What is Homeland Security? There are at least seven defensible definitions of homeland security, based on claims about what homeland security emphasizes or ought to emphasize. The definitions focus on 1 terrorism, 2 all hazards, 3 terrorism and catastrophe, 4 jurisdictional hazards, 5 meta hazards, 6 national security, and 7 government efforts to curtail civil liberties.
Introduction Prior to 11 September terrorism was only one among a large and growing number of US security concerns. Since then the "war on terrorism" has become the predominant organizing theme of US security policy, at least in its declaratory aspects. With regard to budgeting, it is the primary rationale for a planned 40 percent real increase in US defense spending, Presently the war on terrorism involves 10 federal agencies in addition to the Defense Department.
About half of this sum is focused on activities overseas. Activities by nations other than the United States and by global agencies are equally broad and disparate.
The State Department estimates, for instance, that intelligence and law enforcement agencies are presently involved in the anti-terrorist campaign and countries are participating in efforts to disrupt the financial base of the al-Qaeda network.
A world transformed; a discourse disabled In terms of its strategic impact, America's "new war" calls to mind the Cold War practice of containment, which shaped US policy and world politics for 45 years.
Among the new war's effects: And, It has fundamentally altered the dynamics in two of the world's most persistent conflicts -- the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
In addition, it is leading the United States toward war with Iraq and into counter-insurgency campaigns in the Philippines, Indonesia, Georgia, Yemen, and Colombia. On a global scale, the new war is substantially affecting flows of foreign aid and investment, the transfer of military goods and services, the character and focus of counter-proliferation efforts, the implementation of sanction regimes, and the status of efforts to support human rights and advance democratic governance.
It even has given ballistic missile defense efforts a new lease on life and has provided a context in which Russian if not Chinese objections to National Missile Defense and the US abrogation of the ABM Treaty have been quieted, at least temporarily.
While the "war on terrorism" is transforming US policy and reshaping the global strategic environment, US public and expert debate regarding the campaign -- its goals and methods -- has been feeble.
Likewise, the evaluation of progress in the war and examination of the new programs and spending meant to support it has been mostly circumspect and superficial. This evinces the fact that US policy discourse itself suffered a serious blow on 11 September.
The Cold War doctrine of containment was the product of four years of intense policy debate before it gained hegemony and calcified in reaction to the Korean War.
By contrast, the idea of comprehensively rewriting US policy in terms of a "war on terrorism" jetted to prominence like a plume from the wreckage of 11 September. A predictable result of this and the subsequent evisceration of policy debate is that America's response to terrorism lacks both clarity and cohesion.
Notably, The discussion of the terrorist threat remains vague and evocative. Threat assessments have been more journalistic and speculative in character than analytical. And, Counter-terrorist activities -- while numerous, varied, and energetic -- evince little in the way of an integrative strategy.
America's response to the 11 September attacks proceeds at a fever pitch, but it does not add up to a coherent program. Circumscribed as it presently is, the US discourse on terrorism and counter-terrorist policy offers little protection against initiatives that are ineffective, inefficient, and counter-productive.
Absent a revitalization of US policy discourse, we can expect that the unplanned and inadvertent outcomes of America's anti-terrorist efforts will vie in significance with the intended and desirable ones.
There are three imperatives for improving the discourse on terrorism and counter-terrorist policy: First, the present terrorist threat must be better specified and "contextualized" both historically and politically; Second, critical attention must be focused on evaluating the full range of counter-terrorism activities as a strategic program.
Current practice needs to be evaluated in terms of competing and alternative goals, options, instruments, and strategies. Third, the counter-terrorism program and strategy must themselves be viewed in context as part of a broader security agenda and practice.
How does the counter-terrorism campaign relate to other important US security policy objectives?
Addressing this question would also help establish criteria for evaluating defense programming and budgeting decisions.
A more sober and systematic approach to dealing with the challenge of terrorism would bring to the fore a number of lapses in current policy. Prominent among these is the failure to fully appreciate and pursue opportunities for international cooperation in combating terrorism.
Although the United States has mobilized significant international support for its campaign, the campaign itself has remained Washington-centric. The effort has proceeded principally on a unilateral and bilateral basis, not a multilateral one, with Washington assuming the role of the campaign's chief architect and engineer.
Aspects of the campaign and American leadership have become matters of polarizing dispute between the United States and some of its partners, especially in the Arab and Muslim world.
The deleterious impact of this is hard to exaggerate: Effectively limiting the influence and power of al-Qaeda and the broader Jihadist movements depends, more than anything else, on not only avoiding an "Islam versus the West" overlay, but actually winning the intensive cooperation of Arab and Muslim states.
In more general terms:The terrorist attacks of September 11, , in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Pennsylvania were acts of war against the United States of America and its allies, and.
Budgeting. The allocation of resources to provide for the proper inplacations of public policies Policy the United States would provide military assistance to anti-Communist groups fighting against Brazil be a governments.
Cabinet department created after the 9/11 attack to coordinate domestic US security efforts against terrorism. The challenge of terrorism against the United States led the government to create the Department of Homeland Security with the hope of leveraging federal, state, and local police agencies, intelligence agencies, and immigration agencies to cooperate in communicating findings and creating joint efforts to stop threats of terrorism or confronting a terrorist attack.
It was not terrorism-in-general that attacked the United States on 11 September but the al-Qaeda network in particular -- a specific formation with a distinctive organizational structure, modus, and strategy. Attention to its distinctive features is critical to the development and .
The War on Terror (also known as the Global War on Terrorism) is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign which started as a result of the .
The United States Law Code is the law that deals with terrorism in the United States, and contains a definition that covers all aspects of terrorism.
The Code recognizes that politics, religion, or ideological reasons might equally motivate terrorism.