Terrorism was not something that was taken seriously until after September 11, 2001. Not most governments had considered the fact that most terrorist groups were changing their tactics of attacking – suicide bombings. On the 11 th September 2001, the United States woke up to one of the most horrifying attacks in the country. The attack was not only the most horrifying in the country but also the entire world. According to the information in the public domain, 19 militants of the extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airplanes and facilitated four coordinated suicide attacks on some of the greatest structures in the USA. Two of these planes were flown into Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre based in New York City. The third and the fourth planes had hit the Pentagon house and the Pennsylvania field respectively. This resulted in deaths of 3000 people ( Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2003) .
The Unfolding events of the 9/11 Attacks
The first attack was on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York at about 8.45 am. An American Airlines Boeing 767 which was indicated to have been loaded with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel crashed on the north tower of the building. According to Pyszczynski et al. (2003), the crushing of the Boeing led to a gaping burning hole near the 80 th floor of the WTC 110 story building. As a result, hundreds of individuals were killed instantly and trapped many others on the upper floors. As the situation was unfolding and evacuation was underway, the television cameras showed live images of a second Boeing 767 of United Airlines Flight 767 turning sharply towards the South Tower. This second scene happened 18 minutes after the first plane. The Boeing 767 sliced into the 60 th floor and caused a serious collision which caused an explosion. Consequently burning debris hit other buildings around and to the street. It was now obvious to the Americans that the United States was under attack.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
While the Americans were glued to what was going on New York City, at about 9.45 am another flight was circling over the downtown Washington, D.C. Pyszczynski et al. (2003) says that American Airlines 77 circled over the downtown of Washington before crashing into the Pentagon house. The Airline crashed into the west side of the Pentagon military headquarters, the Airline which had jet fuel resulted into one of the most devastating infernos consequently leading to the collapse of the portion of the giant building. According to Pyszczynski et al. (2003), about 125 military personnel and civilians were killed in addition to the 64 passengers in the airline.
Before the day ended, another plane was hijacked – United Flight 93. The flight was hijacked 40 minutes after leaving the Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey. This was as a result being delayed in taking off. However, for this case, the passengers in the airline had already learned about the unfolding events about the Twin Towers and the Pentagon house and some other phone calls from their loved ones. Given that all the passengers had known was what about to transpire and the fact that they were not going to get back to the ground the flight attendants and some of the passengers decided to carry out an insurrection. Pyszczynski et al. (2003) explain that three passengers had decided to do something about what was going on and called home to notify their families that they were not coming back. The passengers attacked the four hijackers and as a result, attacked the cockpit with a fire extinguisher. As this happened the plane flipped over and sped towards the ground at about 500 miles per hour. The plane crashed in a rural field near Shanks Ville in western Pennsylvania at about 10.10 am; almost the same time the Twin Towers collapsed. All the passengers and the attendants boarding the plane were killed. There have been theories that the plane was either meant for the white house, the United States Capitol, nuclear power plants, or the presidential retreat in Maryland.
The United States had to respond both externally and internally. At exact 9 p.m. the then president, George Bush, who had been previously been in Florida delivered a televised address at the Oval Office in the White House. President Bush delivered one of the touching speeches saying that the terrorist could shake the foundation of the biggest buildings in the United States but not the foundations of America itself. The president declared that the government was not going to make a distinction between the terrorist and their harbors. As a result, the Operation Enduring Freedom was initiated. The operation was an American-led international effort to destroy the Taliban group in Afghanistan and destroy the network base of Osama Bin Laden. In fact, within 7 months Taliban was removed from its operational power. The war wasn't over because the group had entered Pakistan. The United States army continued to fight the group until 2011 when Osama was killed under the Obama presidency.
Apart from the international operation against the extremist groups in the Middle East, the government of the United States initiated steps towards making the country secure for the purposes of future critical structures and public events. In fact, Homeland Security department was created as a response ( Pyszczynski et al. 2003) . The department was and still is meant to counter terrorism within the country both now and in the future. The department was formed after integrating twenty-two federal departments and agencies in the United States. The Department has a responsibility of protecting the most important infrastructures and events in the country. These infrastructures are critical to the economy, security and the welfare of the citizens of the United States. Brown, Carlyle, Salmerón, and Wood (2006) explains that t hese infrastructures are referred to us the critical infrastructures. This paper looks at the Department of Homeland Security in details: Its core mission and the effectiveness of the current DHS policies and its procedures by relating it to the United States Critical Infrastructures. The paper finishes by providing recommendations for the DHS about the issue of the topic.
