the balance between privacy and security.

Further, Hurricane Katrina showed us that an investment in upgrading critical infrastructure would have been a great move a decade sooner. Instead we waited until an entire city was destroyed.  The positive take away was that we learned a huge lesson. As a result, we are much more focused on protecting critical infrastructure, fostering an ethic of preparedness and practicing for catastrophic events with federal state and local entities at the table.

What will be next? What should we be anticipating, and, are we managing risk appropriately? It is not just up to the government, what are you doing in your life?

October is Cyber Security Month. Cyber terrorism certainly has the potential to bring commerce to a grinding halt and wreak economic havoc. One influential leader from the last administration commented at the Heritage event this week that it will take a cyber 9/11 to get Congress and the executive branch focused on the capability and thought leadership that needs to be developed on the civilian side of the U.S. government.

What about you? Do you bank and pay taxes on your computer? Are you protected? Do you open every attachment that comes through your e-mail? You were planning to get a flu shot, what about computer viruses? Remember Y2K? Everyone thought the world might shut down. What if it happens now? Will you be ready? Have you even thought about it lately?

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Intelligence, International, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

« Older Entries
©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.