These commemorations have been accompanied by the reported thwarting of a number of fresh plots by local and/or federal law enforcement, including most recently a conspiracy to assassinate the Israeli and Saudi Arabian ambassadors to the United States. In addition, natural events such as the tornado that struck Joplin, Mo., as well as Hurricane Irene remind us of the need to remain vigilant in the face of threats originating from the darker side of Mother Nature.
The following are five key observations based on the experience of the last decade:
Terrorism remains a significant threat to the United States and other liberal democracies around the world.
As the years pass, it’s tempting to take the lack of a full blown sequel to 9/11 in the United States, as well as Osama bin Laden’s death as indications that terrorism no longer poses a serious threat to America.
The evidence strongly suggests that post-9/11 vigilance combined with overseas engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan — which have provided alternative arenas for the violent expression of radical anti-American sentiment — have not eliminated the likelihood of post-9/11 attacks on the homeland. In fact, the list of lesser attacks such as the 2009 Fort Hood massacre that left 13 dead and 29 wounded, near misses and foiled plots by would-be shoe, underwear, suitcase, car and restaurant bombers is sufficiently long and gruesome to demonstrate that the threat is potent, persistent and tangible. As the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan decreases, the risk to the homeland from Jihadi terrorists could actually increase.
Jihadi terrorism is not the only enemy in the war on terror.
Because violent Islamist extremists have perpetrated at least three major attacks on American soil and many more abroad, this threat has loomed large in the American psyche and has been a prime focus of the nation’s counterterrorism and homeland/national security policy since 9/11. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that other groups and ideologies may pose a threat to the country as well. Though far from the most commonly held stereotype of the terrorist, Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirators perpetrated the second most deadly act of terrorism on United States soil. The 2005 Oklahoma City bombing left 168 dead (including 19 children) and nearly 700 wounded. According to the FBI, groups sharing many of McVeigh’s beliefs are flourishing in many parts of the country and pose a serious threat to law enforcement and other government officials.
The FBI also identifies animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchist extremists and so-called lone offenders (such as those behind the “Unabomber” and the 2002 D.C. area sniper attacks) as other potential domestic sources of terrorist threats. September 2011 also marked the tenth anniversary of the deadly anthrax attacks thought to have been committed by a research scientist working at a U.S. Army biodefense lab.
Terrorism is not the only threat facing the United States.
For understandable reasons, the trauma of 9/11 led to a heavy emphasis on the terrorist threat as the centerpiece of homeland security policy. FEMA, previously an independent agency like the other Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) components, was subordinated to DHS and found its traditional disaster response and recovery missions getting lower priority. Hurricane Katrina, which resulted in the restoration of partial autonomy to FEMA, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the H1N1 pandemic as well as the above-mentioned Joplin tornado and Hurricane Irene, all served as vivid reminders of the potential potency of threats stemming from natural hazards, industrial accidents and infectious disease. Clearly, a balanced all-hazards approach to homeland security policy is essential.
Reorganization is not a panacea.
After 9/11, a major reorganization of what has come to be known as the homeland security sector occurred in the United States (and many other countries). The United States experience included the creation of more or less lasting institutional innovations including presidential homeland security advisers, councils, secretaries and most importantly, a gargantuan DHS made up of nearly two dozen previously independent agency and service components.
Though much has been accomplished and today’s DHS is better integrated and more effective than in early years, this unprecedented exercise in bureaucratic consolidation proved painful, difficult, time consuming and costly. Intractable interagency problems were with a stroke of a pen translated into nearly equally intractable intradepartmental issues among relatively autonomous component agencies. Attempts to reorganize the intelligence apparatus under the supervision of a director of national intelligence have proved similarly challenging, as recently pointed out by 9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton in their 10 years after 9/11 report card.
An alert and prepared citizenry is a key asset.
Experience, as well as a large body of systematic research, reminds us that it is easy and potentially destructive to underestimate the vigilance, rationality and resilience of the public in crises and disasters. A fourth 9/11 attack was thwarted by the heroic resistance mounted by the passengers of Flight 93. More recently, a sequel of the attack on Fort Hood was prevented during the summer of 2011, thanks to the vigilance of a gun storekeeper who reported the suspicious behavior of the accused terrorist to the police. Citizens are key assets in efforts to prevent critical incidents, and in responding to them.
Campaigns such as “the first 72 are on you” by FEMA, state and local government and the Red Cross can make a big difference in promoting individual and family resilience — as was vividly demonstrated by the experience in Hurricane Irene. Innovations such as smartphones, social networking and crowdsourcing provide new means for citizens to help themselves in ways that complement and leverage provided by first responders and other public-sector resources.
A decade ago, the contemporary concept and practice of homeland security was in its infancy. Much has been learned and done to prepare for the challenges of today and tomorrow. Yet the threat picture is diverse and constantly evolving. There are no magic bullets or easy, enduring answers. Sadly we must remain on our guard; the price of security is eternal vigilance.
Eric K. Stern is a professor at the University of Virginia and Swedish National Defense College.
