Ensure you state which chapter the question originated from and “repeat” the question prior to answering

Download 21.34 Kb.
Size21.34 Kb.
This is a five-part assignment/discussion question.
Part I

Choose “one” of the chapter review questions from this week’s assigned reading to repeat and “thoroughly” answer. As an alternative, you may choose “one” the critical thinking questions embedded in the assigned chapter(s). Ensure you state which chapter the question originated from and “repeat” the question prior to answering.
Chapter 9, page 580, Review Question 2: “Define in your own words why HSARPA was established, and explain its scopes and objectives.” (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009)
The HSARPA was established by the Science and Technology (S&T) as a centralized organization for the task of developing and testing new technologies, providing advanced implementation of new technologies, and establishing grants as needed for technology implementation (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). It was based upon the Defense Advanced Research Project or DARPA. It focuses on goals of security cyber infrastructure and technology that can be used to allow the United States to combat terrorist and other threats within the cyber space arena.
It has the responsibility of overseeing the funding for the S&T for advanced technological research and implementation. It centralizes its mission on cyber research and development (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). HSARPA invest in programs that offer the potential prototypes and deployment of technologies that allow the DHS and other organizations to be able to detect, deter, and respond to potential cyber attacks and other events.
The HSARPA is the pentacle point under which the DHS relies to protect, monitor, and fund new technological advances. Since it is based off of the DARPA project, it is a natural fit for this organization to work the cyber environment. DARPA was actually the agency that invented the internet (not Al Gore). In the beginning, the internet was designed by the DARPA project to initially interconnect universities and research labs in the ability to communicate research and data faster.
DARPA was also lead agency for many prototype systems that are currently being used today by almost every US Citizen. Some of the advances that were brought to the civilian market that had their beginning within the DARPA umbrella included mobile communications and Global Positioning Systems. Currently, the newest research being done that will eventually hit the public in the “Internet 2”. This network currently is restricted to only select agencies. The Internet 2 design is using radical algorithms and other advances in technologies to reach near instant speed. The last data I saw was indicating that up to 10 Blue-Ray data disk could be transferred over the system in less than 15 to 20 seconds. This would allow potential data transfer of hundreds of Megs of information within seconds. Also the security of the new internet is advanced at 512K encryption and higher without lag.
With the advent of unmanned vehicles, wireless communications, and other high level technology, the amount of data that needs to be transferred as astronomical. Organizations like HSARPA provide the needed funding and support to bring about these advance prototypes to reality. These same technologies eventually will be passed on the American public and the private sector. This in turn will allow for technology sharing and the tools for developers and inventors to create even better technology that will provide both military and civilian applications.

Part II

What can be gained by taking FEMA, and all its emergency management functions, outside of DHS? What do you believe would be lost by doing so?
By removing FEMA and its emergency functions outside of the DHS, FEMA can be allowed to concentrate on its primary mission. That mission is emergency management. If you remember, emergency management is the art of mitigating and reacting to events (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). FEMA has been accomplishing this mission since the 70’s. The problem that FEMA has run into was events that portrayed a bad vision of how they responded to specific events such as Hurricane Katrina and the Twin Towers attack.
If FEMA were to be separated completely outside of the DHS, many of its missions could be potentially better managed. FEMA has over the years built partnerships with the local states. They focus on responding to state and local governments (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). By being allowed to work outside of a big brother atmosphere, they can potentially better respond to state and local events and to help work with these same agencies to plan contingency plans for events.
FEMA would not be forced to concentrate on missions that were downward directed by higher agencies that do not fully understand the mission of FEMA. After the Twin Towers attack, it was discovered that not enough had been done to prepare for a scenario that incurred (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). This caused a knee-jerk reaction by congressional agencies to combine every agency into a single point.
This in turn hurt the mission of FEMA. This was proven during the Hurricane Katrina incident. After FEMA’s handling of Katrina and other deciding factors, FEMA was separated to an extent. This did allow some latitude for FEMA. By further increasing this latitude, FEMA could potentially become the primary point for any event. Because they have had already established communication with state and local governments, they are better suited to assist these same agencies during crisis events that stem from natural disasters to hazardous spills to terrorist attacks (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008).
If FEMA separates from the DHS umbrella completely, they will face many potential problems that could hinder their overall effectiveness. As a separate organization, they would have to fight for their own budgeting verse relying on funds from the DHS. They would also be less likely to receive the needed attention as agencies that are part of the DHS. Remember that upon the DHS initial creation, the focus was on defending the nation against terrorism (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). When FEMA was pulled under its umbrella, it lost it direct power to the president (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). This action also created problems for FEMA due to “Red Tape” management.
We saw this during Hurricane Katrina when FEMA and other agencies were not able to respond effectively because their mission had been focused on terrorism and not natural disasters. FEMA would also lose potential influences within the DHS if it were a separate entity. This would occur because the overall communications and chains-of-commands would be obscured. There would also be the potential for the loss of information sharing and planning if FEMA were separate. This lack of support could be intentional or unintentional; however, the effect would be the same. FEMA would be like many other agencies that had sound ideas and missions but were killed off by ineffectiveness due to political, budgetary, and management agendas.