The Formation and Mission of Department of Homeland Security
It is important to note that before the formation of Department of Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security (OHS) had been formed in response to the devastating attacks of the 9/11, as previously indicated. OHS started existing in October of the year of attack (2001).Its budget was distributed on four main policies – border and transportation security, emergency response and preparedness, information analysis and infrastructure protection, and weapons of mass destruction. In June of 2006, the President announced his plan to create the DHS. By the July of the same year, his administration released a well-designed strategy for homeland security. The main difference between the previously formed OHS and DHS was that the latter was a permanent agency and as such had a budgetary authority over all its missions ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003) . The DHS also had a very well-choreographed and a comprehensive national strategy. It is, however, important to note that the new department was going to take a long period to form. It evolved over a long period because it entails reorganization of the federal government.
The National Strategy for Homeland security described homeland security as a highly prioritized effort in preventing terrorism within the country, reduce the vulnerability as a result of actions associated with terrorism, and reduce the damages as a result of the terrorist attacks ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003) . It also built on the foundation of helping to recover from the acts of terrorism in the United States. These components of homeland security mirror the mission upon which the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The main functionalities of the DHS include intelligence and warning about impending attacks, Border and Transportation Security, domestic countering of the terrorists’ acts, protecting the critical infrastructures and important assets to the United States, defending the country against any catastrophic threats, and responding and being prepared for any emergencies in the country as a result of terrorism. Because of these missions that describe that describe the functionalities of the institution, four directorates are present as branches of the larger organization. These directorates include Science and Technology in Support of Homeland security, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Border and Transportation in Security, and Emergency Preparedness and Response ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003).
The DHS which was formed by reorganization of 22 agencies was made by bringing deferent departments under a single roof: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and U.S Customs. Under the Border and Transportation Security Department, some of the agencies that were brought together included the Coastguard, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Transport security administration, Custom service, INS, and Border Patrol ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003) . This department is mandated to protect the borders, the transportation systems, and territorial water. This they do by centralizing the information sharing and databases that work in all these fields. This department is also responsible for the tightening of the visa system and improvement in the transportation system on the domestic transportation through thorough training.
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Department was formed by bringing agencies such as FEMA, multiple Health and Human Services Offices, and FBI National Domestic Preparedness Office ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003) . The department is tasked with creating emergency responses plans for all the government levels. It is responsible for ensuring first responders to any attacks on the United States soil. It is also managed federal government assistance to first-responders for domestic disaster preparedness training. It also coordinates all the government disaster responses procedures and approaches. FEMA which is under the department is tasked to coordinate programs for the police, emergency specialists, and firefighters.
Concerning the Department of Science and Technology in Support of Homeland Security, some of the departments that were brought under it includes the National Biological Weapons Defense Analysis Center from the Department of the Defense, Parts of the National laboratories from the Department of Energy, Public Health service from the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from Department of Agriculture ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003) . This department is the one tasked with coordinating and integrating researches, developments, and testing of the scientific and technological advancements. They are also responsible for the non-proliferation programs and activities. As such they are responsible for protecting the United States from weapons of mass destruction. This they do by developing and implementing countermeasures. The department is also tasked with conducting drills with the purpose of testing the federal, the states, and the local responses plans in cases of biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological attacks on the United States land.
