Homeland Security: Differences Between The Cold War And The War On Terror
2.)
One of the events prior to 9/11 that I believe also significantly contributed to shaping homeland security in the present was the Cold War. The differences between the Cold War and the War on Terror were of course the time, the place, and the people who were involved but the main difference were the cause of each war. The U.S. got involved with Korea and Vietnam because the US wanted to stop the spread of communism coming from countries like the U.S.S.R. The US declared war against Afghanistan because of terrorist actions of 9/11 to stop the spread of terrorism in the future. Reasons like these are what shaped the homeland security program, Americans fear that there are people out there who will directly and/or indirectly harm this country.
The ways that these two wars are similar is that due to this rise in fear, Clovis (2006) states that the government becomes more lenient when allowing people like Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy to claim anyone to be a communist without solid evidences and policies like the USA PATRIOT Act to imprison people …show more content…
without trials under the suspicion of conforming to terrorist ideals. With a history like this Homeland Security is unsurprisingly under suspicion of spying on American citizens.
If I were called upon by the president to talk about the cold war I would tell him/her that his/her decision should take into consideration that making a change homeland security policy will not only affect this generation but multiple down the line. I would want the president to understand that one must have a cool head when faced against an adversary that can influence the population, also learn that it is nearly impossible to destroy or control an idea like communism so do not waste time and resources in a fruitless endeavor to stop it, and that some vocal extremists need to be squelched in order to avoid creating a panic especially if the person is a politician.
3.)
I believe that the “truth” about the definition of homeland security is buried under a layer of deception, while it is one of this country’s lines of defense from natural disasters and terrorist attacks unfortunately there have been some speculation on how this country response to these events many criticized it as perhaps there may be some political corruption involved.
I would prefer that homeland security would have an “all-hazards” policy approach, protecting and assisting people from man-made incidents to unavoidable natural disasters during times when terrorism is not a prominent threat for the time being. Otherwise it would simply be occupying resources during times of peace, affecting the people who are operating in homeland security to perhaps develop an unhealthy bias towards finding and punishing potential terrorists rather than having an interest in protecting other human beings from
threats.
Regarding the definitions proposed by Bellavita, Terrorism and Terrorism and Catastrophes are considered to be the most accurate since the Department of Homeland Security was formed as a result of the attacks on 9/11. The other definitions are either additions to policy changes added later or just interpretations of what some people want Homeland Security to cover as well. Regarding my assessment of the problems caused by a lack of a single, consensus definition of homeland security seems that there is a conflict of interests which is natural given the situation as trying to find a compromise between different interpretations is difficult. As Relyea (2002) proposes the only way to address this issue, so that homeland security can acceptably function, is to evaluate any statistical data relating to various defense methods and use to propose what is necessary have in the definition for homeland security.
Also, regarding my assessment of the Obama administration’s preference for equating homeland security with national security I am in agreement with their decision as during times when both departments are operating for the same goals they should be considered equals.
5.)
My assessment of the term “Global War on Terror” is that it is quite ambiguous and because of that, the idea lends itself for the potential of abuse or at least the misinterpretation of the facts. Normally victory is achieved once the enemy declares defeat by surrendering or by abandoning all of their territory, however in a war against terror; it seems like the only way to ensure victory without retaliation is by completely annihilating the enemy and destroying or gain control over the tools they use to acquire new recruits.
My assessment of President Obama’s assertion that the government should focus instead on combating specific terrorist organizations is that I agree with that notion, however the problem here is that there can still be some confusion about who and what are part of which terrorist organizations. Waeckerle (2000) defines it the war on terror is different than more traditional concepts of war by the fact that a normal war does not spur the controversy of needing to spy on a country’s own citizens or losing more money and human life than any other war in recent memory.
The enemy that is terrorizing America is America itself, terrorist groups will come and go, but how Americans perceive the world and decide who lives and who dies will always be more destructive than a group of foreign criminals. Domestic terrorist groups, whether they are affiliated with other major terrorist organizations or are acting as independent agents for their own ideal, are considered as another reason for supports of the war on terror to advocate policies to increase safety even at the sacrifice of privacy.
