Enable breadcrumbs token at /includes/pageheader.html.twig

Homeland Security Threats, Solutions Become More Diverse

Secretary Michael Chertoff outlines new challenges.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the threat to the U.S. homeland has evolved to include both new players and new tactics. Terrorists and organized crime are becoming more alike in their methods and goals. The exponential growth of cyberspace has increased the threat from actions in it, and the information age itself could be a target via the economy that it spawned.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, aims for a realistic assessment of the threat to the homeland, outlining the spectrum of threats to U.S. homeland security while warning against both overreaction and complacency.

“Homeland security is not a subject about which we ought to be hysterical or obsessed with, but it also is not a subject that we can feel has passed us by,” Chertoff warns. “If there is any lesson that the ongoing financial crisis brings for homeland security, it is that not paying attention to risks when they are distant creates huge problems when the risks materialize."

Al-Qaida’s focus on carrying out attacks against U.S. interests at home and abroad remains a serious threat, but other threats loom as concerns to U.S. security experts. Always a capable terrorist organization, Hezbollah is supported by Iran, and it has conducted fundraising in the United States.

Other groups are emerging from unlikely backgrounds. The Colombian rebel group FARC, despite having suffered significant recent setbacks, is an example of transnational groups that defy traditional characterizations. FARC combined political goals with conventional criminal activities such as smuggling and extortion to become a hemispheric threat. Less political groups such as MS-13 largely have based their actions on criminal activities, but they pose a security threat as well.

Criminal activities along the U.S. southern border are beginning to enter the realm of terrorism. Chertoff cites the indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians in the border regions in Mexico. While this violence has not spilled over into the United States to any significant measure, the intimidation of the local population is taking on a tactical nature.

The greatest risk remains a weapon of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or radiological. Chertoff emphasizes that he does not believe that these threats are imminent, but the possibility of their use is not completely remote. He points out that the United States already has suffered a biological terrorism attack—the anthrax mailings in 2001. Chertoff says the United States must continue to build a capability for detecting radioactive material. The country currently scans virtually every incoming cargo container, and the department has initiated a process to provide that same capability for private aviation entering the United States.

The department also is striving to secure radioactive material in the homeland, particularly that used or held in medical and industrial facilities. Theft is the main worry here. To prevent or mitigate a biological attack, the department is stockpiling treatments, Chertoff points out.

In addition to the physical realm, cyberspace is threatened by terrorism. Chertoff notes that the country has been plagued for some time by cyberattacks ranging from nuisances to sophisticated onslaughts. These include exfiltration of information, denial of service and corruption of databases, to name a few. With most information assets in private hands, networking extends vulnerabilities across the spectrum.

Another possible threat is the potential for trapdoors or Trojan horses. Many information technology systems include components that are manufactured by subcontractors in foreign countries where the customer has little control over processes and personnel. In this global economic environment, companies must find a way to ensure that they can validate their hardware and software.

Chertoff notes that the department is conducting a lot of planning with state and local governments to respond to many disaster scenarios, whether natural or human-driven. He calls for a public-private partnership to solve many of the homeland security challenges facing the nation. Government’s role should be that of a standard-setter rather than an overseer.

“Some people believe that the government ought to do everything itself—everything ought to be guarded by the government, the government ought to micromanage every business,” Chertoff relates. “That would be a horrendously expensive and not particularly effective way of securing the homeland.”

He believes that government has a role to play in setting performance standards and requirements. These would ensure that no business would misjudge its vulnerability in a way that would cause other businesses to fail as well. “The public-private partnership is about our setting standards for what you need to do, giving the private sector the ability to meet the standards in different ways, and then ultimately our willingness to prod those laggards who don’t come up to snuff,” he concludes.

 

Read an expanded version of this article in the January 2009 issue of SIGNAL Magazine, in the mail to AFCEA members and subscribers January 2, 2009. For more information about purchasing this issue, joining AFCEA or subscribing to SIGNAL, contact AFCEA Member Services.