9/11, Terrorism, and the Department of Homeland Security, Essay Example

Introduction

The 9/11 terrorist attacks catalyzed seismic changes in how the United States looked at national security policies. The attacks not only changed how the nation would prepare for future terrorist threats, but also the preventative measures and correctives employed therein. It has been almost fifteen years since the attacks, and policymakers undertake retrospective evaluations and assessments of the active policies implemented by the Department of Homeland Security on a yearly basis (Zycher, 1994).

Improvements Since 9/11

In order to discuss whether 9/11 lead to strategy changes in the Homeland Security insofar as to make them more efficient towards assuring national security, a number of variables are to be taken into account. These variables include training of local law enforcement agencies, availability of funds through grants and funding, and the ability to communicate efficiently between one department and another.

The Department of Homeland Security before 9/11 was supposed to lead broad policies that enhance homeland security efforts. In addition, this agency was intended to integrate various activities at the local, regional, and national levels; the private sector; and ultimately private citizens as a unitary enterprise (McNeill & Mayer, 2011). However, in practice, the Homeland security enterprise has evolved in both positive and negative ways. According to The New York State Division Of Homeland Security And Emergency Services (2012), the main improvements made to the policies were related to priorities. Critical infrastructure protection made up 39.25 percent of the budget, and the funding of counter-terrorism and law enforcement increased to 16.2 percent of the budget, which means that their only objective remained that of allocating the necessary budgets needed for ensuring national security, with the effect of ignoring furthermore the issue of preparing the human resources as much. In other words, the employees beneficiated from no training session or strategies oriented towards making the communication process be more efficient. Thereof, the 9/11 caused no significant strategy improvements in the case of Homeland Security.

Main Challenges of Homeland Security

The main challenges of the Homeland Security, according to a recent document created by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (n.d., p. 39), are that terrorist organizations are now looking to “take advantage of our relatively open society and individual freedoms” to carry out attacks. The Department nonetheless must figure out how to communicate intelligence in a seamless manner between law enforcement officials so that the United States will be able to halt any and all terrorist plots that posed a danger to the American public. The efficient allocation of resources has been difficult for the government because of the ineffective congressional oversight and ineffective policies that Congress had passed yet yielded no beneficial results. The former Office of Public Security was transformed into the Office of Homeland Security in 2004. Thereof, the major challenges in what allocating resources are concerned have already begun to result into different strategies, yet the actual results have yet to show themselves. As can be seen in the picture (Fig.1), the strategies considered central or significant in security planning fluctuated significantly after 9/11. According to Taylor, Liggett and Cavanagh (2005), ”Following 9/11, agencies have tended to look for new ways to engage passengers on security issues. A number of agencies have implemented a Transit Watch program, which engages the public as additional security “eyes” and “ears.” Others have sought to increase public awareness of security issues through posters, pamphlets, Web pages, and regular newsletters.”

The main challenges of Homeland Security were investigated through gathering intelligence processes meant to highlight both the ability of the institution to follow through with threats and the possibility to protect the locales and, hence to respond accordingly during emergency situations.

Changes to Security Execution

Terrorist threats against the United States continue to be made, and Americans believe that there is currency in national security because the threat of terrorism is real and palpable. Since 9/11, the nature of national security has vastly changed due to ubiquitous fear of future terrorist attacks. As a result, the government had to limit the civil liberties of Americans to crack down on anti-American terrorism. Statistics point to the efficacy of the Department of Homeland Security, as 39 terrorist plots have been uncovered and prevented since 9/11. Extant research suggests that the investments made in mechanisms such as the PATRIOT Act—which extended the federal government’s reach in people’s private lives through police empowerment by granting them more latitude in local communities—as well bolstering information-sharing abilities were cogent investments for national security.

The Annual Cost of Counter Terrorism Post 9/11

Unsurprisingly, counter-terrorism measures in a post-9/11 world has exponentially increased and remains a priority in the government (Donahue, 2008). The funding of intelligence programs outside of the Office of Homeland Security cost $52.6 billion dollars (Washington Post, 2012). The 2015 budget of the Department of Homeland Security was over $60 billion (Department of Homeland Security, 2015). The escalating costs of counter-terrorism in the United States have caused profound damage, because such measures have fomented competition that may results in the development of nuclear and biological materials.

References

Department of Homeland Security (2015) FY 2015 Budget Overview. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS-Congressional-Budget- Justification-FY2015.pdf

Donahue, L.K. (2008). The cost of counter-terrorism: Power, politics, and liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Liggett, R., Fink, C., Wachs, M., Cavanagh, E., Cherry, C., & Haas, P. J.

(2005). Designing and operating safe and secure transit systems: Assessing current practices in the United States and abroad (No. MTI 04-05). Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San José State University.

McNeill, J.B. & Mayer, M.A. (2011). Ten years after 9/11: Thinking smarter about Homeland Security The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/ten-years-after-9-11-thinking- smarter-about-homeland-security

Mueller, J. & Stewart, M.G. (2011). Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security.  Homeland Security Affairs. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from https://www.hsaj.org/articles/43 

The New York State Division Of Homeland Security And Emergency Services (2012) Ten years after 9/11: an overview of new york state’s homeland security accomplishments. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.dhses.ny.gov/media/documents/Ten-Years- After-9-11-NYS-Accomplishments.pdf

The Washington Post (2012) The Black Budget. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black-budget/

U.S. Government Accountability Office (n.d.) 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government. Section 2: Twelve Reexamination Areas. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.gao.gov/challenges/homelandsecurity.pdf

Zycher, B. (1994). A preliminary cost/benefit framework for counter-terrorism public expenditures.  Retrieved October 8, 2015 from Rand Corporation, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1693.html