7.)
Regarding the government's promise to rebuild New Orleans, I feel as though that their answers are too vague and broad which have resulted in constant delays and lax effort towards reconstruction which resulted in some unsatisfied citizens. If they are lucky the next hurricane will only cause a fraction of the damage Katrina has caused.
Regarding whether or not we as a nation should devote time, money, and effort into rebuilding New Orleans and any other areas in a similar situation, it is of the utmost importance that the American people must address the situation, unless somehow all future hurricanes will avoid hitting American cities, this issue will not go away. Rather than complaining about how much it is going to cost and the inevitability to have to rebuild it again after another natural disaster, instead the government should take this opportunity to invest in some more creative solutions. Hire numerous teams of architects and engineers to design buildings that will be immune to hurricanes and other regularly occurring natural disasters, do not just “rebuild damaged structures with more resilient materials” instead consider if the whole thing needs to be redesigned for example, instead of wooden homes or brick buildings construct a cement dome like structure that can let water pass through without soaking the carpet.
I believe that the responsibility of rebuilding cities should be shared between the federal, state, and local governments, while it would be difficult to have cooperation due to the chain of command I find that one without the others will only give the burden of debt or construction to the wrong people. Without cooperation each of them would try to back out saying that the reconstruction project is too expensive or that they are not getting the support that they need. If all three work together they can pool their resources and invest in long-term solutions, we can prevent another lackluster response to a hurricane similar in scope to Katrina from ever happening again.
Regarding whether or not would it make a difference if it were an affluent city that would have been in need of repair does not matter as McCreight (2009) claims that large scale damage like that would still cause a number of setbacks, displace thousands of people, and politicians would still hesitate at the costs needed to rebuild the destroyed area. However, after the event of Hurricane Katrina, I say that the government’s response times in rebuilding cities and other related recovery processes has gotten a lot better since the embarrassing display that happened New Orleans. The federal actions that took place in future natural and man-made disasters such as Hurricanes Gustav and the BP Oil Spill were quicker and well-received in comparison to how slow it took for support to reach the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The ethical implication of my views generally focus on ideas that the powerful should protect the weak, the government should be able to handle issues that regular citizens cannot do by themselves, and that the human race should be able to create permanent, ideal solutions to constant and destructive real world issues.
9.)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency should remain part of the Department of Homeland Security, for various reasons, one includes premise of working with the Department of Homeland Security’s other agencies that promote preparedness, send quick responses and plan for long-term recovery. In order for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to offer its knowledge and other resources, the agency should at least be able to have quick and convenient access to contact the Department of Homeland Security and its resources. As Wise (2002) discusses, by allowing both of these departments to stay together, they can each share information with one another and work as partners to address issues in homeland security. Even both the current leaders of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Homeland Security have expressed their opinions and supported to keep their organizations together.
There is also the issue of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s past failures, as many people like President Obama have cited, one major blunder was the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. If the organization wants to improve and keep improving, as evident by how much more effective future response were like after events like Hurricanes Gustav and the BP Oil Spill, these organizations need to stay together. Right now both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security are working well together; they are learning from their mistakes and have made changes to their policies in response. Separating them would only undo years of progress and cause unnecessary complications, delays, and divided opinions.
12.)
Risk communication is often defined as a process of exchanging information among involved government departments about the nature, size, impact, or possible control of a potential threat to the country. Risk communication usually focuses on developing and delivering messages and announcements before and during a major event, the facts are often backed by scientists, researchers, and other experts evaluating the matter. Crisis communication is defined as the collaboration between handling information and controlling the meaning during the three stages of prevention, response, and post-crisis learning. With crisis communication, unlike risk communication, the message is generally announced by any authoritative figures as it usually done to build and maintain public relations. Public warning is a system that warns in advance of a real threat that could harm society, warnings should come with instructions to mobilize and prepare the citizens to increase safety.
