This is a three-part question.
Part I
Choose one “Critical Thinking” problem/question(s) from one of the
assigned Introduction to Emergency Management chapters to thoroughly
answer and discuss. Please first repeat the chosen question before answering.
Chapter 1, page 5: "Can you think if any positive or negative aspects of
disaster-driven evolutionary changes in the United State's emergency
management system? What about for changes that occur in the absence of
initiating disaster events (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011)?"
Before one can look at disaster -driven evolutionary changes, one needs to
understand the difference between a hazard and a disaster. A hazard is a source of
danger that may lead to a disaster or emergency (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola,
2011). An example of a hazard may be a chemical plant in your local area. A
disaster is a hazard that has evolved into an event that requires emergency action
and services (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011). An example of a disaster in a
leak at the local chemical plant that causes the evacuation of the town and
requires emergency services to assist in the form of chemical cleanup, medical
support, and security.
While hazards have driven relatively few positive changes, disasters on the other
hand have created evolutionary changes from small changes in procedures to
large changes such as federal regulations and creation of new federal agencies.
The evolutionary change that a disaster drives is based upon the disaster level.
Disasters are classified into three different levels. Level I disasters are typically
minor and may last only a day with little to no impact on the area. There is
relative little damage or loss of life (Fennelly, 2004). Level II disasters typically
last more than a day and can affect people, wildlife, and the environment
(Fennelly, 2004). Level III disasters typically carry over more than a few days and
normally can damage to property and the environment. It also tends to produce
damage to people and wildlife to include death (Fennelly, 2004).
Most evolutionary changes that occur from disasters are from level III disasters.
Examples of level III disasters include tornados, hurricanes, oil leaks, etc. These
disaster set the stage for evolutionary change depending upon their severity.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was a organization that
was formed after a major disaster. Prior to FEMA, most emergency organizations
were independent and did not cooperate with each other. They handled hazards
and disasters within their own agencies with little regard for a centralized
cooperation (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). This problem of
independent separation and operations was seen in the Three Mile Island nuclear
incident (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011). It was after the review by
congress after the incident was over that a plan was called for and President
Carter pulled the agencies together into one agency under the FEMA title.
(Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011).
There have been other disasters that have driven evolutionary changes in not only
emergency management but in legislation. In the oil spill that occurred in the Gulf
Coast waters, we saw one of the positive changes of inter office cooperation.
During the incident, many emergency management agencies worked together to
resolve the problem of the leaking well. This included involving the oil company
in the process to not only stop the leak but in prevention and recovery operations.
As I was in the local area when the oil spill was being worked, I saw agencies
working together that had not in previous years. The United States Coast Guard
was working with the oil company. The oil company was working with
government engineers to come up with solutions to plug the well. This
cooperation created new technologies for future oil spills and also demonstrated
that cooperation among agencies is key to successful operations.
This incident also spurred new legislation that was driven by the
recommendations of the onsite agencies. Tighter safety and security laws were
passed to ensure the mitigation of the next event. These laws were enacted to help
the next team be prepared for the next oil event. As of today, these agencies are
still working together to monitor, repair, and developed new emergency plans for
the oil industry.
Disasters, depending upon their levels, drive evolutionary changes that can be
minor to major in nature; however, emergency management has the problem of
being a single minded focus system due to politics and other issues. It is when a
disaster never happens that problems tend to occur.
After the original trade center bombing, the after action security teams proposed
several mitigating steps to help mitigate future events. Some of the proposals
were accepted while other were ignored. One of the items discussed after the
bombing was the potential for a air attack against the towers. While it was a
possibility, America had never had a air terrorist attack that would help to solidify
the proposed recommendations for an air attack. It was even suggested that the
government was responsible for protecting the air space and preparing for an air
assault on the towers was a waste of time because it would never happen.
Because there had been no air attack attempts, it was looked at as insignificant in
the emergency planning phase of reprotecting the towers until September 11,
2001 occurred. Years later, the new towers are now being built with internal
structures that can withstand a direct aircraft hit to the new towers. In this
instance, change to the emergency management system never changed because of
the absence of an air attack on the towers. That all changed on September 11,
2001.
Part II:
Choose and “fully” answer and “discuss” “one” of the end of chapter “SelfCheck Questions” listed at the end of each Introduction to Emergency
Management chapter. Your single selection can come from any assigned
chapter. Please first identify the chapter the question originated from and
repeat the question before answering.
Chapter 1, Self-Check Question 9, "What changes did the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security bring about for the federal emergency
management capacity (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011)?"
The formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provided a
foundation that was needed to centralize multifaceted agencies into a single point
of operations (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011). The job of the DHS was to
become the focal point for emergency operations. This included natural disasters
to full blown terrorist attacks. With the combining of many agencies into a single
entity, the capacity of the DHS increased and along with the merger came
resource increases and also interagency cooperation (Fischer, Halibozek, &
Green, 2008). The DHS also assumed a new role of emergency management that
now needed to be governed and guided to handle any type of disaster through
various agencies and resources.
