The future effectiveness of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is determined by past operations and present modifications in the department (Bullock, Coppola, & Haddow, 2016). In the past, there were various accusations of the federal agency’s failure in combating the incidences of terrorist attacks and national calamities. The department has shown dismal performance in fulfilling its duties which include dealing with cyber security, disaster management and prevention, border security, antiterrorism and immigration, and customs (Sauter & Carafano, 2011). From the past analysis of the DHS, there are identified needed improvements on the resource management and downsizing of the many agencies under the department so as to improve future community integration in the operations of the department.
Analysis of the Past
The establishment of the United States Department of Homeland Security was due to the September 11 attacks that exposed the vulnerability of the American domestic protection from such causes of mass casualty and terrorism (Sauter & Carafano, 2011). The department replaced the duties of the National Guard and the Department of Defense (DoD), which had failed in handling security issues that related to terrorism and border protection.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The formulation of the DHS was, therefore, an implementation of a well-researched mitigation policy that derived its need from the Gilmore1 and Hart-Rudman Commissions (Sauter & Carafano, 2011). The Gilmore commision was an advisory panel that assessed the quality of demestic response in tackling terrorist activities that used mass destruction weapons. In the same innitiative, the Hart-Rudman commision reviewed the security requirements of the 21st century. Both commisions established the various security institutions’ relevance to the strategies of attaining national security and offered recommendations for downsizing adjustments.
The former president of the United States, George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Bill to reorganize the federal establishment and standardize the operational provisions (Sauter & Carafano, 2011). This was because of the existring unclear transactions that included personal business gains for the officials and the ambiguios delagation of the duties in the various agenbcy under the umbrella of the DHS.
Challenges Impacting the Effectiveness of the DHS
One of the primary past challenge of the DHS is the rise of the ISIS, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that influence online terrorist radicalization (Lewis, 2014). Such groups infiltrate the security systems through extreme radicalization measures that train and control terrorism acts by American individuals. Such actions also challenge the effectiveness of the DHS, which impact on the difficulty of identification and tracking procedures (Lewis, 2014). The problem is due to the existing Civil Rights Act that refutes the need for accessing personal information that the agency needs to identify potential terrorist threats from the American origins (Lewis, 2014). This outstanding challenge is difficult to deal with based on the large size of the DHS that offers ambiguous clarity on how to tackle the individual radicalization.
Additionally, when individuals act on their own without citing any affiliation with a terrorist organization, it is hard to track and trace their activities and predict their course of action (Mueller & Stewart, 2011). An example of the challenge is in 2012, where an Oklahoma worker beheaded their colleague, and two people beheaded a soldier in the United Kingdom after successful radicalization efforts by the ISIS through online platforms (Lewis, 2014). The internet is a new adoption of terrorism cases where radicalized groups exist through untraceable web hosts.
Another factor that cripples the effectiveness of the DHS was the exposure of the National Security Agency’s activities that monitored the usage of the internet (Shan & Zhuang, 2012). Edward Snowden, who exposed the agency, influenced the massive decline of usage of monitoring personal online conversations (Shan, & Zhuang, 2012). This move challenges the DHS’s equipment in an effort combat the new form of crime via the web. The calls of civil rights groups that cite the violation of privacy challenge the department's effort to use personal information for the tracking, identification and the prosecution of radicalized terrorists (Mueller & Stewart, 2011). This is because the department lacks the necessary technological skills that can subdue the spread of pro-terrorist actrivities through unrtraceable webhosts.
In addition to the past challenges of the DHS, public opinion suggests that the Homeland Security Act undermines the privacy rights of individuals (Mueller & Stewart, 2011). The perception is because, under this Act, companies need to comply with the compulsory submission of Personal Identifier Information which avails personal data to the federal government (Sauter & Carafano, 2011). There is no identified compliance obligations when exposing personal details that monitor government employees who might use the social security numbers, the physical address and the name of the person to plan malicious operations (Sauter & Carafano, 2011).
The privacy issues have prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency claims to request such data to monitor terrorist activities but fail to provide a reporting platform for the multiagency workers in cases of fraudulent use of such information (Sauter & Cafarano, 2011). In agreement, the claim for intensive investigations of terrorists courteously includes the monitoring, identification, and prosecution of innocent Americans whose personal data is under scrutiny alongside suspected terrorists (Lewis, 2014). The public opinion on such investigation poses the dilemma that affects the effectiveness of the DHS in the protection of the constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures into individual homes (Lewis, 2014).
Furthermore, the nation has faced a substantial financial burden of sustaining the department that has intensive training for the staff members (Reeese, 2012). In 2011, for example, the cost of running the operations of the DHS was fifty-six billion and has risen over the years. Despite the massive use of resources, the department faced a failure in providing supporting resources to the natural calamity in 2005 (Reese, 2012). The Department, therefore, needs a sustainable way to maintain its effectiveness while at the same time use cost effective resources.
Another challenge that reduces the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Securityis the integration of the many agencies that affect the swift organization's operations in the disparate fields (Bullock, Coppola, & Haddow, 2016). Furthermoree, the department umbrellas counterfeiting investigations, disaster preparedness biological welfare type of defenses, border security, and training of enforcement officials. Such agencies expose the DHS to multitask by allotting federal public servants to head several operations (Bullock, Coppola, & Haddow, 2016). The same official manages a lot of resources aimed at combatting the terrorist scare, therefore, fueling the typical wasteful spending.
According to Seo, Gupta, Sallam, Bertinon and Yim, the other department’s concern is the totalitarian way of centralizing infrastructures that resemble the absolute design of terrorist address in the United States of America (Seo et al., 2014). The manifestation of the absolute approach resembles the past preferential consolidation of the federal programs by the then President Jimmy Carter in 1979. (Seo et al., 2014). President Ronald Regan also used the same focus to reorganize the Office of National Preparedness. The department of homeland security is typically ineffective due to the mismanagement of the massive influx of personnel and finance.
The DHS is also vigilant in eradicating instances of the terrorist attacks in the Unites States of America. An example is the attempted attack in New Jersey that targeted the United States Army Base for Dix (Bullock Coppola, & Haddow, 2016). The planned attack by six men that faced arrests lists the number of success in thwarting terrorist activities in the country. Such urgent responses improve the department’s chances of protecting not only the United States citizens but also international regions through the use of technological advancement.
The Future of Homeland Security Based on its Past Effectiveness
According to Bullock et al., (2016), scholars and researchers of the history of security in America, there is a future threat of terrorist attack despite the establishment of the department of homeland security (DHS). This is because the DHS is designed to protect American lives, but it is not a strong guarantee in case of a terrorist attack (Bullock et al., 2016). One can therefore argue that the only way to ensure protection is to offer readiness and constant vigilance in case of an attack. The status of security to the American people, therefore is determined by the citizens trust in the departments ability to respond swiftly in case of an attack.
Furthermore, the formulation of the DHS was part of an all-hazards approach that puts focus to protection from terrorism attacks and immediate responses in the cases of terrorism attacks (Lewis, 2014). The DHS past failures can, therefore be subdued through themodification of the mangaemnet’s operations needed to improve its performance in the future responses.
However, under the new jurisdiction of President Obama, the department is continually successful in regaining the public’s trust after it effectively responded to the Joplin, MO and the Tuscaloosa, AL tornadoes (Mueller & Stewart, 2011). As a calamity management agency, the DHS experienced requisite leadership in the provisions of the effective response to fully support the affected Americans through the notion of federal responsibility. The American governmet therefore meda an effort to prove that they can still offer swift response to natural calamities and provide solace for American citizens in times of disaster.
Additionally, the department frequently makes effort to improve the management system of the response team through support of community participation due to the homeland security initiatives of the community-based participatory agencies (Reese, 2012). The current efforts, therefore, shall increase the future excellence of the DHS operations due to community involvement and active participation.
Seo et al., (2014) compares DHS operations with that of the past where government officials were too preoccupied with themselves to upgrade the systems to incorporate the new technological needs of the people. For future improvement of the DHS, the department needs to set aside their personal interest and focus on serving the public’s safety demand. However, the notion that the DHS focused on their personal needs since the inception of the department needs change. This view is because of the unnoted increasing trend of cyber-crimes that cripple the online dependency phenomenon. Additionally, the statutory frameworks around cyber-related security threats are insufficient and outdated, therefore, incapacitating the department's ability to prevent and intervene in cases of cyber-attacks.
Furthermore, the the blame for the failure of the homeland security’s responsibility is due to the equity measures in the homeland security during the allocation at times of facing the strategic attacker (Shan & Zhuang, 2012). As an example of the terrorist incidents, the beheading of the United Kingdom’s soldier and the September 2014 beheading of the Oklahoma coworker were results of reluctance on the department’s watch. This is because the assailants had made imminent threats online and further executed the heinous acts in support of radicalized terrorism without intervention of the security agency. The DHS should, therefore, show more promptness and authoritaty when responding to threats to improve effectiveness in the future.
Conclusions Based on Analysis of the Past and Future of the DHS
Despite the overall negative reviews, DHS has improved organization between the federal, local and state agencies in the facilitation of the response to terrorism incidences. Due to this direct involvement of the multiagency design, there is detailed specification of the responsibilities. The delegations have reduced the frequency of attacks on US terrorism since the September 11 attacks (Bullock, Coppola, & Haddow, 2016).