Part III

The authors of the text single out three major factors that come into play as DHS progresses in asserting itself as an effective Federal department focused upon protecting the United States from all hazards. Importantly, can you think of any other issues that DHS will need to address in the coming years – based on what you read in the text, that were not mentioned in the concluding chapter?
As the DHS is a newly created agency that is still in its infancy stages, the DHS will face many challenges that it will need to overcome if it is to succeed. First, DHS will have to overcome the “Alpha Male” syndrome. By this I mean the DHS is currently a creation of agencies that were combined very quickly without little thought. Tom Ridge only had one year to combine 22 federal agencies with only 170,000 employees (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). The problem here was that each of these agencies has an “Alpha Male”. The effect can be seen in wolf packs in nature.
If a rival wolf or pack cross, the “Alpha Males” will fight until someone wins. This fight may be even to the death. This is currently happening within the DHS. Each agency’s “Alpha Male” doesn’t want to be just a pack member. They want to be leader. In the political arena, this fighting among inner agencies causes problems when it comes to information sharing and other essential tasks that require cooperation among multiple agencies.
Second, DHS is going to have to prove itself to both the politicians and the public. Many people are watching DHS and expecting it to fail like FEMA, at least in their eyes. It will take major events to either establish or destroy the DHS organization. A good example of how the DHS is getting positive light is with the recent capture of the New York City terrorist. It was a record catch. Had the DHS not been around, would the capture have occurred. In my opinion, it would not have occurred due to the lack of information sharing that would have occurred. The American public saw what happens when agencies that receive critical information fail to act upon or redirect to other agencies that could assist. The result was three aircraft flying into Twin Towers. I believe if DHS had existed prior to September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers event might not have occurred.
Finally, DHS will have to solve its own mistakes. History has shown that man will repeat their mistakes over and over (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). The DHS is made up of agencies that have made mistakes and not learned from those mistakes. The DHS is making the same mistakes that FEMA made and are still making. For DHS to be successful the “same mistake” paradigm must be broken and leadership with new vision must be established.
DHS has been given the opportunity and tools to be a successful organization; however, they only have a single mission. That mission is protecting American from terrorist attacks. They must start out fresh and implore radical thinking, methods, and procedures. This is essential to fighting today’s terrorist. Today’s terrorist are extremely smart, resourceful, and highly networked when it comes to conducting business. Is every potential stopped terrorist activity a true act of terrorism or is it part of the terrorist network testing areas to see where there are weaknesses. As American concentrates on air security, is the same being done for all other modes of travel.
The DHS must be able to think outside of the box to detect, deter, and respond to terrorist events. They must also be able to contend with the potential that not all terrorist attacks are from other countries. We have American terrorist right here in America. If DHS can stay focused on its mission and at the same time think outside of the box, they will be on the path to a successful agency. If they continue to make the same mistakes that other agencies have made, the American public will respond according. If DHS fails, people die.