Finally and most importantly the Department of Information Analysis and Infrastructure protection was formed by bringing in the FBI National Infrastructure Protection Center (previously mentioned), The Department of Commerce's Critical Infrastructure assurance, The Department of Defense's National Communication System, and the Energy's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center Department ( Mitchell & Pate, 2003) . The department is tasked with coordinating information sharing and intelligence analysis with two most important security institutions in the United States: FBI and CIA. The department is also tasked with evaluation of the weakness of the critical infrastructures. Some of the critical infrastructures that the department is responsible for include water systems, emergency services, food systems, banking and finances, health systems, and agriculture systems among many other important infrastructures which loss could lead to affecting the day-to-day activities of the Americans. It is important that this forms the biggest responsibility of the DHS, in fact, most of the other departments under the organization working towards supplementing the protection of the critical infrastructures.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of current DHS policies and procedures affecting critical Infrastructures
First, it is important to note that critical infrastructures may be virtual or physical. They may be assets, networks, or systems ( Brown et al. 2006) . Their importance comes in because of their support to the people from a region. Such infrastructures when destroyed have a negative impact on the economy, security, health, and welfare of the people. They may include buildings, water, power, technology among others. These infrastructures are sometimes shared with other countries – cross political – and therefore become the responsibility of various governments. Kamien (20120 says that they could be artificial and man-made, for instance, water structures such as dams, energy structures, transportation, communication systems among others. They could also be natural, as earlier mentioned, for instance, mines, groundwater sources among many others. Virtual infrastructures may include things like electronic information and data and cyber data. Kamien (2012) indicates that critical infrastructures are the backbone of any nation, United States included. In the United States, the critical infrastructures are sixteen and support the economy, security, welfare, health, education, food production of the county.
To protect the critical infrastructures, they have to be identified by the Department of Homeland security (DHS). As previously mentioned, these sector falls in the department of information Analysis and critical infrastructure Protection. The department must identify and list the infrastructures based on how they affect the nation positively and the consequences of their destruction. This will enable the DHS to know where to allocate more of the security resources. According to DCSINT (2006), these structures should probably be termed as Mission Essential Vulnerable Areas (MEVAs).
When it comes to protecting the critical infrastructures, DHS has designed specific procedures towards the protection, especially when it comes to cyber-attack issues. Cyber-attacks are some of the common forms of terrorism in the United States today. The steps towards protecting the critical infrastructures, especially the cyber systems include implementing application whitelisting, reducing attack surface area, building defendable environment, managing authentication, implementing secure remote access, and monitoring and responding effectively. In fact, this forms the basis of the policies that govern the protection of the critical infrastructures in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security.
According to DHS reports, protection is not only the important policies designed in helping protection of the critical infrastructures in the United States, but also the mitigation strategies towards reducing the vulnerability of these critical infrastructures. This is because of the constant increased in the number of terrorist attacks in the homeland. After identifying the most important and critical infrastructures in the country it is the responsibility of the department of homeland security to initiate programs to reduce the vulnerability of the structures. According to the Department of Homeland security policies, five steps appear to be the most important ones towards reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures in the United States.
First, it is important for the Department of Homeland security (DHS) to first identify the critical assets (as previously mentioned ) . This, however, according to the DHS will depend on the mission of operation. Secondly, the institution must identify any forms of vulnerability before assessment . This could be within the infrastructure itself or the whole infrastructure. Thirdly, regulating and assessing the possible risks is paramount. This is done to ensure that security is sure of the risks possible to be able to regulate it effectively. Fourthly, it is important to execute the possibly designed programs and strategies that have been identified reduce any possible damages and destruction. DHS has a policy of implementing the policies that have been designed to protect or reduce the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures in the United States. Finally, determining the functionality of the measures put in place for defensive purposes is important to ensure the effectiveness of the process towards reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures ( Pyszczynski et al. 2003) .
According to various researchers, these approaches and policies have actually worked towards reducing the damaging and destruction of the critical infrastructure in the United States. This can be supported by the fact that since the inception of the DHS there has been a reduction in the destruction of the critical infrastructures in the United States. However, the issue has always been both the private and government playing their parts when it comes to protection of the critical infrastructures in the United States in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security.
When it comes to the issue of protecting and reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures in the United States, it is important to note that the issue of setting the goals and the policies lies fully with the government. However, when it comes to implementation of these steps designed by the government and the DHS, the responsibility quickly shifts to the private sector especially given that most of the critical infrastructures in the United States are privately owned. According to National Strategy for Homeland security, about 85% of the critical infrastructures in the United States are privately owned. These private corporations and firms are fully aware of the operations and the vulnerability of those operations, however, they do not commonly have the commercial incentive to fund the reduction of the vulnerability of their infrastructures. Most of these private firms views that benefits reduced risk of terrorist attacks and from other natural disasters is outweighed by the reducing vulnerabilities costs.
