It came as a slight shock to me to learn today that the President of Guinea-Bissau was assassinated late Sunday/early Monday in the United States.  The fact that he was assassinated is not what is shocking; the military blamed him for involvement in the assassination of the head of the Armed Forces recently and there was sporadic but increasing fighting over the weekend between the military and the President’s supporters.  Guinea-Bissua has a population of only 1.7 million and is one of the poorest nations in the world.  It is sandwiched between Senegal and Guinea, and the recent events has prompted condemnation by the EU’s head of foreign policy, Javier Solana, and the assembling of both the Council of Portuguese speaking nations and ECOWAS.

What is shocking is that there has been no mention of the assassination all day on any of the major new networks.  While Guinea-Bissau is, apparently, insignificant compared to all the stories on CNN, MSNBC, including the box office success of Tyler Perry’s latest movie and the release of the Jonas Brothers movie, I would have thought the threat of turmoil – regardless of the undertakings by the army to stay loyal to democratic principles – in a key transhipment point for South American cocaine would be worthy of note, of assessment and certainly of even passing comment.  One has to wonder was the media simply inept in missing the assassination, embarrassed to mention it without being able to bring live coverage, or believed that the US public didn’t care and didn’t care to explain, or even to simply mention.

In this very public new era of the US Administration we can only hope that the Obama Administration will be leading by example and tackling issues forward, rather than waiting until they directly affect the US, its citizens and their votes before becoming involved.

If you ever want to know what’s a priority in Washington the old adage, “follow the money” will tell you very quickly.  That little phrase holds true again especially when it comes to cyber security and DHS.

Yesterday, the President released his budget plan and DHS’ Cyber Security efforts received a whopping 21% increase.  Jill R. Aitoro’s article, “Obama proposes big increase in cybersecurity spending at DHS” offers some of the available details.

FEMA Administrator David Paulison will hold a social media press conference through Twitter on Monday, January 12th at 3 PM. Mr. Paulison will communicate using FEMA’s Twitter account @FEMAinFocus, and will open the floor to questions after making a brief opening statement.

When: Monday, January 12, 2009 from 3 – 3:30 pm EST
Where: www.twitter.com/femainfocus
Who: FEMA Administrator David Paulison

For more details, see the press release here.

If you’re like me, you no doubt are back at work trying to get restarted on your ‘To Do’ list following the Holiday Break. While shaking off the fog, hustle and break from the office of the past several weeks, you may have missed some pretty big things that have occurred in the homeland security world. Some of these items will have some far reaching ramifications for the incoming Obama Administration as it takes the reigns of the federal government in just under three weeks.

DHS’ Publication of a Federal Register Notice for the Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program

For those who have followed the issue of DHS’ Private Sector voluntary preparedness efforts, December 24th brought an early Christmas present when DHS finally released its long-discussed and long-captive Federal Register Notice on the Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program. Known to many as the Title IX effort (because that’s the section of the 9/11 Recommendations Act, [Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121] establishing the voluntary program), this announcement has been a long time coming. Ever since the 9/11 Commission issued its Final Report endorsing the American National Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs (NFPA 1600) as a National Preparedness Standard, the discussion and debate about private sector preparedness has grown considerably.

There are many in the private sector who see the recently enacted legislation under Title IX as another creeping set of regulations that will be imposed upon businesses.

On the other side of the debate are those companies that ascribe to private sector preparedness standards and guidelines as part of their regular business operations.

Regardless of whose side you’re on, the fact that companies and organizations of all sizes and types are discussing their preparedness is a great thing. It is a conversation that can only further benefit the resiliency of the nation.

House Chairmen Entering the FEMA Octagon

While it may lack the brutal drama of three rounds in the UFC Octagon, whenever you get Congressional Committee Chairman facing off against each other over jurisdiction or some other contentious issue, it promises to be exciting, especially for us Beltway types. This particular battle has implications far beyond the Beltway as it is over the future of FEMA and whether it remains as part of DHS.

On one side of the ring is 18-term Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar who is Chairman of the House’s Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, one of the most powerful committees in Congress. In a December 17th Memo to President-elect Obama, Chairman Oberstar argues that FEMA should be removed from DHS and be a Cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the President.

On the other side of the ring is 9-term Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson who serves as Chairman of the House’s Homeland Security Committee, its newest committee. In response to Oberstar’s Memo, Chairman Thompson issued one of his own on December 19th to President-Elect Obama calling for FEMA to remain part of DHS as part of an integrated and cohesive homeland security structure.

It’s not unusual for there to be differing opinions in Congress, but to have two Committee Chairman (of the same political party) square off publicly like this is unusual. Stay tuned. The bell is about to ring (and I’m in a full-throated roar cheering for Thompson in this fight).

Chertoff’s Best Speech

DHS Sec. Chertoff will never be remembered as one of Washington’s most stirring or passionate orators, but he gave by far the best speech of his nearly four year tenure at Georgetown University on December 18th. In delivering his reflections on the Department’s accomplishments in 2008, Chertoff went the extra mile to deliver one of the most thoughtful and analytical assessments about our national approach to homeland security.

Every Cabinet Secretary can deliver the perfunctory speech about what their department does and the difference it makes, but Sec. Chertoff had the fortune of being able to take his listeners back to the days prior to 9/11 to show them how we did business ‘before,’ and how we needed to dramatically adjust in the ‘after.’ He did the same when reflecting upon the events surrounding the much maligned Katrina response.

His fortune (or mis-fortune as some might call it) was that he was there in key roles in both circumstances. History will judge every one and every event over time, but in listening to his speech, the often quoted line of George Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” came to mind.

As the Secretary shared the history and lessons he experienced in his Georgetown remarks, I couldn’t help but feel he was reading the Transition Memo/Letter that he had written to his designated successor (but has kept private). His candor about those particular situations, the painful lessons learned and the remedies that were employed were delivered succinctly and without any hesitation or regret.

All too often when political transitions are underway, we are so excited about the new person(s) and ideas coming onboard that we overlook the offered words and lessons of those who have been there and are exiting their positions of authority. It would be a tremendous mistake for anyone on the Obama Team, particularly DHS Sec.-nominee Napolitano and those who are part of her team, to overlook what Sec. Chertoff offered in his December remarks.

Furthermore, I would hope the people and forces that are part of the FEMA Independence Movement would sit down and really read what was offered in this speech. They might just realize that turning back the clock to another day and construct is not what FEMA, DHS or the American public really needs to secure the homeland

The Cluelessness of the New Republic

Contrasting the value and worth of Chertoff’s remarks is Jeffrey Rosen’s article in the December 24, 2008 edition of the New Republic, ‘Man-Made Disaster.’ My first read of this article had me in fits, especially when he called DHS a “more-than-$40-billion-dollar-a-year-pacifier;” and stated that “DHS officials inevitably feel pressure to exaggerate the terrorist threat;” and “the department is hard to justify with any rational analysis of costs and benefits.”

While I may not have liked the article, there were a few points of value that Rosen offered, including his recognition of the continuing problem of Congressional oversight of DHS; the challenges associated with cargo screening mandates, as well as his very last paragraph on the need for improved self-reliance and resiliency. Those points aside, the fact that Rosen sees the Department’s moves and actions in the post-9/11 and post-Katrina world as simply ‘theater,’ just reinforces the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ mantra when it comes doing the mission of homeland security.

I’m someone who believes DHS’ actions (as well as those of other public and private sector members) are not theater but rather necessary steps to secure what we have from all types of threats, conditions and hazards. Not all of the actions we taken have made me happy (I’d like to keep my shoes on at the airport, thank you), but I’d rather be momentarily inconvenienced than risk my life or that of my family’s to someone trying to commit an unimaginable act with a plane again.

All of the actions we have taken in the name of homeland security merit consideration and vigorous debate, but pooh-poohing them as psychological theater as Rosen describes is a slap in the face to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in jobs large and small to protect our nation.

I’m sure he will find ABC’s TV Series, Homeland Security USA to only reinforce his low opinion of what DHS has been doing for the past five years. It’s my hope that audiences will see what these people do as valuable and see charges of theater for what they are – ‘clueless.’

Something the Secret Service Cannot Stop

While each of the items I’ve mentioned over the Holiday period were all of a serious nature we did find out one other important fact about our nation’s homeland security operations.

For all of the incredible pressure, professionalism and performance that the US Secret Service execute daily in protecting our nation’s executive leadership, we found that there is one threat that they can not protect against – and I’m not talking thrown shoes.

