HLSS 505 AMU Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 6th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

In a minimum of 550 words and using provided documents, identify the Critical Infrastructure Sectors. Choose three of the Sectors and discuss why a certain government agency was identified as the lead agency for that sector. Also discuss what other government agencies you believe should have been included in the list and/or should have been identified as the lead agency for a sector.

Additonal peer-reveiwed sources are welcomed and encouraged.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations Shawn Reese Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy January 8, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42462 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations Summary Ten years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. government does not have a single definition for “homeland security.” Currently, different strategic documents and mission statements offer varying missions that are derived from different homeland security definitions. Historically, the strategic documents framing national homeland security policy have included national strategies produced by the White House and documents developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to the 2010 National Security Strategy, the 2002 and 2007 National Strategies for Homeland Security were the guiding documents produced by the White House. In 2011, the White House issued the National Strategy for Counterterrorism. In conjunction with these White House strategies, DHS has developed a series of evolving strategic documents based on the two national homeland security strategies and include the 2008 Strategic Plan—One Team, One Mission, Securing the Homeland; the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and Bottom-Up Review; and the 2012 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan. The 2012 DHS strategic plan is the latest evolution in DHS’s process of defining its mission, goals, and responsibilities. This plan, however, only addresses the department’s homeland security purview and is not a document that addresses homeland security missions and responsibilities that are shared across the federal government. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security is developing the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which is due late 2013 or early 2014. Varied homeland security definitions and missions may impede the development of a coherent national homeland security strategy, and may hamper the effectiveness of congressional oversight. Definitions and missions are part of strategy development. Policymakers develop strategy by identifying national interests, prioritizing goals to achieve those national interests, and arraying instruments of national power to achieve the national interests. Developing an effective homeland security strategy, however, may be complicated if the key concept of homeland security is not defined and its missions are not aligned and synchronized among different federal entities with homeland security responsibilities. This report discusses the evolution of national and DHS-specific homeland security strategic documents and their homeland security definitions and missions, and analyzes the policy question of how varied homeland security definitions and missions may affect the development of national homeland security strategy. This report, however, does not examine DHS implementation of strategy. Congressional Research Service Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations Contents Introduction and Issue...................................................................................................................... 1 Evolution of the Homeland Security Concept ........................................................................... 1 Evolution of Homeland Security Strategic Documents ............................................................. 2 Effects on Congressional Responsibilities................................................................................. 3 Definitions and Missions as Part of Strategy Development ...................................................... 3 Evolution of the Homeland Security Definitions and Missions ...................................................... 3 2002–2009 Strategic Document Evolution................................................................................ 4 2010–Present Document Evolution ........................................................................................... 5 Federal Homeland Security Mission Activities and Funding .................................................... 5 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 8 Missions................................................................................................................................... 10 Analysis and Considerations .......................................................................................................... 13 Tables Table 1. FY2012 Appropriations and FY2013 Request for Homeland Security Mission Funding by Agency ......................................................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of Homeland Security Definitions ..................................................................... 8 Table 3. Summary of Homeland Security Missions and Goals ..................................................... 11 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 15 Congressional Research Service Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations Introduction and Issue Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, policymakers continue to grapple with the definition of homeland security. Prior to 9/11, the United States addressed crises through the separate prisms of national defense, law enforcement, and emergency management. 9/11 prompted a strategic process that included a debate over and the development of homeland security policy. Today, this debate and development has resulted in numerous federal entities with homeland security responsibilities. For example, there are 30 federal entities that receive annual homeland security funding excluding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that 48% of annual homeland security funding is appropriated to these federal entities, with the Department of Defense (DOD) receiving approximately 26% of total federal homeland security funding. DHS receives approximately 52%.1 Congress and policymakers are responsible for funding homeland security priorities. These priorities need to exist, to be clear and cogent, in order for funding to be most effective. Presently, homeland security is not funded on clearly defined priorities. In an ideal scenario, there would be a clear definition of homeland security, and a consensus about it; as well as prioritized missions, goals, and activities. Policymakers could then use a process to incorporate feedback and respond to new facts and situations as they develop. This report examines how varied, and evolving, homeland