There have been arguments that the government should only address those activities the markets do not adequately provide, for instance, border security and national defense and other aspects of homeland security lie on the private sector, especially when it comes to the issues of critical infrastructures ( Auerswald et al., 2005). The DHS department, based on the report dubbed "The Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and released in February 2005 also had the same opinion. The private sector has however stood firm that the government and the DHS have the responsibility of protecting and reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures. This push and pull kind of argument has led to other severe terrorism in the country, for instance, the CSX railroad case ( Auerswald et al., 2005).
The case of CSX Railroad and the District of Columbia in 2004 is a clear indication of the tension between the government and the private sectors on issues of protection of the critical infrastructures. A train crash in South Carolina resulted in a release of chlorine gas which led to deaths of 9 people and other 58 hospitalized ( Auerswald et al., 2005). This happened despite the fact that the District City council had made it clear that transportation of hazardous materials was not allowed within 2.2 miles of the City capital without a permit. This was an indication that the government had failed to prevent the terrorist threat. As much as the CSX had not followed the requirement, it decides to petition the U.S Surface Transportation Board to invalidate the legislation by the Columbia District ( Auerswald et al., 2005). They won hen preventing the District efforts. In such situations, the DHS functionality fails to bear fruits. It is therefore important that the government and private sector work in harmony.
Recommendation for DHS to help in solving the situation
Before giving recommendations, it is prudent to indicate that progress towards securing the critical infrastructures in the United States have been realized. However, this is far from being completely successful as have been mentioned earlier. As much as the Department of Homeland security has provided a well-detailed procedure and policies for protecting and reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures in the country, the best practices for a coordinated approach between the government and the Private sector is still not clear ( Wortzel, 2003). The leadership and guidelines by the DHS are therefore paramount towards the complete success of the protection of the U.S critical infrastructures. DHS must also ensure that the practices that it has put in place are reinforced by incentives that help encourage maximum and responsive cooperation with the private sector ( Wortzel, 2003).
Another factor that DHS has not stressed and need to do so is the protection of information sharing. This is one of the most vital components of critical infrastructure protection. The Department of Homeland security (DHS) should seriously consider developing a threat integration center. This has continuously been called for by the Heritage Foundation since the events of the 9/11. This will help in disseminating and communicate the intelligence information and data efficiently about imminent terrorist attacks to all the levels of the government and the private sectors. The critical infrastructure components of the DHS, that is the Department of Information Analysis and the Critical infrastructure protection, must, therefore, be linked to this integration center ( Wortzel, 2003). This will help the DHS to conduct adequate and effective threat analysis consequently helping the institution help the government by protecting some of the most important critical infrastructures in the country.
In conclusion, protecting and reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures is the responsibility of the DHS; however, the success towards that realization depends on the cooperation between the government and the private sector. The DHS policies and procedures of protecting and reducing the vulnerability of the critical infrastructures have been effective so far; however, with lack of information sharing and reinforcing the procedures the results of protecting critical infrastructures in the future might lead to other terrorist attacks in the country.
References
Auerswald, P., Branscomb, L. M., La Porte, T. M., Michel-Kerjan, E., & MICHEL-KERJAN, E. R. M. A. N. N. (2005). The challenge of protecting critical infrastructure: Issues in Science and Technology , 22 (1), 77-83.
Brown, G., Carlyle, M., Salmerón, J., & Wood, K. (2006). Defending critical infrastructure Interfaces , 36 (6), 530-544.
Critical Infrastructure Threats and Terrorism (2006). DCSINT Handbook No. 1.02. Retrieved
from: http://fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/sup2.pdf
Kamien, D. (Ed.). (2012). The McGraw-Hill homeland security handbook: Strategic guidance for a coordinated approach to effective security and emergency management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, J., & Pate, J. (2003). The Department of Homeland Security: Goals and challenges: Monterey Institute of International Studies .
Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: Rising above the terror : American Psychological Association.
Wortzel, L. M. (2003). Securing America's Critical Infrastructures: A Top Priority for the Department of Homeland Security : Heritage Foundation.
