No one of all time thought an event like the 9/11 onslaught would every go on on American dirt. The United States homeland defence exposures were rapidly identified and portrayed to antagonists within a affair of proceedingss. Even the President, George W. Bush, was stunned by the events that took topographic point on that twenty-four hours, but rapidly adjusted his focal point on the defence of the Homeland. September 11, 2001, was a tragic onslaught that affected the public and political perceptual experiences of terrorist menaces place and abroad. Consequently, the fright of another onslaught still lingers in the heads of the populace and authorities functionaries within the United States. How the authorities addresses these concerns will be a polar point in reconstructing peace of head to its citizens.
Fortunately, the United States has responded to these concerns by re-examining the manner it protected the Homeland prior to the onslaught on 9/11. There have been monolithic attempts to reform the manner intelligence sharing is conducted amongst federal and province bureaus. The end of the reform is to cut down the possibility of another tragic onslaught like 9/11. It has been 11 old ages since the tragic onslaught on 9/11 and there still remains a spread in intelligence sharing between federal and province bureaus. There are several theories on how intelligence sharing should be conducted. Some research workers believe intelligence sharing should be centralized and others believe it should be decentralized. Regardless of how the intelligence is shared there are challenges that involve the standardisation and categorization of information disseminated from bureau to bureau.
Research Question How has theA United States reshaped their attempts on terrorist act to forestall another tragic onslaught likeA 9/11? A
Research Hypothesis: If the United States continues to germinate its Homeland Defense Strategy as the terrorist menaces evolves so the potency for future onslaughts like 9/11 will be mitigated lessening.
There is a significant sum of literature that addresses the United States attempts to forestall an onslaught like 9/11. that talk about the issue of intelligence sharing amongst federal and province bureaus. Since the 9/11 Commission Report was published, bureaus and plans have been formed and reorganized as a consequence of its recommendations. However, it is non the individual beginning solution to work outing the intelligence sharing spread that exists with the federal and province bureaus. There are several scholarly diaries that take a more elaborate attack at turn toing the issues with intelligence sharing in a holistic attack.
Understanding the United States foreign policy is a critical piece in protecting the Homeland from terrorist menaces. Some foreign states view our engagement in their political, economic, and spiritual info construction as menace to their fatherland. This perceptual experience has caused important challenges in extenuating onslaughts against the United States. Cameron ( 2007 ) argues that U.S. foreign policy has been used as a tool to endanger or carry other states in chase of U.S. involvement. On the other manus, the United States sees its engagement in other states as step to make planetary peace or cooperation.
After the 9/11 onslaughts President George Bush directed new policies, be established to protect the Homeland from future onslaughts. Policy shapers developed these new fatherland security policies under extraordinary conditions with limited counsel from leading ( Flynn, 2011 ) . The initial policies focused on battling menaces foreign and did non emphasis the menaces that were developing within the United States. After several alterations to the fatherland security policies it now looks at fatherland security in holistic attack across all spectrums. Harmonizing to Cameron ( 2007 ) , he believes that when looking at fatherland policies we need to “ analyze what causes persons to [ alteration ] the manner they act when they engage with a powerful foreign policy ” ( Cameron 2007, 74 ) .
Constructing partnerships with other states has become another policy attack used to battle menaces to the Homeland. Since 9/11 the United States has expanded its planetary partnerships with informal confederation every bit good as go oning its support attempt with bing confederations ( Zakheim 2011, 03 ) . These confederations play an of import function in making stable security place and abroad. However, these confederations do non come without effects. Harmonizing to Zakheim ( 2011 ) when constructing confederations with other states, you take on the duty to turn to the enemies and menaces of each state in the confederation.
Transformation of Organizations
Since, September 11, 2001 the United States has made several transmutations in its Homeland Security organisations warning systems. Harmonizing to Newmann ( 2002 ) , he identifies two theoretical accounts that support these organisational transmutations. The first theoretical account he identifies is the interagency theoretical account. The interagency theoretical account came into fuwishing when the Homeland Security Council, the Office of Homeland Security, and the place on the fatherland security adviser was established. The constitution of these organisations and place helped blend coordination attempts and unify national security organisations ( Kemp 2012, 28 ) .
The 2nd theoretical account Newmann ( 2002 ) identified is the departmental theoretical account. The departmental theoretical account argues that the fatherland security missions should rest entirely under the authorization of one cabinet section by unifying bing agency and bureaus. The defined issue with this theoretical account is that no 1 organisation has the expertness or experience to cover with the new emerging menaces against the United States. The departmental theoretical account does non look at the holistic attack to turn to fatherland security menaces or jobs. Furthermore, Newmann ( 2002 ) believes that the interagency theoretical account is best suited to hurdle the expertness and experience needed to do fatherland security determinations of tonss of bureaus at all degrees of authorities.
In March of 2002 President Bush signed a directive to make the Homeland Security System. This system was established to supply a standard method to pass on and disseminated information about a possible terrorist onslaught to authorities bureaus and local citizens. In April of 2011, the Homeland Security System was replaced by the National Terrorism Advisor System. The new system transitioned from placing menace conditions by colour to a more elaborate account of the menace. Kemp ( 2012 ) describes the system as a “ system designed to warn public functionaries and citizens of a believable terrorist menace against the United States ” . He besides goes on to explicate that the new system provides concise information
about the menace, with a elaborate account of what steps are being taken to protect public safety and recommendation to forestall or extenuate or react to the menace ( Kemp 2012, 29 ) .
The United States continues to do its passages in its fatherland security organisations and warning systems, but the menace environment continues to germinate. Kemp ( 2002 ) argues that in order to battle those germinating menaces, homeland security organisations structures must follow scheme. The fatherland security organisation must be organized to run into the demands of international environments every bit good as domestic environments. To carry through this several reappraisals must be done to guarantee the security constructions are maintaining up with the new nidation of schemes.
on how the flow of intelligence information should flux. The first theory is intelligence assemblage should be decentralized. This will extinguish the hierarchal and coerce the federal and province bureaus to clearly specify their functions and duties. However, holding a decentralized method to garner and portion intelligence information causes important jobs. Each bureau would make their single method to garner and analyse information and there would be no standard to follow. Harmonizing to Jones, “ to make an effectual information sharing web, some grade of standardisation must be. ” ( Jones 2011, 181 ) . Decentralizing intelligence sharing would ensue in the pre-9/11 perceptual experience every adult male for himself ( Weiss and Davis 2011,
Another theory that exists about intelligence sharing is it should be feed top down. This theory argues that the federal bureaus should feed province bureaus intelligence and let them to do their ain appraisals. This allows province bureaus to decode what is of import to them and do determinations to establish on their findings. The literature fails to turn to the advantages or disadvantages with utilizing a theoretical account that supports this theory. The last theory that exists is intelligence sharing should be feed bottom up. This theory believes province bureaus should feed federal bureaus information. Once once more there is no account that explains the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical account that supports this theory.
One challenge that exists between federal and province bureaus sharing intelligence is how information is classified. Federal bureaus sometimes sort information as secret or restricted, which will forbid province bureaus the privilege to such information. An illustration of such categorization would be programs to prosecute a terrorist menace or major military operation at place or abroad. Jones ( 2007 ) makes a point that information should flux freely to let less of constricted flow information and the need-to-know criterion is outdated ( 384 ) .