I randomly asked ten people if there was a difference between homeland security
and emergency management. The answer did not surprise me. Out of the ten
people who were interviewed, sixty percent stated that homeland security and
emergency management was the same thing. Out of the ten people interviewed,
only 10 percent knew emergency management mission. Granted, this was a very
small sampling of people, only ten verse thousands, but it creates a point that
cannot be ignored. How can emergency management be effective is no one knows
what the mission accomplishes.
Emergency managements primary role is “not to stop the terrorists, but to reduce
the future loss of life, injuries, property damage, and economic disruption”
(Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009) of major events. Emergency
management has been established to deal with the resulting actions of terrorist
attacks, natural disasters, and catastrophic events. It was not established to deal
with terrorist themselves. (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009).
Essential emergency management requires the effective use of risk analysis and
implementing policies, procedures, and safeguards that will secure targets. This
includes physical hardening of targets, educating the public, and to respond
effectively in the event of a major event (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, &
Yeletaysi, 2009). Risk management is the primary tool for emergency
management. A good risk management program includes four basic steps. These
steps are: “1.) Identify risks or specific vulnerabilities, 2) Analyze and study risks,
including the likelihood and degree of danger of an event, 3) Optimize risk
management alternatives (ex. Risk avoidance, risk reduction, risk spreading), and
4) Study security programs (every day monitoring of your security programs).
(Fischer, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). Risk management can help mitigate the
potential for terrorist attacks by sampling applying these steps without taking
shortcuts. By using risk analysis and implementing policies, procedures, and
security devices, a facility’s potential for attack goes down by at least 80%
(Garcia, 2008).
While emergency management cannot eliminate all risks because natural and
terrorist events will occur, they provide one piece to the overall homeland security
puzzle. There are several other major players that help complement the homeland
security puzzle. Some of these agencies include the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and
the United States Coast Guard.
The FLETC serves as the primary federal law enforcement training provider
(Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). The FLETC provides multiple
levels or training to over 80 federal agencies and assists several countries in
training of personnel. (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). What is
ironic is that even thought the FLETC exists, the security field as a whole cannot
decide upon the level of training the public and private security personnel must
receive. Federal and public law enforcement officers typically receive 180 hours
or more of training while the private sector receives typically less than 32 hours of
training (Fischer, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). Because of the lack of set training
standards, this creates a large variation of how security personnel are trained to
accomplish their jobs and creates prime opportunities for terrorists and other
adversaries. Even the government seems to agree that law enforcement training is
not that important when they reduced the FLETC budget by one percent for FY
2009 (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009).
Another major role player is the TSA. The TSA was created only two months
after the September 11, 2001 attack to protect the nation’s transportation system.
The TSA’s primary focus is on “identifying risks to the transportation sector,
prioritizing them, and managing them to acceptable levels through a variety of
means, while working to mitigate the impact of incidents that may occur”
(Bullock, Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). Prime examples of tools that are
being used to mitigate incident impacts include full body scanners, chemical
detectors, additional security personnel, and the arming of pilots. The only real
problem that currently exists is that most of TSA seems to be focused on air travel
and not other forms of travel. An adversary will normally pick targets that they
have an eighty percent chance of success to accomplish the mission (Garcia,
2008). Imagine what would have happened to the rail industry if the terrorist had
used trains verse aircraft in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
I remember a recording a buddy of mine sent to me of a real commercial pilot predeparture debrief and it hits the TSA goal right out of the park. The pre-departure
briefing proceeded as normal until the very end. At the end, the pilot went on to
explain that the door to the cockpit was steel reinforced and that he was carrying
a15 round Smith and Wesson semi-automatic pistol and his co-pilot was carrying
a six-round .357. He further explained that they were fully trained to use the
weapons and that they were loaded with armor piercing rounds. His final words
were “sit back and enjoy your flight and thank you for flying with us today”.
While not the final agency that is a major role player within homeland security,
the United States Coast Guard plays a very important role. They are one of the
few federal services that can operate within the United States borders. Remember
that military services such as Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy cannot operate
on US soil in certain role because of the Constitution of the United States. The
Coast Guard played a major role in securing the American ports as the Navy ships
departed during the September 11, 2001 attack. Because of the resolve of the
Coast Guard to prove itself as a well-equipped military force working within the
jurisdiction of U.S. territory, their budget were increased greatly (Bullock,
Haddow, Coppola, & Yeletaysi, 2009). The Coast Guard stepped in to secure the
ports of America. While we have not had any major terrorist events at ports in
recent years, we have had natural disasters that have provided a future prediction
of what might occur during and after a terrorist attack.
Ports along the seaboard are essential for America’s survival. When hurricane
Katrina hit and the barges were held out at sea, America saw the impact. Gas
prices went from $2 a gallon to over $8 a gallon overnight. Even after business
started to return to normal, the economy is still showing the scars from Hurricane
Katrina. Watch what happens to gas prices when a tanker has a spill in the ocean.
A recent event that occurred that could have had a major impact on the American
economy and possibly port security was he recent arrest of over 100 individuals
that were planning terrorist attacks against oil lines in Saudi Arabia. One has to
wonder if their failed attempt was a test for something much bigger. As I stated
earlier, the TSA and air security is all that we hear about in the news today. Do
you realize that only about twenty percent of containers shipped to American
ports are ever checked (Fischer, Halibozek, & Green, 2008)?