Part IV

The authors contend that the FRP should be recreated, with FEMA returned to the role of directing the Federal emergency response effort. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Explain your answer.
FEMA should be separated as a separate organization that works side-by-side with the DHS. Each of these agencies has very different missions. FEMA mission is emergency management during crisis events; whereas DHS mission to concentrate of specific terrorist incidents (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). While they may seem similar, they operate at different levels.
FEMA responds to the state and local areas. They are the first on the scene. They are in the best position to brief the president on any given situation after it has occurred. By restoring the ability of FEMA to directly interact with the president, the president gets first hand information for decision making (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). This method has proven effective since President Carter; however, after FEMA was combined with the DHS, the effect of the merger was shown. The effect was demonstrated during Hurricane Katrina response.
FEMA was not ready to handle a major event that it once would have been able to handle due to lack of authority to implement policies and procedures. FEMA was tied by “Red Tape” during Katrina form other agencies within the DHS. This even included the president of the United States.
Because of the lack of direct reporting to the president, FEMA directors and personnel were hindered in accomplishing what needed to be done. Because of the merger, FEMA had lost some of its ability to interact with state and local governments at planning stages for contingency operations. For example, some state governments shut down all traffic into their states. This included FEMA vehicles. This occurred due to the inability for proper coordination among FEMA, DHS, state, and local governments.
FEMA has been established to concentrate on mitigating and responding to disasters (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). They are the first on the scene and yet have little power to do anything. The DHS job is to focus on terrorism and events caused by terrorism.
By separating FEMA and the DHS, both agencies can potentially restore the public trust within both agencies and accomplishing two different missions. FEMA is the eyes and ears for the president during major disasters (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). DHS is the eyes and ears for the president during terrorist events (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). Each provides a necessary mission; however, by combining these two agencies under one umbrella is creating a “10 tools-in-one” scenario. They have the ability to do multiple tasks; however, they lack the skill necessary to excel in any one task. This creates agencies that ineffective because of the desire to be the jack of all trades and a master of none.

Part V

In the absence of any major terrorist attacks, do you believe DHS will be dismantled? Why or why not?
As long as there is terrorism, the DHS will exist. Remember that terrorism is an act by someone or group that want to instill their beliefs into the public by the use of fear (Garcia, 2008). With this in mind, terrorism will never go away.
As long as there are countries that are at war with each other and countries that disagree on beliefs and cultures, terrorism will be present. As history has shown, major terrorist events will affect the world and not just the country where the attack occurred. Attacks will affect such world markets as banking, commerce, and diplomatic relations.
Because countries will allows disagree and enforce their beliefs on people, attacks will occur. The attacks may decrease with the advent of such agencies as the DHS; however, they will not stop. By centralizing multiple agencies that have the same final mission result, terrorist attacks can actually be decreased (Fisher, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). With the ability of the DHS to cross share information within multiple agencies and eliminating the “Red Tape”, many attacks can be stopped at the planning stages.
This is the job of the DHS in my opinion. There agency has been created to stop attacks at the planning stages. By stopping terrorist at the planning, attacks are mitigated. While the American public sees this as no terrorist attack, in reality the DHS has done its job in defending our nation.
Since its inception, the DHS has proven itself to both congressional and the American public. While the DHS will have to fight a long battle until a single “Alpha Male” is chosen, nature has shown that it may not be such a bad thing. By having a single point for information and technology sharing, the DHS allows organizations to create an atmosphere of unity against a single idea that harms the American belief. That belief is freedom. The DHS could be potentially seen as the same symbol as “Uncle Sam” in the future. The DHS stands for the country that is willing to not back done. They remind me of “Dog the Bounty Hunter” in that no one gets away. They will be chased down anytime and anywhere.


Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., Coppola, D. P., & Yeletaysi, S. (2009). Introduction to Homeland Security (3rd. Ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fisher, R. J., Halibozek, E., & Green, G. (2008). Introduction to Security (8th Ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Garcia, M. L. (2008). The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems (2nd Ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Download 21.34 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page