GovernmentExecutive.com

The following article was written before the events of Sept. 11. The authors believe the nature of the attacks that day reinforces their argument that an effective homeland security regime requires better coordination among federal, state and local governments as well as the private sector. The article is adapted from a more comprehensive essay in the Journal of Homeland Security.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The breakup of the Soviet Union and the global failure of expansionist communism were supposed to usher in a time when Americans would reap the benefits of having successfully waged the Cold War. Recent events have shown that the United States is less secure against attacks by terrorists and other asymmetric attacks than at any time in its history.

Much has been written on homeland security over the past few years by various commissions, public policy think tanks and agencies. However, almost every report and article has concentrated on a single, narrow aspect of the larger problem. The dialogue has lacked a comprehensive context within which the pieces would fit and make sense. This has limited our discussion of homeland security.

Even the term used when discussing homeland security, "homeland defense," created problems. This focused the initial debate on the Department of Defense as the primary source of solutions. Defense, in turn, focused almost exclusively on national missile defense and consequence management. Although Defense and the military components are essential to a comprehensive solution, they are not adequate by themselves.

Conventional thinking in this country's national security strategy has been based on exploiting only three levers of power - military, diplomatic and economic. This approach has been acceptable for much of our history. Today, these traditional means are proving inadequate. Many current and projected threats involve non-state actors who are not susceptible to diplomatic influence or economic power. Traditional applications of military power may also be ineffective against such amorphous threats. If the traditional Cold War tools are inadequate, the only remaining recourse is to add new capability to the national security toolkit. This new tool is civil authority. Sharing information across all four levers - military, diplomatic, economic and civil--is essential if we are to meet our security goals.

Developing a comprehensive response to the homeland security threat has been hampered by the complexity of the problem and the multiplicity of measures required to effectively mitigate risk. Compounding the difficulty has been the number of different agencies and different levels of government acknowledging some degree of responsibility to act. Following are some guiding principles and steps that could be used to build a larger, more comprehensive national response to the homeland security challenge.

Adhere to Constitutional Principles and the Rule of Law

There is little disagreement with the absolute necessity of this first requirement. As the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century stated, "Guaranteeing that homeland security is achieved within a framework of law that protects the civil liberties and privacy of United States citizens is essential."

The United States government must improve national security without compromising established constitutional principles. Security measures, if carried too far, pose risks that may equal or even exceed those of terrorists and ill-intentioned foreign governments. Extreme restrictions on personal liberties would instill resentments against government, and badly designed border controls could endanger international trade and the American economy.

Use All Four Levers of Power Appropriately

A comprehensive homeland security program would include activities ranging from nuclear counter-proliferation efforts overseas to consequence management operations here in the event of a successful attack. Given the range of actions required and the need to work both at home and in foreign venues, it will be necessary to use all four levers of power. Further, with many responsibilities being fulfilled by state and local authorities and with many potential targets being owned by the private sector, a truly national program will necessarily extend well beyond the federal government.

Employ Risk Management Concepts

Risk is a function of both probability and consequence. Effectively managing risk requires actions to address both. Prevention is aimed at reducing the probability of an adverse event, while consequence management and response capabilities must be available should prevention prove inadequate.

A comprehensive national strategy to meet the homeland security challenge requires both. For example, prevention measures might include such constructs as anti-proliferation and counter-proliferation programs, intelligence collection and deterrence. Consequence management and response capabilities might include an incident command system structure with federal, state and local participants; robust emergency medical response capabilities; military support to civil authorities and economic recovery programs. However, finding the right mix of prevention measures and consequence management and crisis response capabilities is the key to successfully meeting the homeland security challenge.

Select and Implement "Best-Value" Measures

This risk management approach provides the right conceptual framework for developing the comprehensive capability called for by Hart-Rudman and others. However, significant analysis and program development would be required before this approach could produce specific measures ready for implementation.

The first step would be to develop detailed threat assessments addressing known and potential capabilities of our adversaries, our own vulnerabilities and the logistics requirements and likely critical paths in executing attacks of various types.

Understanding the threat in detail will allow us to target the weakest links in order to break chains of events before harm comes to the nation. From this we can select specific prevention measures, based on probability of success rather than self-serving bureaucratic agendas, and determine the resources required for execution.

Another essential analytic task would be to describe, in detail, the likely consequences of various forms of attack, should they succeed. Rigorous analysis would allow us to identify the capabilities, operational competencies and resources, including those not yet available, required for use across the spectrum from prevention to response.

Having identified what needs to be done, the next step would be to determine which agencies and levels of government are most appropriate to carry out specific functions. The key to ensuring that we get the best value for our money is to build on existing agency legal authorities, missions, capabilities and competencies, to the maximum extent possible. Where new legal authorities and operational capabilitiesare required, give them to the agencies best suited to the task by virtue of what they already do, and avoid duplication wherever feasible.

There are those who also believe restructuring is a prerequisite to effecting the necessary cross-functional coordination and to changing priorities at agencies that have historically paid little attention to homeland security responsibilities. The counter to that argument is simple: agencies respond to the policies and priorities of the administration and Congress, as reflected in appropriated budgets. If agencies have not given enough priority to homeland security issues in the past, it is because they have not been told or funded to do so. Of course, in the past, such attention wasn't needed to the degree that it is now.

A more moderate approach would be to acknowledge that restructuring may be needed, but clear assignments, well-defined priorities and adequate resources are absolutely essential.

Many good ideas have been put forward outlining how this nation could deal with specific aspects of the overall homeland security problem. What has been lacking is a more encompassing, holistic view of the issue and a set of principles and a methodology to guide our future actions. While much remains to be done, we have attempted to provide a framework in which the United States can build the comprehensive national response the nation needs.

While adhering to constitutional principles and the rule of law, the President and the Congress can use risk management concepts to select, from among the many options available, those measures and capabilities that provide the best value in safety and security. The key is in understanding the true nature of the threats and using all four levers of power appropriately. The American people deserve no less.