Signal Magazine, 05 January 2006
More than 4 years have passed since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, and no consensus yet has been reached on what constitutes homeland security. Suggestions range from the ability to recover in the wake of a terrorist-induced catastrophe to the complete freedom from fear of any kind of terrorist attack.
Neither is there a defining consensus on who should be responsible for homeland security. Many diverse organizations are involved through longtime missions that have been tailored for counterterrorism, and others are adjusting to new and unfamiliar taskings. Ensuring that these organizations work together under U.S. laws is another challenge.
Technology plays a major role on both sides of the conflict, of course. The United States is counting on bringing its information supremacy to bear against its shadowy adversary. And, that foe is exploiting information technologies in its efforts to bypass defensive measures and inflict maximum damage on an innocent public.
But what the war on terrorism comes down to is how the United States—and the Free World as a whole—will define homeland security. Is homeland security complete freedom from fear, to paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Or is it really a global form of risk management?
Achieving total security may require financial expenditures—including those for more extensive overseas military operations—beyond the reach of even the richest nation on Earth. Defining the ideal homeland security architecture for diverse federal, state and local government organizations also may be an ever-elusive goal.
And, there is the issue of civil liberties. The public may have to face the daunting proposition that impenetrable security probably is not possible without forfeiting virtually all of the civil liberties that define a free country. More than 200 years ago, Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” No one wants to destroy the country in order to save it.
The founding fathers were wise in their establishment of the Constitution and its basic protections, but they would not want to see their ground-breaking efforts to build a better nation disappear at the hands of an enemy that hides behind the very system it seeks to destroy. Much work remains to determine the proper balance of laws that continue to protect the rights of citizens while simultaneously denying terrorists any shelter within those very same protections.
Meanwhile, as the country continues to work out the long-term details, the war on terrorism goes on. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence organizations at home and abroad keep on maintaining their vigilance and establishing measures designed to deter attacks. Industry continues to introduce new technologies and capabilities tailored for the fight against the unyielding enemy.
And the result may be public acceptance that the risk can never be eliminated. The nation may be able to continue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it may never be able to do so without experiencing substantial loss of life from an occasional act of terror.
Achieving perfect security may require too high a price—financially and socially—to pay. The public accepts that no endeavor in life is risk-free. Even though the death toll in an airline crash makes headlines, people do not shun commercial flights. More than 40,000 people died in automobile accidents in the United States last year, but people are driving as much as ever. People are willing to accept some degree of risk as a normal part of their lives.
The United States has been fortunate in that, as of this writing, it has not been victimized by a major terrorist action since the benchmark attacks in 2001. That period of safety has been characterized by effective deterrence in the form of preventive law enforcement measures; international cooperation to deny terrorists easy travel and financing; and pre-emptive military operations offshore to remove enemy sanctuaries.
But make no mistake: The war on terrorism will be long and costly in more ways than one. It is entirely possible that the United States never again will suffer a terrorist attack equal to or greater than those of 9/11. But, it is more likely that the nihilistic murderers will succeed at least one more time in inflicting mass casualties among innocents. If that does happen, then the people of the United States must recognize that it is merely one battle in the long war. Many more remain to be fought or prevented, and a single setback does not translate to defeat. At the end of this war, the winner will be the one that survives intact; the loser will disappear from the world scene. Because of that absolute verdict, the United States will win because it has the resources, it has the will and it has the support of most of the countries on Earth. And, most importantly, it will win because it has no choice.
-----------------------
Citation: "Defining Homeland Security," Signal Magazine, 05 January 2006.
Original URL: http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/mod_print_view.cfm?this_id=509335&u=signal&issue_id=000103968&show=F,T,T,T,F,Article,F,F,F,F,T,T,F,F,T,T
-----------------------