Part III
Choose one end of chapter “Important Term” to define “and” explain. In
addition, include an example or illustration with your definition and
explanation.
Chapter 2, What is Terrorism?
Within today's electronic highway, information is routed to people all over the
world in a instant. This could be via internet, satellite, or television. The problem
is that many times, the information provided is inaccurate. One piece of
information that is being broadcast on a daily basis is that "America is at war with
terrorism". This is a misconception. America is in a skirmish with terrorism not
at war.
To understand why America is involved in a skirmish with terrorism verse a war,
we need to understand the three key terms. These terms are 1.) Skirmish, 2.) Act
of War, and 3.) Terrorism. A "Skirmish" is defined as "1.) a fight between small
bodies of troops, esp. advanced or outlying detachments of opposing armies or 2.)
any brisk conflict or encounter" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirmish,
2010). A "Act of War" is defined as "an act of aggression by a country against
another with which it is normally at peace"
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act+of+war, 2010). "Terrorism" is
defined as "1. ) the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for
political reasons, 2.) the state of fear and submission produced terrorism or
terrorization, and 3.) a terroristic method of governing or resisting a government"
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism, 2010).
With keeping these three key term in mind, the difference between a terrorist
attack and a act of war can be seen even though the terms are used
interchangeably. This interchangeably is incorrect. America is not at peace nor
has it ever been as peace with terrorism. Terrorism is an act that is used against a
population to instill fear and submission while an act of war is two or more
nations that were at peace now engaging in fighting.
An act of war is defined by events that engage nations to declare war on their
neighbors. A prime example was when Iraq crossed into the nation of Saudi
Arabia. When this event occurred, the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia was threatened
by the invasion of Saddam Hussein and his troops. These two nations were
previously at a state of non-fight peace until territory was violated. Terrorism is
predominantly based upon a belief system or perception of injustices due to
perception or suppression (Fischer, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). During acts of
war, the people engaged in combat are normally legal combatants. They are
trained soldiers and are willing participants that know the rules of engagement
during a declared war.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is the use of fear and coercion to instill fear and
suppression into a general population or government for political or belief system
reasons. Many terrorist groups have some sort of manifesto that dictates their
beliefs and reasoning for their actions (Fischer, Halibozek, & Green, 2008). This
is currently what we see in today's ongoing skirmished with terrorism in many
countries to included America. Many of the attacks that have occurred within the
Middle Eastern theater may seem like acts of war, however, they are acts of
terrorism. Their reasoning for attacks are based upon their religious doctrine,
culture, and fear of the mighty American beast. Terrorist want to instill fear into
populations so as to rule by using fear and coercion against, in this case, the world
population.
Because terrorism is a means to accomplish a mission, it will never be totally
eradicated from the world. The simple reason is that man, by nature and history,
will fight to impose beliefs upon others. There have been numerous examples
throughout history. Examples include the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and the
early Incan civilizations.
These examples, however, chose to declare war and invade. They were examples
of acts of war. Terrorism will exist because of man's beliefs in injustices and
persecution. The United States has several militia groups that are stocking up on
weapons and planning for the fall of the American government. Many of these
groups are a wait and see; however, some do take actions. These groups believe
they are being suppressed by the United States government. This is no different
that the Al Qaida believing in their oppression by the American beasts. The
difference is in how these groups respond. Remember that during declared war,
the combatants are legal and follow rules of engagement. Innocent casualties are
avoided at all costs because they are not the enemy. Terrorist on the other hand
are willing to use any method to create fear into the public for political or
manifesto reasons. We have seen this recently in Iraq with the use of drugged
children and pregnant women used as explosive devices.
When one takes into account these factors and the definitions, America is not at
war with terrorism. America is in a skirmish against terrorism. Since terrorism is
not a single country and it is a based upon a belief or manifesto system, terrorism
will never be eradicated completely and America and other countries will always
be in skirmishes with terrorism. In a recent security class that I took, the instructor
pointed out a piece of information that I got my attention when it comes to
terrorism. According to some manifestos, 2,000 Americans must die with 1,000 of
that number being women and children. His point was where in the world do we
have those amount of women and children at any given time other than on
American soil.
Resources:
Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., Coppola, D. P., & Yeletaysi, S. (2009).
Introduction To Homeland Security (3rd Ed.) Principles of All-Hazards
Response. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fennelly, L. J. (2004). Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime Prevention (4th
ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fischer, R. J., Halibozek, E., & Green, G. (2008). Introduction to Security (8th
Ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Garcia, M. L. (2008). The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems
(2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Haddow, G. D., Bullock, J. A., & Coppola, D. P. (2011). Introduction to
Emergency Management (4th Ed.). Burlington, MA: ButterworthHeinemann.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act+of+war. (2010). Retrieved 4 15,
2010, from www.dictionary.reference.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act+of+war
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirmish. (2010). Retrieved 4 15, 2010,
from www.dictionary.reference.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirmish
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism. (2010). Retrieved 4 15, 2010,
from www.dictionary.reference.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism