please answer

timer Asked: Feb 6th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $15

Question description

Why has the Intelligence Community had to adapt with the end of the Cold War and the emergence of more and more non-traditional threats to our national security? Please discuss the differences between how the Intelligence Community addressed traditional threats and how we have to approach the problem today with the addition of the non-traditional threat problem set. Are there any similarities?

The use of threats has been around for centuries. They have been used to ensure compliant behavior and actions from individuals or groups of people. Threats are used by parents so that their children behave. Business organizations may use the threat of termination if you do not follow the guidelines for employment. Governments use the threat of incarceration for committing crimes as a form of punishment. Threats may be used as deterrents to encourage the positive continuation of life as we know it. When you consider the word threat, what comes to mind? Is it on a personal level? A larger scale? Does it involve others outside your family and peer group? Is strictly domestic or do you see it as a global term? Have you ever thought about how you perceive threats? Our perceptions are based on previous experiences and knowledge and perceptions can vary greatly among individuals. One person might perceive a threat of an airline hijacking as more serious and credible than another based on their age or experience. An experienced traveler may not fear a hijacking as much as one who has flown only a few times because the experienced traveler has many successful flights over decades of travel. Individual nation-states face threats regularly and the impact may vary depending on the nature of the threat. Threats are not limited to man-made ones but can also be epidemics that plague a community or population. Other threats may be isolated shootings, bombings, explosions, or attacks that are intended to cause injury or death. These acts may be carried out by an individual, non-state actor, or other nation-state. Non-state actors are particularly active since the 1990s. Conversely, there are non-state actors that serve the best interest of the government as private organizations or as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who seek to reduce threats and provide peace. Threat The word threat conjures up many different ideas when you consider it. You might picture yourself out running and notice a rabid dog charge at you from the shadows, leaving you to flee or to defend yourself. You might work late and park in an unattended parking garage with poor lighting. Hearing a loud an unexpected noise may cause you to be startled and look over your shoulder quickly to make sure no one is following you. Or you may be sound asleep and hear your front door bang open. Your family is asleep and it will take precious seconds to unlock your gun cabinet and call for emergency help. Each of these scenarios can be considered threatening to some while others may be constantly prepared for the unknown. The jogger may carry a can of mace for protection against people and animals while the employee who works late may do the same. It is the perceived level of threat that creates a sense of awareness of one’s surroundings as well as their level of preparedness in the event of a potential encounter with a threat. But what about those threats you are not prepared for or do not identify ahead of time? Can you always be prepared for anything and everything? It is important to be able to evaluate threats logically without being an alarmist. Fear of threats have been present since the world began but how we perceive them and their associated dangers better enable thwarting attempts when faced. In the scenarios mentioned, it is important to distinguish between a threat and the perceptionof threat. Threats may involve verbal statements intended to compel a person take a specific course of action such as, “You will do ________ or I will ________ if you do not.” The consequence of not following through may result in broken legs, arms, or even death. Keep in mind that the person making the threat may not always be the individual in charge but may serve as the “voice” of the boss. • Physical Threats Threats may also involve physical contact such as beating a person to demonstrate the power the other party has over him or her in order to encourage compliance. Physical threats may involve torture, broken bones, amputations, gunshot wounds, knife wounds, injuries to loved ones, or even death if undesirable behavior results from demands. • Deterrent Threat Another type of threat designed to send a message is a deterrent threat. This threat does not always involve verbal or physical contact but rather may be a threatening letter or sending a box with an animal body part inside. We have seen these types of threats on television and they do have shock value for the recipient. Perception Perception is the understanding of the intended meaning of the threat sent by the messenger. If you own a small business in a community that is dominated by the mob and are approached by mob members for “protection money,” you have the choice whether to pay or not. You know the consequence of not paying is that your business may burn to the ground one night. They may verbally threaten you with this if you choose not to pay so you decide that you must pay weekly in order to retain your family business. One week your sales are less than expected and you are short with “protection money” and you know they will not