security definitions and strategic missions may affect the prioritization of national homeland security policy and how it may affect the funding of homeland security. To address this issue, this report first discusses and analyzes examples of strategic documents, their differing homeland security definitions, and their varying homeland security missions. Evolution of the Homeland Security Concept The concept of homeland security has evolved over the last decade. Homeland security as a concept was precipitated by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. However, prior to 9/11 such entities as the Gilmore Commission2 and the United States Commission on National Security3 discussed the need to evolve the way national security policy was conceptualized due to the end of the Cold War and the rise of radicalized terrorism. After 9/11, policymakers concluded that a new approach was needed to address the large-scale terrorist attacks. A presidential council and department were established, and a series of presidential directives were issued in the name of “homeland security.” These developments established that homeland security was a distinct, but undefined concept.4 Later, the federal, state, and local government responses to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina expanded the concept of homeland security to include significant disasters, major public health emergencies, and other events that threaten the United States, its economy, the rule of law, 1 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013: Analytical Perspectives, February 2012, “Appendix – Homeland Security Mission Funding by Agency and Budget Account,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/homeland_supp.pdf. 2 For information on the Gilmore Commission, see http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel.html. The Gilmore Commission was established prior to 9/11; however, it released its fifth and final report in December 2003. 3 For information on the U.S. Commission on National Security, see http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nssg.pdf. The U.S. Commission on National Security was established in 1998 and issued its final report in February 2001. The commission did reference the idea of “homeland security” in early 2001. 4 Harold C. Relyea, “Homeland Security and Information,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 19, 2002, p. 219. Congressional Research Service 1 Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations and government operations.5 This later expansion of the concept of homeland security solidified it as something distinct from other federal government security operations such as homeland defense. Homeland security as a concept suggested a different approach to security, and differed from homeland defense. Homeland defense is primarily a Department of Defense (DOD) activity and is defined as “... the protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the President.”6 Homeland security, regardless of the definition or strategic document, is a combination of law enforcement, disaster, immigration, and terrorism issues. It is primarily the responsibility of civilian agencies at all levels. It is a coordination of efforts at all levels of government. The differences between homeland security and homeland defense, however, are not completely distinct. A international terrorist organization attack on and within the United States would result in a combined homeland security and homeland defense response, such as on 9/11 when civilian agencies were responding to the attacks while the U.S. military established a combat air patrol over New York and Washington, DC. This distinction between homeland security and homeland defense, and the evolution of homeland security as a concept, was reflected in the strategic documents developed and issued following 9/11. Evolution of Homeland Security Strategic Documents The evolution of this new and distinct homeland security concept has been communicated in several strategic documents. Today, strategic documents provide guidance to all involved federal entities and include the 2010 National Security Strategy and the 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism. There are also strategic documents that provide specific guidance to DHS entities and include the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review,7 the Bottom-Up Review, and the 2012 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan. Prior to issuance of these documents, national and DHS homeland security strategic documents included the 2002 and 2007 National Strategies for Homeland Security and the 2008 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan. All of these documents have varying definitions for “homeland security” and varying missions derived from these definitions. While the definitions and missions embodied in these strategic documents have commonalities, there are significant differences. Natural disasters are specifically identified as an integral part of homeland security in five of the seven documents, and only three documents—2008 and 2012 DHS Strategic Plans and the Bottom-Up Review—specifically include border and maritime security, and immigration in their homeland security definition. All of these mentioned issues are important and require significant funding. However, the lack of consensus about the inclusion of these policy areas in a definition of homeland security may have a negative or unproductive consequences for national homeland security operations. A consensus definition would be useful, but not sufficient. A clear prioritization of strategic missions would help focus and direct federal entities’ homeland security activities. Additionally, prioritization affects Congress’ authorization, appropriation, and oversight activities. 5 Nadav Morag, “Does Homeland Security Exist Outside the United States?,” Homeland Security Affairs, vol. 7, September 2011, p. 1. 6 U.S. Department of Defense, Homeland Defense, Joint Publications 3-27, Washington, DC, 2007, p. vii. 7 DHS is currently developing the 2014 QHSR which the department intends to publish and issue in late 2013 or early 2014. Congressional Research Service 2 Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations Effects on Congressional Responsibilities As deficit reduction causes demand for reduced federal spending, Congress may pay more critical attention to homeland security funding. With reduced funding comes the need for higher degrees of organization, focus, and clarity about the purpose and objectives of national homeland security policy. Limited resources heighten the importance of prioritization and need for efficient and effective federal spending. If homeland security policy priorities are unclear, Congress’ ability to provide effective authorization, appropriation, and oversight may be hampered. Definitions and Missions as Part of Strategy Development Definitions and missions are part of strategy development. Policymakers develop strategy by identifying national interests, prioritizing missions to achieve those national