As evidenced by the blizzard of Internet posted photos from their Hawaiian vacation, the Obama family and in particular, our soon to be Commander in Chief, was found to be caught in the cross-hairs of the paparazzi who never stopped taking shots of him.

With coverage like this, it’s going to be a very interesting four years.

Happy New Year to all.

Recently, Security Debrief contributor, Scott Weber, spoke with Francis Rose of Federal News Radio’s “In Depth” about the appointment of Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Scott spoke about this recent post titled, “Department of Homeland Insecurity? Don’t Make It So, Governor”.  You can listen to the interview here.

The RNC Welcoming Committee, which describes itself as an anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, announced the purchase of tasers to equip rioters – excuse me, ‘members and friends’, – during the upcoming Convention.

This raises two equally worrying possibilities.  The first is that the organization has absolutely no intention of deploying tasers and published the linked article as a pointed piece of literature poking fun at their adversaries, the Minneapolis PD.  This is worrying because they have provocatively provided the Minneapolis PD with completely reasonable justification to use pre-emptive tactics to suppress that weapon system.  This should not happen until a threat is clearly identified, but no one, particularly not police officers who have been tasered as part of their training, relishes the idea of being tasered on duty. Minneapolis PD will not only have to brief the threat, but also create appropriate tactics to deal with the system.

The second possibility is that they actually intend to deploy tasers.  This is a little more futile than it sounds, given that tasering an officer with a PLASTIC shield, plastic riot systems and body armour requires significant skill in striking an officer somewhere where it is effective, but the use of tasers against police officers is likely to bring greater displeasure from the authorities than simple public nuisance charges.

What is most worrying about the RNCWC is its unwillingness to be part of the political process.  The management of an event like the Republican Convention requires working with all interested parties, including those who wish to protest, in order to create an effective platform for all.  The clear intention is to be offensively disruptive. Not making use of the right to protest but instead preparing to fight and riot is a perversion of the right of free speech – the kind of activity that is driven by sheer self-interest on the part of the coordinators.

My advice to any PD and security elements is to work with the local community, to gain common ground and provide the opportunity for all to meet their goals.  For those who will not participate in such negotiations, the security forces must be prepared to deal with any eventuality in a professional and appropriate manner; create the conditions to allow peaceful protest while being able to deal with the more violent elements.  There are a wide variety of techniques to achieve this; the Minneapolis and Denver PDs must be prepared to use them all.

Following up on an earlier post commenting on protesters opposed to the Chinese government’s actions in Tibet, it seems that as reporters fan out and come to understand the causes and effects of the riots in Lhasa that then spread to other towns, critics are, to paraphrase the FT.com, ‘Trying to understand what happened in the days leading up to the riots’.

What happened is simple. The Tibetans wished to protest the occupation and their treatment at the hands of the Chinese. The Chinese did not want that to happen, and so moved swiftly to suppress peaceful protest. When peaceful protest is forbidden, violent protest will eventuate. There is one more step in the chain; when violent protest is forbidden and suppressed, an insurgency will start. The introduction of mobile telephony to Tibet will only enable the insurgency to operate more effectively, but by using methods unpredictable and unforeseen by the Chinese authorities.

This insurgency is unlikely to start today or tomorrow. However, if the Chinese authorities continue to maintain their current stance, at a time when the eyes of the world are upon them, it is likely – not certain, but likely – that the next step is an insurgency, unsure at first, perhaps a soldier killed here or there, a patrol or barracks overrun for the weapons, but it could grow quickly, given the strength of feeling now obvious in Tibet. That a riot was allowed to happen is regrettable from the Chinese perspective, because now the Tibetans understand the potential effect of violence, particularly when it is likely to be tacitly supported on the international stage.

What should the Chinese have done? This rhetorical question is asked and answered from a tactical and operational standpoint only, not a political one; the Chinese authorities should have recognized the level of feeling and created a platform for the Tibetans to feel that they had vented their frustration. They did not do this, and so a moderately difficult public order situation is about to become exponentially worse, and there will be significant support from outside organizations seeking to push support and resources to the Tibetans simply to ‘make mischief’ for the Chinese.

Those who wish to protest must be given a platform to do so. The wise politician and police commander does so, and uses the ground and situation to their advantage in order to limit the potential damage, both political and physical, that the protestors can do. The Chinese failed to do so, and unfortunately for them are likely to reap what they have sown.