accept anything less. You try to reason with them but instead end up with a broken leg and a warning for it to never happen again. Several months pass and business has slowed. You are once again short and there is nowhere to secure the remaining “protection payment” so you must tell them that you cannot make the payment in full. They leave with the money you offer, the promise to pay the remainder with interest the following week, and you suffer no broken bones. The next morning you arrive to open your business and there is nothing but ashes. Was your perception the night before flawed? In this specific case, perception “is the basis for understanding, learning, and knowing and the motivation for action” (Stein 2013, 2). Is this any different than an intelligence threat and perception? The facts and details differ but the results and interpretations may be similar based on how the threat is perceived on the individual level. Let’s take a closer look at threats. Intelligence Threats The intelligence community receives information or data daily, or maybe even hourly, which may be credible and cause the need to take action for a potential threat. The mission of intelligence analysts is to “evaluate, integrate, and interpret information in order to provide warning, reduce uncertainty, and identify opportunities” (Fingar 2011, 4). Analysts examine information for relevant factors to determine the worth of a credible threat as it relates to other known information or data. They must know what to look for, where to find it, and how to provide further guidance to those in the field who are assisting in gathering information to support or diffuse credible threats. They must remain neutral and unbiased when examining and disseminating information, providing just the facts. When discussing potential threat information, they would present the context, pattern, quantity, quality, and character of the source(s) so that credibility may be determined. The Evolution of Threat The need to act upon credible threats is one responsibility of the intelligence community and these threats must be justified and legitimized before sounding the alarm to warn citizens. The majority of threats are never announced to the general public but rather addressed within the governmental agencies. Increased Security Measures Since 9/11 there has been increased security monitoring at airports, train stations, government buildings, military bases, areas where large crowds will gather for one-time events (e.g., concerts, speeches, etc.), or theme parks. These additional measures in place increase the security bridge in order to reduce the divide between public and private organizations and the government as well as decrease legal recourse a private citizen may have against an organization which may have culpability by not providing additional protections. Threats have posed global problems since 9/11 by risking lives and costing millions of dollars in damages and protective measures. Terrorists, for example, have been able to secure resources through obscure means and are willing to use whatever means necessary to cause fear and panic. They have been linked to events that have resulted in mass casualties worldwide while continuing to stay one step ahead of the international intelligence communities in some cases. The complexity of the multiple networks that terrorists employ to communicate with each other is challenging and sometimes impossible to trace. Websites are activated for short periods of time and then deactivated permanently. Without knowing the specific timeframe a website will be active, intelligence analysts are unable to hack into the networks and retrieve the encrypted information for further evaluation. Types of Threats Those who pose threats to freedom and security move relatively freely across borders internationally and are considered to be diverse (Monar 2007). These threats may be related to political, religious, cultural, social, or an assortment of other reasons, using different tools and methods to further their causes through direct and indirect threats. Keep in mind that religious threats may not be directly based on Islam, for example, since the concept of terrorism is in direct conflict with Islam and the Muslim culture. A common threat is generally vague in regards to location, method of weapons, and purpose, but instead is meant to instill fear in citizens. Chatter about more specific threats such as 9/11, the Madrid bombing, and the London attacks may be detected ahead of time through the use of modern technology and enhanced sources. Threat Perception Threat perception can be shaped on the public’s awareness of past terrorist events as well as their evaluation of the likelihood of an actual event occurring where they live or work. Another factor that can influence perception is one’s previous exposure to an actual event. Those who lived or worked in New York or Washington, D.C., on 9/11 are more likely to take aggressive actions against a threat because they have witnessed firsthand the devastation that occurs when an unexpected terrorist attack happens. They are the ones who saw innocent people jumping from the building with the hopes of escaping the fires and the miniscule chance of survival. They saw the planes purposely fly into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, watching the explosions and debris showering down. They may have been involved in search and rescue efforts. In short, they lived the events of that day so they know just how bad it can be. To these people, the perception of threat is very different than to those who watched it live on television across the country. Consider those who live in the Middle East and see acts of terrorism on an almost daily basis. Their perception of threat would be greater than others around the world since they live in a terrorist active environment. They might hear certain noises or see certain things to know to take cover immediately while westerners may not be in tune with these warnings. The politics and cultural attitudes of these regions are enmeshed in their daily lives and they have a deeper understanding of these issues as citizens than we would since they were raised in this tumultuous environment. Origin of a Threat The origin of a threat also impacts how it is perceived. If the threat of not being able to play with video games for one week for failing a test is not followed through by the parent, then the child is not likely to try harder on the next test. If a high school student who has been bullied threatens to bring a weapon to school to shoot his oppressors, it should be taken seriously given the number of school shootings in the past two decades. When a threat is made to release prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by a terrorist organization or an embassy will be targeted, this should be taken seriously even though the United States’ policy is ‘no negotiations with terrorists.’ The Nation-state National security is one of the top priorities for the American state and our intelligence community has an unsurpassed capacity for technological innovations. Employing the use of satellites, microelectronics, computers, the Internet, biotechnology, and more, the United States continues to be the leader in innovative technologies used to protect the nation-state since World War II. Our armed forces have had the advantage of using technology invented by not only the government but also by private organizations in order to advance our national security goals. Security threats to the United States have helped develop what constitutes threats against the nation-state over time. Such threats and attempts to breach the nation-state’s security beyond borders are referred to as transnational threats since they cross borders and are the acts of nonstate actors as well as global economic performance, or natural or unnatural forces (weatherrelated incidents or chemical warfare). These threats can be unpredictable and extremely dangerous against our nation-state. While the United States does not experience the number of terrorist related activities as other nation-states, this does not mean we can relax our safeguards and monitoring of threats on a daily basis; the threats are just as dangerous as those posed to other nation-states such as England or Spain. Let’s take a brief look at different threats that have affected the United States since 1793: 1793 Yellow Fever A yellow fever outbreak (natural threat) was the cause of death for more than 5,000 people in Philadelphia – the nation’s capital during this time. 1918-1919 Spanish Flu The Spanish flu epidemic claimed the lives of nearly 25 million people. 1920 Wall Street Bombing An individual drove a horse-drawn carriage down Wall Street where it exploded. 1947 Texas City Disaster A ship carrying nitrate fertilizer exploded, destroying Texas City. 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis The Cuban Missile Crisis was a dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War that brought the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear war. 1968 Race Riots Race riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing The Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. 2001 September 11th The September 11th terrorist attacks. 2015 San Bernardino A husband and wife team killed 14 and wounded more than 20 at a holiday party in California. ~ Scroll for more ~ This list highlights some of the various threats that have impacted our nation-state in some way as the threats resulted in deaths or injuries. Not all threats are related to terrorism yet each of these examples share one common element – loss of life. Some of these threats are not politically based nor were they created as an intended threat by humans (yellow fever outbreak and Spanish flu epidemic) but each represents a credible threat to Americans. Information Sharing ust as threats have evolved over time, so has information sharing to the public about them. We do not live each day connected to the media for updates about threats nor do we dwell on them since we cannot live in a constant state of fear. As Americans, we have proven time and time again that we are resilient and determined to overcome many adversities and we do not lower ourselves to victim status by always fearing potential threats. We rely on the credible data and information from the government since they are tasked with the protection of our civil liberties and freedoms and rarely does the government fail us. While we cannot expect complete protection from all threats and attacks, the government has proven able to thwart many attempts to injure or kill Americans. • The U.S. as a Leader in National Security The emergence of the United States as a leader in national security and technology followed the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. There was chatter that indicated an attack was imminent but it went ignored and classified as a non-credible threat, a major failure of the intelligence community. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor highlighted the need for military preparedness and increased national security infrastructure. While this dire need was evident, it was by no means easy because of the bureaucracy involved between the political actors in implementing the necessary changes. It was not until Sputnik that the United States fully realized the need to become the global leader in technology. Discarded Information The actual bombing of Pearl Harbor or the attacks of 9/11 are not the primary concern of the nation-state’s citizens but rather the prevention of these attacks from occurring. Even though there was information prior to these two events they still happened and thousands of deaths resulted. Why was the information ignored? Many theories revolve around why the information was ignored but the most critical part to take away from this is that we now have more insight to the inner workings of these groups which can aid in further understanding for the future. • Recognizing Threats Despite warnings of the new efforts employed by terrorists, they still posed an immediate threat to our nation-state as they continued to emerge as transnational threats. At one point, there was debate as to whether transnational terrorism was a credible concern for the United States since the majority of attacks were on foreign soil and against foreign targets. It was not until 1993, when a member of al-Qaeda drove a truck bomb into the basement of the North Tower of the World Trade Center that an act of transnational terrorism officially landed on domestic soil. Prior to 1993, all activity was isolated to domestic threats turned into violence only. Some argue that non-state threats do have a direct and indirect impact on the United States that may lead to physical violence in the global arena. The challenges to dissecting international threats to determine their worth against civil, interstate, or terrorist conflicts within the nationstate may convolute the bigger picture therefore minimizing the nature of the threat. The failure to recognize a nation-state threat in the midst of an international one poses great peril on domestic soil and its citizens. Additionally, some credible evidence may be overshadowed by other threats that are used to distract the intelligence analysts from discovering the intended target and actions that will be taken. This can, and does, lead to a systematic failure to respond and protect the people. • Preventative Measures Preventative measures can be taken rather than reactive ones by responding to threats as they are discovered. But can we respond to every single threat? It is an impossible task with limited government resources and employees with the insurmountable number of threats that are discovered and reported. As with the chatter prior to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, there was enough information to determine the threats were credible and real, yet we failed to react and respond. How did the intelligence community get this so very wrong? There was finger pointing and placing blame on other agencies after the fact but no official culpability was declared. The Non-state Actor Non-state actors have become the focus of contemporary research as a major cause of new security threats related to terrorism, civil wars, infectious diseases, and transnational crimes. They have also been hired as security professionals for private companies, nongovernmental organizations, and international regimes. While none of these types of crimes are new phenomena nor is the involvement of non-state actors, security policy has transformed drastically since the Cold War, necessitating increases in security policies based on these “new” actors and the threats they present. In order to understand how threats have evolved over time it is important to understand just what a security threat is. The simple definition is that a security threat is an event that may have potentially damaging consequences regarding the survival of an individual or state. Furthermore, a security threat is limited in scope to a geographical location because it limits the area of damage that can be inflicted. The technical data and evidence would be assessed and evaluated in order to determine the complexity of the threat as well as what type(s) of weapons might be used (e.g., infectious disease, weapons of mass destruction, bomb, etc.). The nature of security threats has changed, particularly since the end of the Cold War and has led to the reassessment of how a non-state actor may pose a threat towards a nation-state. Not only have non-state actors contributed to these new types of security threats related to terrorism and transnational crime, they also play a role in the establishment of security. Non-state actors are categorized as private actors or intergovernmental organizations. Private actors are typically involved with private organizations, charities, propaganda groups, national, or international NGOs. Sovereign nation-states may have such non-state actor organizations develop at multilateral levels. Within these two broad groups, we will focus on three specific types of non-state actors: NGOs, private military companies, and international institutions (Krahmann, 2005). Non-state Actor Threats Now that you have a better understanding of the non-state actors that are involved in promoting national security, let’s take a closer look at two organizations which pose threats to security. President Ronald Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) Number 221 on April 8, 1986, which added narcotics trafficking to the list of security threats against the United States and its domestic partners (Krahmann, 2005). Three months earlier, President Reagan signed NSDD Number 207, which recognized the escalating threat to American security from terrorist organizations who were intent on attacking United States interests, domestic and abroad. With the introduction of these new threats, these directives outlined the dangers of illicit non-state actors and the dire need for increased response to threats. Colombian Drug Cartels Tracing their roots to the 1970s, Colombian drug cartels began to exploit the demand for cocaine by drug users in the United States by utilizing various laboratories in South America before the shipments were ready for distribution. These non-state actors brought these illicit drugs to American soil by evading drug enforcement efforts. Initially, U.S. law enforcement failed to recognize the enormity and sophistication of these drug networks. In addition to the mass introduction to cocaine, the threat of theft and death also followed. While the majority of the daily operations were carried out by cell workers, arresting these individuals did not halt the shipments as they were easily replaced. The kingpins enlisted mid-level managers for the task of “recruiting” additional cell workers through the use of threats against their families to encourage compliance. This group of non-state actors introduced a new class of threats to the United States that had not been experienced in the past. al Qaeda Veteran resistance fighters from the Mujaheddin war against the Soviet Union organized a network of Islamic fighters in Afghanistan based on the connections developed during the conflict. Their purpose was to continue jihad against other infidel nation-states, thus introducing a new threat from non-state actors to the security arena. Since the inception of al Qaeda, numerous terror attacks have been coordinated globally against the United States and other Western governments. Unlike other non-state actors, al Qaeda has successfully infiltrated many nation-states globally with networks of terrorist cells and associates in order to carry out attacks. This non-state actor organization has challenged the intelligence community for decades with their use of technology for communication and radical ideologies and political considerations. While the motivations of these non-state actors differ, they both pose serious security threats to our nation-state. Al Qaeda parallels organized crime because of its complex structure therefore being similar to drug cartels. There is a distinct hierarchy and assigned roles within each as well as compartmentalization of members. By reducing exposure to other members within the network, their illicit operations can continue since there is no direct connection among them. Their strategies and practices also threaten nation-states and the intelligence community must constantly monitor and learn how these evolve with advances in technology and communication. Conclusion This lesson covered threats and how they apply to individuals and nation-states. Threats can be used for a variety of reasons and the perception of the threat depends on the individual’s experience and knowledge. A threat given by a parent without follow through is not likely to be taken seriously whereas one given by a drug lord would be considered credible. Nation-states face threats on a daily basis and it is critical to national security to determine the worthiness of these threats. Some threats may be used as distractions while others may be a missing puzzle piece needed to determine the level of seriousness. Not all threats are considered serious but should be investigated. As we have learned throughout history, there have been threats that have been ignored that have had devastating and permanent negative effects on our country. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are examples of historical events which had chatter of threats prior to each event that were overlooked or even ignored. Non-state actors are individuals or groups who pose a threat against a nation-state in some cases. As you learned, there are certain non-state actors who support national security efforts and threat reduction. It is important to remember that not all non-state actors are against the nation-state.

Tutor Answer

Doctor Ralph
School: UCLA




Student’s Name
Course + Code

Why The Intelligence Community Had To Adapt With The End Of The Cold War And
The Emergence Of More And More Non-Traditional Threats To Our National Security
The intelligence community has had to adapt with the end of the cold war and the
emergence of more and more non-traditional threats to our national security through the
implementation of security policies and procedures that look at the braider picture of the
country's future. With the rapid globalization and natural debasement, global terrorism is
changing the context of national security of the country.i The threats to national security are
also taking a dynamic shift thus prompting the intelligence community to change their
strategy in enhancing the national security. In particular, the emergence of more nontraditional threats to national security has prompted the intelligence security to extend their
security plan beyond state and military security.
The end of cold war II led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union thus changing the
landscape of threat to national security. The communist world changed their tactics on
traditional threats to national security to focus on other potential factors that may interfere
with the national security. As such, the approach to national security policing far from
military force, as the focal po...

flag Report DMCA

The best tutor out there!!!!

Similar Questions
Hot 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