interests, and arraying instruments of national power to achieve national interests.8 Strategy is not developed within a vacuum. President Barack Obama Administration’s 2010 National Security Strategy states that strategy is meant to recognize “the world as it is” and mold it into “the world we seek.”9 Developing strategy, however, may be complicated if the key concept of homeland security is not succinctly defined, and strategic missions are not aligned and synchronized among different strategic documents and federal entities. Evolution of the Homeland Security Definitions and Missions Prior to 9/11, federal, state, and local governments responded to domestic terrorist attacks in an ad hoc manner. These terrorist attacks, and the governments’ responses, however, did not significantly affect how policymakers perceived, defined, and prioritized security as related to the homeland. Two examples of these domestic terrorist attacks are the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) and the 1995 Alfred Murrah Federal Building bombings. On February 26, 1993, radicalized Islamic terrorists10 detonated a bomb beneath the WTC. In response, President Clinton ordered his National Security Council to coordinate the bombings’ response and investigation. The CIA’s Counterterrorist Center and the National Security Agency, along with the FBI, were among the numerous federal agencies that participated in the investigation.11 This use of the National Security Council was an ad-hoc response specifically to this event, and it did not result in the development of strategic documents. On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh exploded a bomb-laden truck in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Following this bombing, President Clinton directed the Department of Justice 8 Terry L. Deibel, Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 5. 9 Executive Office of the President, National Security Strategy, Washington, DC, May 2010, p. 9. 10 An FBI investigation identified the following individuals as the culprits: Mohammed Salameh, Ahmad Ajaj, Ramzi Yousef, Mahmoud Abouhalima, and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (often called the “Blind Sheikh”). All of these individuals were prosecuted and convicted. 11 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Washington, DC, July 22, 2004, p. 71. Congressional Research Service 3 Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations (DOJ) to assess the vulnerability of federal facilities to terrorist attacks or violence and to develop recommendations for minimum security standards.12 These standards, however, were not a wideranging strategy for U.S. homeland security strategy. It was the 9/11 terrorist attacks that initiated the debate and development of a broader homeland security strategy. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, were a watershed event. As with the 1993 WTC and 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, the federal, state, and local government’s response to the 9/11 terrorists attacks was ad hoc. In New York City, first responders included such entities as the New York police and fire departments, and Port Authority and WTC employees.13 Following the attack, federal entities such as the FBI, DOD, and elements of the intelligence community (IC) coordinated their efforts in investigating and tracking down the responsible terrorists. However, following the 9/11 initial response and subsequent investigations, it was determined that there was a need to reorganize the government to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from future attacks.14 This decision to reorganize the government resulted in an evolution of homeland security definitions and missions. The debate over and development of homeland security definitions persists as the federal government continues to issue and implement homeland security strategy. All of the strategic documents in this report define homeland security as security efforts, however, each one defines these efforts in different terms. 2002–2009 Strategic Document Evolution The first homeland security strategy document issued by the Bush Administration was the 2003 National Strategy for Homeland Security, which was revised in 2007.15 In 2008, DHS issued Strategic Plan—One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland. The 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security primarily focused on terrorism, whereas the 2008 Strategic Plan included references to all-hazards and border security. Arguably, the 2003 and 2007 National Strategies for Homeland Security addressed terrorism due to such incidents as the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and the attempted bombing16 of American Airlines Flight 93 on December 22, 2001. Whereas the 2008 Strategic Plan addressed terrorism and all-hazards due to natural disasters such Hurricane Katrina which occurred in 2005. These documents were superseded by several documents which are now considered the principle homeland security strategies. 12 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Building Security: Interagency Security Committee Has Had Limited Success in Fulfilling Its Responsibilities, GAO-02-1004, September 2002, p. 5. 13 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Washington, DC, July 22, 2004, p. 315. 14 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Washington, DC, July 22, 2004, p. 399. The 9/11 Commission determined that there needed to be a unity of effort across the foreigndomestic divide, in the IC, in sharing information, and in Congress. 15 This report does not provide the 2003 National Strategy for Homeland Security definitions and missions due to it being revised in 2007. 16 Rich ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

EinsteintheProf
School: Purdue University

Hello, review the attached document and contact me in case you need any changes. Otherwise, good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know. Always invite me to answer your questions.

Running Head: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS

Critical infrastructure sectors

Name

Institution

1

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS
Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets
Critical infrastructure sectors
A critical infrastructure sector denotes sectors whose networks or systems are considered
very significant and their destruction would have substantial effects on national economic
security, national public health, and safety as well as security at large. These infrastructures are
used by the government to denote substantial assets which are essential for the functioning of the
economy and the society at large. This paper identifies there critical infrastructure se...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Tutor went the extra mile to help me with this essay. Citations were a bit shaky but I appreciated how well he handled APA styles and how ok he was to change them even though I didnt specify. Got a B+ which is believable and acceptable.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors