Mitigation In The 1990s
1990s, the most of mitigation programs were solely focus on natural hazards (Roberts, p. 134). The maximum end of creating a mitigation directorate was to move the agency away from national security functions toward natural hazards that are more easily mitigated than prevented (Roberts, p. 134). James Lee Witt, oversaw FEMA reorganization and he as the director promoted the idea of mitigation at the local and state level throughout the 1990s. As a result, mitigation became associated with the policies of his political chief, President Bill Clinton (Roberts, p. 134). In the wake of September 11 attacks, everything change, from roles and responsibilities, to the creation of departments. In fact, the September 11 attacks placed attention to
the policy design in charge of preventing or mitigating such attacks, which evidently showed they have failed and therefore, new policies will emerge to address the problems revealed by the attacks (Birkland, p. 179). This event changed the behavior of political actors and all Americans and they could now understand the seriousness of the terrorism problem (Birkland, p. 187). The attacks provided the opportunity to reinvigorate FEMA’s civil defense and counterterrorism efforts (Roberts, p.134). Since structural mitigation proved to be helpful in preventing the attack on the Pentagon from being worse that it was (Roberts, p.134). Because of the administrative chaos, blame and funding after the attacks, bar the emphasis of mitigation. The emphasis of mitigation diverted into a new direction and so did FEMA after 9/11 attacks. FEMA’s commitment to mitigation change under President Bush, both because new priorities such terrorism preparedness competed with mitigation programs, and because the agency lost experienced mitigators through retirement and attrition (Roberts, p. 135). It is important to highlight that FEMA works on mitigating hazardous conditions such as flood elevations and weatherproofing, which is not referred to preventing and fighting terrorist attacks on the native land, so training and new planning for the emphasis of mitigation will be required in this new century. The strike of 9/11 attacks becoming the boiling point for FEMA to lose its
the policy design in charge of preventing or mitigating such attacks, which evidently showed they have failed and therefore, new policies will emerge to address the problems revealed by the attacks (Birkland, p. 179). This event changed the behavior of political actors and all Americans and they could now understand the seriousness of the terrorism problem (Birkland, p. 187). The attacks provided the opportunity to reinvigorate FEMA’s civil defense and counterterrorism efforts (Roberts, p.134). Since structural mitigation proved to be helpful in preventing the attack on the Pentagon from being worse that it was (Roberts, p.134). Because of the administrative chaos, blame and funding after the attacks, bar the emphasis of mitigation. The emphasis of mitigation diverted into a new direction and so did FEMA after 9/11 attacks. FEMA’s commitment to mitigation change under President Bush, both because new priorities such terrorism preparedness competed with mitigation programs, and because the agency lost experienced mitigators through retirement and attrition (Roberts, p. 135). It is important to highlight that FEMA works on mitigating hazardous conditions such as flood elevations and weatherproofing, which is not referred to preventing and fighting terrorist attacks on the native land, so training and new planning for the emphasis of mitigation will be required in this new century. The strike of 9/11 attacks becoming the boiling point for FEMA to lose its