Please download to view attachment
Topic 1: Reflecting on the Reports and the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security After reading these reports, are you surprised at the level of information that was known and the predicted threats? Within the context of these reports, what should the government have done differently to be prepared for the 9/11 attacks? And was the creation of DHS the right response to the 9/11 attacks and are they the correct response for the future? Read one of my classmates’ response to give you idea. I am honestly shocked at how much knowledge the government had before 9/11. I believe, though, that there were too many departments that were not communicating with each other. The FBI, the NSA, the CIA, among other alphabet organizations all needed a unified database (ACLU, n.d.). All of the bits of information seem quite lackluster until they are all put together. Unfortunately, too often these pieces are only put together after the fact. Communication is always key. Every agency wants credit for foiling a nefarious plot, but that should be the furthest thing from their minds. These departments and agencies should want to work together to create lasting security for our country instead of fueling their own egos. The blame is not solely on the agency heads, however. Bureaucratic dealings force their hands. Every agency wants more funding, and they are all too often underfunded to begin with, but there is always a race to get credit for catching a terrorist so that department will get more funding. The Department of Homeland Security was a necessary creation so that in the future there will be a more unified intelligence community, one that can piece together these bits of information and possibly prevent terrorist attacks, both foreign and domestic. References ACLU of Massachusetts. (n.d.). What went wrong? US intelligence failings. Retrieved from https://privacysos.org/listoffailings/ Topic 2: Threats and Hazards Threats, man-made hazards, and natural hazards are very different, yet DHS has authority to deal with all three of these. In what ways is it good for DHS to be dealing with “all-hazards/threats” and in what ways is this structure bad? Read one of my classmates’ response to give you idea. As our text says, a hazard is a source of danger (Bullock, Haddow & Coppola, 2017). How DHS mitigates these dangers has both good and bad aspects. Since their purpose is to keep the country safe, it is important that the department has authority over how these disasters are dealt with. However, no two disasters have a one-size-fits-all solution, making the authority of any one department both a blessing and a curse. It is vitally important that agencies like FEMA know how to handle every eventuality, but this task is virtually impossible. No one department can successfully plan for every disaster because that would entail predicting the future, and the best anyone can do is make an educated guess. Contractors can send inspector after inspector to assure that a building is sound and will not fall, but if an anomalous tornado destroys it, is it the fault of the contractors? No. The tornado was not planned for because the barometric pressure can only be predicted, not guaranteed. The same goes for human behavior. There are no guarantees that a particular terrorist attack will be carried out, and if a department displaces hundreds if not thousands of citizens for a false report, then those citizens’ lives were drastically altered for nothing. It is a delicate balance between careful planning and cursory reaction no matter what the hazard. Reference Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., Coppola, D. P. (20170204). Homeland Security, 2nd Edition. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://9780128045107