The 9/11 Commission Report, Essay Example

The 9/11 commission report highlights the issue of missed opportunities as a result of failure to share information as one of the reasons why the September 11, 2001 attack took place. According to the report, there was failure by the U.S government to pool intelligence in order to use it in the assignment of responsibilities as well as planning. If information was shared among the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Homeland Security agencies and the State Department, coordinated efforts would have averted the terrorist attack from happening.

The first specific that demonstrates failure by the government agencies to share information is that of the Saudi Arabia-U.S joint efforts at fighting Al Qaeda terrorist threats. All the information that was in the possession of the government relating to Al Qaeda activities in Saudi Arabia should have been availed to U.S action officers and duties shared in all departments and agencies, both locally and internationally. If intelligence was shared well by senior U.S government officers working in both countries, the finances of Al Qaeda would have been tracked and disrupted, making it impossible for the organization to carry out the attacks.

The second specific relates to the nature of U.S government intelligence. The government has almost unlimited access to any amount of information that it requires. However, the system within which this information is shared is very weak. According to Roberts, 2004, the “need to know” system ought to have been replaced with a “need to share” system in order for the 9/11 terrorism attack to be averted.

Two Information Sharing Models

The United States intelligence community proposed an information sharing strategy modeled around emphasis on “responsibility to provide” as well as an enterprise perspective that is community-based. According to the proponents of this model, attribute-based access to information helps create an environment of trust. This makes it possible for security measures to be built out of the prevailing environment as well as data thus enabling all stakeholders to share information with confidence in addition to fostering greater cooperation.

According to this model, all members of the intelligence community require to be empowered with the ability to discover availability of crucial intelligence information as well as retrieve it whenever need arises. In addition, analytic organizations that perform supportive functions to senior decision makers need to have all the necessary means to understand all the implications of every sensitive piece of information whenever they are creating a product.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission, recommended a strategy of combining joint intelligence and the embarking on joint action. This would ensure that a ‘smart government’ is able to integrate all available sources of information in order to see the enemy through a holistic perspective (Popp et al, 2004).

The strategy would entail use of an all-source analysis that would inform as well as shape important strategies for more intelligence to be collected. Within this strategy, the government ought to deal with the joint management problems through analysis of intelligence from as many sources as possible through creation of interagency entities and then passing on the joint operational planning to White House (Lee and Rao, 2007).

Technology Available to Support These Information Sharing Models

Although technology is needed for anti-terrorism efforts to bear fruits, many analysts often emphasize that technology succeeds when proper behaviors are adopted (Johnson, 2005). Meanwhile, networking technology ranks highest on the list of priority areas that are necessary for the aforementioned information sharing models to work. An intelligence community can only exist within a networked environment. The network would make it easy for information providers to make information readily available and accessible at the earliest possible moment (Roberts, 2004).

The 9/11 commission recommended that the network environment be improved in areas of attribute-based access and identity management. It also recommended stored data encryption processes, user audits and authorization systems, uniformity in information sharing, rules and procedures to be use to employ these technologies to access information. The commissioners also believed that the readily-available data tagging and retrieval technology should be made simple and more emphasis put on behavior.

The Most Effective Information Sharing Model for Preventing Terrorist Attacks

The model recommended by the 9/11 commission seems like the best strategy to deal with the fast-evolving terrorism challenges facing the United States of America. Combining joint intelligence means addressing the problems that led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The strategy emphasizes change of behavior through which information is shared (Johnson, 2005). In other words, it is not just about sharing information for the sake of it; it is about sharing it for an intended purpose. After all, tones of information that cannot be evaluated are of no use. They are as good as not shared at all. This is the same problem that resulted in the 9/11 attacks.

The 9/11 commission report also defines the best information sharing strategy as one that is emphasizes an interagency approach. Within this strategy, the White House is also assigned information handling tasks. This strategy, according to the commissioners, has resulted in a 50 percent increase in intelligence staffs who work in the White House as well as the state department.

The information strategy proposed by the 9/11 commission works through a building block approach consisting of six main elements: governance, policy, technology, culture and economics. Proper coordination efforts that handle all these building blocks are sure to cushion the country from a terrorist threat of any magnitude. All that is required is ensuring that different areas of implementation are considered on a priority basis. Amendments on the strategy should be based on informed decisions which should tickle appropriately down the chain of command.

Conclusion

The war against terrorism requires stringent measures to be put in place in order to avoid the repeat of 9/11. The measures, as espoused in different information sharing models, should be implemented on a long-term basis, with the appropriate policy changes being instituted in order to make the strategies fit into changing times.

It is clear that technology is as important as change of behavior among intelligence officers at both local and international levels. Presence of too much information and no mechanisms of sharing and evaluating portends no progress in countering terrorist activities. Against this backdrop, a common trust environment is needed. Matters of information sharing should be no different from matters of governance. The chains of command that apply in all departments should also apply when it comes to matters of sharing and responding to new, helpful intelligence. Lastly, though new technologies are needed in order to enhance effectiveness of information discovery, sharing and analysis, these technologies should be simple to use and they should also encourage proper behaviors of analysis and investigation.

References 

Johnson, J. (2005). An information sharing model for homeland security. New York: Penguin Books

Lee, J. & Rao, H. (2007). Exploring the causes and effects of inter-agency information sharing systems adoption in the anti/counter-terrorism and disaster management domains. New York: Digital Government Society of North America.

Popp, R. et al. (2004). Countering terrorism through information technology. Communications of the ACM 47(3) p. 36-43.

Roberts, A. (2004). ORCON Creep: Information sharing and the threat to government accountability. Government Information Quarterly 21(3) p. 249-267.