The DHS is also vigilant in eradicating instances of the terrorist attacks in the United States of America. An example is the attempted attack in New Jersey that targeted the United States Army Base for Dix (Bullock Coppola, & Haddow, 2016). The planned attack by six men that faced arrests lists the number of success in thwarting terrorist activities in the country. Such urgent responses improve the department’s chances of protecting not only the United States citizens but also international regions through the use of technological advancement.
The goals of the DHS include the provision of a secure and safe nation, but it should also establish the principles of a free society (Seo et al., 2014). The mission to provide an entirely safe environment is difficult, but the DHS needs to improve their systems to match the new ways of terrorism on an individualistic basis. Most radical extremist groups use people that are socially isolated or vengeful to plan the infiltration and subdue of the federal agency to succeed in a terrorist attack (Seo et al., 2014). Other contexts of such radicalism incorporate racial and regional prejudice that is profound on technologically advanced systems of integration.
Recommendations Based on Past Effectiveness Impact on the Future
One of the recommendations of improving the future effectiveness of the DHS operations is the diversification of the leadership roles to create policy agendas that address all risk-hazard portfolios (Shan & Zhuang, 2012). The DHS requires a comprehensive system that focuses on the needs of the Americans rather than wasteful resource management. The improvement to a comprehensive system will enable the effectiveness to achieve the roles that are obligatory. Improved communication systenms creates a more manageable platform to deal with imminent threats to the American citizens through prompt responses. Such initiatives that improve the communication within and without the organization include the involvement of the social media, timely communication with multi-agencies and performance of empirical studies on natural calamities to ensure disaster preparedness.
Another recommendation for future effectiveness is the update of computer systems that can mitigate the efforts of such organizations as ISIS and extremist groups that train and influence terrorism actions in the American population (Mueller & Stewart, 2011). Such improvements will ensure prevention of such events as the September beheading that occurred in Oklahoma because the terrorist had declared online their intentions. The agency officials therefore have an upper hand when preventing terrorists attacks rather than responding to fatalities. Furthermore, the advanced communication system allows the dissemination of security information among the various intelligence agencies.
The DHS also needs to address the inherent problems and the philosophical concerns of the American society by establishing productive measures (Reese, 2012). Such productive measures include the reduction of the nature of search warrants that are restrictive, monitor the interceptions between communications and supervise electronic surveillance (Reese, 2012). The public is willing to give up their protections under the Constitution to improve the safety of the public, but such acts should be under a separating reporting agency that audits and monitors the DHS operations. This is through communal awareness on the importance of providing such personal information that is helpful to tracing terrorist radicalization and unknown activities. The government officials, therefore need an established monitoring body that ensures that such personal information is only used for security threat purposes.
Conclusion
The DHS was established as a step to combat future terrorist attacks on the American soil as well as to spread its obligations to countries abroad. The main challenges that affect the effectiveness of the department include the following: the past mismanagement of the federal resources, excessive integration of the agencies of the government under the umbrella of the DHS, and the new form of radicalized terrorism that cannot be controlled. The department, however, faces a dilemma in improving the response to terrorism attacks while at the same time protecting the Civil Rights of the American citizens by refusal to invade their privacy and access personal information. However, the violation of innocence is the only way that the department can track down the radicalized self-acting terrorist that hide behind their computer screen to perform terrorist acts.
The overview of the background information on combating security threats in America outlines the objectives of the DHS, which are the drivers of effectiveness of the department as it was an improvement of the then existing agencies such as the DoD and the NSA. The internal challenges include the misappropriation of resources and the inclusion of disproportionate agencies during a delegation, which significantly have an impact on the failure to support safety efforts such as the dismal response during Hurricane Katrina. The external challenges include the online radical terrorism that cripples the DHS’s efforts to curb the spread of individual acts of terror. The Department of Homeland Security, therefore, needs internal reorganization of structures, monitoring systems for resource allocation and community participation to improve its effectiveness in combatting terrorism and national calamities.
Reference
Bullock, J. A., Coppola, D.P., & Haddow, G. D. (2016). Introduction to Homeland Security Principles of all-hazards risk management (5th ed.). Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lewis, T. G. (2014). Critical Infrastructure Protection in Homeland Security: Defending a Networked Nation . John Wiley & Sons.
Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2011). Terror, security, and money: Balancing the risks, benefits, and costs of homeland security . Oxford University Press.
Reese, S. (2012, April). Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Sauter, M., & Carafano, J. (2011). Homeland Security: A Complete Guide 2/E . McGraw Hill Professional.
Seo, S. H., Gupta, A., Sallam, A. M., Bertino, E., & Yim, K. (2014). Detecting mobile malware threats to homeland security through static analysis. Journal of Network and Computer Applications , 38 , 43-53.
Shan, X. & Zhuang, J. (2012). Cost of Equity in Homeland Security Resource Allocation in the Face of a Strategic Attacker. Risk Analysis , 33 (6), 1083-1099. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01919.x