The roles and responsibilities of the media are to make communication more effective and relay timely, accurate, detailed, sufficient, reliable, and understandable necessary information to both the affected population and the general public. My assessment of the news overall is that it is usually dependable when it comes to opening communication and relaying information, however there have been times when political bias, the government intervention, and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina have prevented the media from doing its job correctly.
My assessment of the National Terrorism Advisory System, in comparison to the Homeland Security Advisory System, overall sees it as an improvement over the old model. The main benefit of switching to the National Terrorism Advisory System is that the people can gain access to more specific and up to date information while being instructed on proper response and behavior. There is also the improvement of excluding the never used “Guarded” and “Low Risk” threat levels for the sake of reducing unnecessary material. While some people may prefer having a color-coded system to make it easier to envision, the main weaknesses of the National Terrorism Advisory System is that it is still subjugated by the potential but most likely influence of political manipulation. Though the Homeland Security Advisory System also was criticized for being part of a political tactic to encourage constant fear in the population, the National Terrorism Advisory System will most likely be controversial if it is used to control the amount information released it to the public by using misleading data or omitting major details under the guise of insufficient evidence.
Some of the pros of using social media for this system are, again, that the people can gain access to more specific and up to date information while being instructed on proper response and behavior. Also, people can communicate with others regarding their situation if the information is incomplete or too vague to understand.
Some of the cons of using social media for this system include the scenario in which NTAS is forced to release a vague or incomplete message in order to maintain some confidentiality; however this would lead to conflicting information regarding its sources. Thus short-sighted new reporters and government conspiracy theorists will make attempts to “fill in the blanks” to provide some security to their audience or maybe they will just make something up in order to spark controversy and garner attention for themselves. Another issue with the National Terrorism Advisory System is that it does not do much for people who are not media savvy, for instance the Amish; it is unlikely that all of them will get the most up to date information within a day’s time in their remote villages.
Regarding the potential consequences if the government is not able to maintain its duties, experts like Heyman and Carafano (2008) warn that the people will exert their wrath towards the people in charge, mostly with acts of civil disobedience and petitions to make those liable step down from their positions. Too much and too little responsibly will also have the influence of affecting society’s morality and how the people view the government.
One of the events prior to 9/11 that I believe also significantly contributed to shaping homeland security in the present was the Cold War. The differences between the Cold War and the War on Terror were of course the time, the place, and the people who were involved but the main difference were the cause of each war. The U.S. got involved with Korea and Vietnam because the US wanted to stop the spread of communism coming from countries like the U.S.S.R. The US declared war against Afghanistan because of terrorist actions of 9/11 to stop the spread of terrorism in the future. Reasons like these are what shaped the homeland security program, Americans fear that there are people out there who will directly and/or indirectly harm this country.
The ways that these two wars are similar is that due to this rise in fear, Clovis (2006) states that the government becomes more lenient when allowing people like Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy to claim anyone to be a communist without solid evidences and policies like the USA PATRIOT Act to imprison people …show more content…
without trials under the suspicion of conforming to terrorist ideals. With a history like this Homeland Security is unsurprisingly under suspicion of spying on American citizens.
If I were called upon by the president to talk about the cold war I would tell him/her that his/her decision should take into consideration that making a change homeland security policy will not only affect this generation but multiple down the line. I would want the president to understand that one must have a cool head when faced against an adversary that can influence the population, also learn that it is nearly impossible to destroy or control an idea like communism so do not waste time and resources in a fruitless endeavor to stop it, and that some vocal extremists need to be squelched in order to avoid creating a panic especially if the person is a politician.
3.)
I believe that the “truth” about the definition of homeland security is buried under a layer of deception, while it is one of this country’s lines of defense from natural disasters and terrorist attacks unfortunately there have been some speculation on how this country response to these events many criticized it as perhaps there may be some political corruption involved.
I would prefer that homeland security would have an “all-hazards” policy approach, protecting and assisting people from man-made incidents to unavoidable natural disasters during times when terrorism is not a prominent threat for the time being. Otherwise it would simply be occupying resources during times of peace, affecting the people who are operating in homeland security to perhaps develop an unhealthy bias towards finding and punishing potential terrorists rather than having an interest in protecting other human beings from
threats.