The 2nd challenge that exists is standardising processs for both federal and province bureaus. Formal processs for sharing information should be implemented, so information itself is made sharable ( Jones 2007, 385 ) . Jones ( 2007 ) argues, “ Standardization is hard to accomplish given the changing grades of edification, resources, and capablenesss amongst bureaus and the federal inability to oblige reform at the local degree ” ( 181 ) . However, Kiltz believes that instruction can work out some of the challenges with standardisation. ( Kiltz 2011, 7 )
There are four theories that address how intelligence sharing should be conducted between federal and province bureaus. The theory that was the most acceptable by the writers was centralising intelligence sharing. This theory allows federal and province bureaus to both interact and portion intelligence more efficaciously. A good illustration of this theoretical account is the merger centres placed in all provinces. There are some challenges that still exist in the manner federal and province bureaus portion. The writers identified the jobs with standardisation across all bureaus, but did non give a elaborate solution of how to repair the job with standardisation.
Methodology and Strategy
The focal point of this research paper is to assist place and relieve challenges, federal and province bureaus have with sharing intelligence amongst each other. The Corporate Security theory will be used to prove the cogency of holding one organisation, the Department of Homeland Security responsible for national security. It is understood that federal and province bureaus serve as a support mechanism for the Department of Homeland Security. The attack best suited for this research is the focal point group attack. There have been many federal and province led focal point groups conducted since 9/11 to synch security attempts. The scrutiny of these focal point groups will be used to analyze how the formation of the Department of Homeland Security closed the spread with intelligence sharing since September 11, 2001.
The reappraisal of several articles and diaries has shown that focal point groups are the preferable forum to discourse and turn to the standardisation and processs with intelligence sharing amongst federal and province bureaus. Most focus groups follow the same protocol to carry on the meeting. The focal point groups are held at a impersonal location suitable for an unclassified or classified. The usage of a facilitator is used to run the focal point group meeting and maintain things on undertaking. Accomplishable aims with solutions are identified with concurrency from all interested parties. For illustration, one focal point group held by the Department of Homeland Security identified 18 aims that need to be achieved in order to better intelligence sharing with all organisations. The rating of the focal point group methodological analysis has provided plenty informations to pull a decision to this research paper.
Findingss and Analysis
The hypothesis, if the Department of Homeland Security standardizes the procedures and systems for aggregation and construing intelligence information, amongst federal and province bureaus so the intelligence information sharing spread will significantly diminish, has proven to be a true statement. After reexamining several articles, there have been focus groups conducted quarterly since 9/11 to turn to intelligence and information sharing amongst federal and province bureaus. The Department of Homeland Security conducted a focal point group in 2006 titled, “ Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era. ” The focal point group consisted of federal, province, local, public safety, and the private sector. This focal point group meeting addressed processs and guidelines to portion intelligence information, to be followed by both federal and province bureaus. The processs and guidelines continue to be redefined through future focal point groups.
Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security has proven to play a polar function in synching intelligence attempts with all bureaus. After reappraisal of the four theories identified in the literature reappraisal and consensus with the intelligence community, the Collective Security theory is the best attack to turn to our intelligence demands. The Corporate Security has been validated as the best attack to protect national security.
In decision, this research undertaking was intended to reply the research inquiry, how has the formation of the Department of Homeland Security closed the spread with federal and province bureaus intelligence sharing since September 11, 2001. After elaborate analysis, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security has closed the intelligence spread between federal and province bureaus. It is imperative that federal and province bureaus continue to back up the Department of Homeland Security to keep the border against dainties against the Homeland.
The scheme used to do this decision was deprived from diaries and articles examined throughout the undertaking. The articles and diaries provided the appropriate information to reply the research inquiry. Majority of the literature expressed the usage of focal point groups as the agencies to pass on and orchestrate effectual intelligence sharing. The more aims achieved at these focal point groups, the intelligence sharing spreads will significantly diminishing across all bureaus. The continuance of these focal point groups must be sustained due to the altering menaces and tendencies across state.
There is still future research needed to go on the betterment of intelligence sharing amongst federal and province bureaus. The research should concentrate on the organisational constructions of organisations that contribute to intelligence sharing. As menaces become more complex and sophisticated there will be a demand for more trained forces to carry on intelligence analysis. It is imperative to understand how to leverage the trained forces and systems to run into the challenges of the hereafter.