Regarding the definitions proposed by Bellavita, Terrorism and Terrorism and Catastrophes are considered to be the most accurate since the Department of Homeland Security was formed as a result of the attacks on 9/11. The other definitions are either additions to policy changes added later or just interpretations of what some people want Homeland Security to cover as well. Regarding my assessment of the problems caused by a lack of a single, consensus definition of homeland security seems that there is a conflict of interests which is natural given the situation as trying to find a compromise between different interpretations is difficult. As Relyea (2002) proposes the only way to address this issue, so that homeland security can acceptably function, is to evaluate any statistical data relating to various defense methods and use to propose what is necessary have in the definition for homeland security.
Also, regarding my assessment of the Obama administration’s preference for equating homeland security with national security I am in agreement with their decision as during times when both departments are operating for the same goals they should be considered equals.
5.)
My assessment of the term “Global War on Terror” is that it is quite ambiguous and because of that, the idea lends itself for the potential of abuse or at least the misinterpretation of the facts. Normally victory is achieved once the enemy declares defeat by surrendering or by abandoning all of their territory, however in a war against terror; it seems like the only way to ensure victory without retaliation is by completely annihilating the enemy and destroying or gain control over the tools they use to acquire new recruits.
My assessment of President Obama’s assertion that the government should focus instead on combating specific terrorist organizations is that I agree with that notion, however the problem here is that there can still be some confusion about who and what are part of which terrorist organizations. Waeckerle (2000) defines it the war on terror is different than more traditional concepts of war by the fact that a normal war does not spur the controversy of needing to spy on a country’s own citizens or losing more money and human life than any other war in recent memory.
The enemy that is terrorizing America is America itself, terrorist groups will come and go, but how Americans perceive the world and decide who lives and who dies will always be more destructive than a group of foreign criminals. Domestic terrorist groups, whether they are affiliated with other major terrorist organizations or are acting as independent agents for their own ideal, are considered as another reason for supports of the war on terror to advocate policies to increase safety even at the sacrifice of privacy.
7.)
Regarding the government's promise to rebuild New Orleans, I feel as though that their answers are too vague and broad which have resulted in constant delays and lax effort towards reconstruction which resulted in some unsatisfied citizens. If they are lucky the next hurricane will only cause a fraction of the damage Katrina has caused.
Regarding whether or not we as a nation should devote time, money, and effort into rebuilding New Orleans and any other areas in a similar situation, it is of the utmost importance that the American people must address the situation, unless somehow all future hurricanes will avoid hitting American cities, this issue will not go away. Rather than complaining about how much it is going to cost and the inevitability to have to rebuild it again after another natural disaster, instead the government should take this opportunity to invest in some more creative solutions. Hire numerous teams of architects and engineers to design buildings that will be immune to hurricanes and other regularly occurring natural disasters, do not just “rebuild damaged structures with more resilient materials” instead consider if the whole thing needs to be redesigned for example, instead of wooden homes or brick buildings construct a cement dome like structure that can let water pass through without soaking the carpet.
I believe that the responsibility of rebuilding cities should be shared between the federal, state, and local governments, while it would be difficult to have cooperation due to the chain of command I find that one without the others will only give the burden of debt or construction to the wrong people. Without cooperation each of them would try to back out saying that the reconstruction project is too expensive or that they are not getting the support that they need. If all three work together they can pool their resources and invest in long-term solutions, we can prevent another lackluster response to a hurricane similar in scope to Katrina from ever happening again.
Regarding whether or not would it make a difference if it were an affluent city that would have been in need of repair does not matter as McCreight (2009) claims that large scale damage like that would still cause a number of setbacks, displace thousands of people, and politicians would still hesitate at the costs needed to rebuild the destroyed area. However, after the event of Hurricane Katrina, I say that the government’s response times in rebuilding cities and other related recovery processes has gotten a lot better since the embarrassing display that happened New Orleans. The federal actions that took place in future natural and man-made disasters such as Hurricanes Gustav and the BP Oil Spill were quicker and well-received in comparison to how slow it took for support to reach the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The ethical implication of my views generally focus on ideas that the powerful should protect the weak, the government should be able to handle issues that regular citizens cannot do by themselves, and that the human race should be able to create permanent, ideal solutions to constant and destructive real world issues.
9.)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency should remain part of the Department of Homeland Security, for various reasons, one includes premise of working with the Department of Homeland Security’s other agencies that promote preparedness, send quick responses and plan for long-term recovery. In order for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to offer its knowledge and other resources, the agency should at least be able to have quick and convenient access to contact the Department of Homeland Security and its resources. As Wise (2002) discusses, by allowing both of these departments to stay together, they can each share information with one another and work as partners to address issues in homeland security. Even both the current leaders of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Homeland Security have expressed their opinions and supported to keep their organizations together.
There is also the issue of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s past failures, as many people like President Obama have cited, one major blunder was the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. If the organization wants to improve and keep improving, as evident by how much more effective future response were like after events like Hurricanes Gustav and the BP Oil Spill, these organizations need to stay together. Right now both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security are working well together; they are learning from their mistakes and have made changes to their policies in response. Separating them would only undo years of progress and cause unnecessary complications, delays, and divided opinions.
12.)
Risk communication is often defined as a process of exchanging information among involved government departments about the nature, size, impact, or possible control of a potential threat to the country. Risk communication usually focuses on developing and delivering messages and announcements before and during a major event, the facts are often backed by scientists, researchers, and other experts evaluating the matter. Crisis communication is defined as the collaboration between handling information and controlling the meaning during the three stages of prevention, response, and post-crisis learning. With crisis communication, unlike risk communication, the message is generally announced by any authoritative figures as it usually done to build and maintain public relations. Public warning is a system that warns in advance of a real threat that could harm society, warnings should come with instructions to mobilize and prepare the citizens to increase safety.
The roles and responsibilities of the media are to make communication more effective and relay timely, accurate, detailed, sufficient, reliable, and understandable necessary information to both the affected population and the general public. My assessment of the news overall is that it is usually dependable when it comes to opening communication and relaying information, however there have been times when political bias, the government intervention, and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina have prevented the media from doing its job correctly.
My assessment of the National Terrorism Advisory System, in comparison to the Homeland Security Advisory System, overall sees it as an improvement over the old model. The main benefit of switching to the National Terrorism Advisory System is that the people can gain access to more specific and up to date information while being instructed on proper response and behavior. There is also the improvement of excluding the never used “Guarded” and “Low Risk” threat levels for the sake of reducing unnecessary material. While some people may prefer having a color-coded system to make it easier to envision, the main weaknesses of the National Terrorism Advisory System is that it is still subjugated by the potential but most likely influence of political manipulation. Though the Homeland Security Advisory System also was criticized for being part of a political tactic to encourage constant fear in the population, the National Terrorism Advisory System will most likely be controversial if it is used to control the amount information released it to the public by using misleading data or omitting major details under the guise of insufficient evidence.
Some of the pros of using social media for this system are, again, that the people can gain access to more specific and up to date information while being instructed on proper response and behavior. Also, people can communicate with others regarding their situation if the information is incomplete or too vague to understand.
Some of the cons of using social media for this system include the scenario in which NTAS is forced to release a vague or incomplete message in order to maintain some confidentiality; however this would lead to conflicting information regarding its sources. Thus short-sighted new reporters and government conspiracy theorists will make attempts to “fill in the blanks” to provide some security to their audience or maybe they will just make something up in order to spark controversy and garner attention for themselves. Another issue with the National Terrorism Advisory System is that it does not do much for people who are not media savvy, for instance the Amish; it is unlikely that all of them will get the most up to date information within a day’s time in their remote villages.
Regarding the potential consequences if the government is not able to maintain its duties, experts like Heyman and Carafano (2008) warn that the people will exert their wrath towards the people in charge, mostly with acts of civil disobedience and petitions to make those liable step down from their positions. Too much and too little responsibly will also have the influence of affecting society’s morality and how the people view the government.