home > by publication type > backgrounder > Flynn: Homeland Security 'Report Card'
Email
| Prepared by: | Eben Kaplan |
|---|
October 25, 2006
This is an excerpt from an interview with Stephen E. Flynn, the Council on Foreign Relations’ top homeland security expert, in which CFR.org asked him to evaluate the general performance of the Department of Homeland Security. Flynn was interviewed by CFR.org's Eben Kaplan, and the full interview also is available as a podcast.
D+. This is up from an F for about the first three years after 9/11. Certainly we have a framework now that we didn’t have before to begin to address the complexity of the problem, but we have such a long way to go that it doesn’t yet rate an average grade.
B/B+. This is something where we started pretty strong vis-à-vis the threat, even before 9/11, because obviously everybody was concerned about the security dimensions in dealing with nuclear materials.
Grade: B. NORAD took a lot of heat after 9/11. Of course, just this month we had the incident of the small plane flying into an Upper East Side high rise in New York City, illustrating one of the big remaining gaps for NORAD, which is that anything below 1,500 feet is very difficult for the system to monitor. It’s not monitoring it in any airspace but in Washington, DC. That, though, is a small plane threat we’re dealing with. From the 9/11 standpoint, it’s really a jumbo jet [full of] fuel that turns it into a missile [that is a concern], versus a small plane, which is a bad day certainly for the pilot and the building, but doesn’t have the catastrophic consequences. There still remains a real challenge in our airspace if it’s a homegrown developed issue, though our ability to monitor what’s flying from outside the United States into U.S. soil has improved, and the ability for the Department of Defense under its northern command to muster fighter pilots and so forth to meet planes is quite good.
C+. Good news and bad news on passenger and baggage screening, certainly in the B or B+ range. But when it comes to air cargo, which goes in the underbody of the plane, there is still a major vulnerability in that the system used to target what little that gets inspected is still very problematic, and the tools and the resources available are still pretty slim. I put the air cargo side of it somewhere around a D+, giving us an overall aviation grade of C+.
C. Well, it is a hot topic for political reasons, but not one necessarily for security reasons. Borders are where we see the challenges of managing our interests that are affected by global challenges, whether it’s transportation or immigration and so forth, but [they are] almost always the worst place to manage these. We have to look beyond our borders often to deal with this. Overall, the relevance of our borders as a key component of homeland security—particularly walls and so forth—I put as extremely modest. They have something to do with immigration policy but they don’t have a lot to do with security.
D-/F. We just now have seen legislation as a part of an appropriations bill that for the first time gives the secretary of homeland security, five years after 9/11, the means to check the security plans at chemical facilities around our country. He has very limited authority to do much about the quality of the security that’s there. The total allocation for this is $10 million for the department to build a capacity to police what has been recognized as about 15,000 facilities that have the means to injure or threaten the lives of up to 100,000 people around them. This is totally unsatisfactory in light of the threat that some very deadly chemicals can pose.
C-. Well certainly Hurricane Katrina illustrated that we have a very long ways to go to getting the federal act together. The Department of Homeland Security has got religion, as a result of the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina over a year ago, to begin to have a more “all-hazards” focus versus a myopic terrorism focus. But what’s still a real struggle here is the role the Department of Defense will play in these large-scale events. At the end of the day, it turns out that most of the real assets you would have to [rally] for a disaster that would overwhelm a state and locality are going to come from the Pentagon, and here we still have a very passive role on the Pentagon’s part. The Department of Homeland Security has limited assets they can muscle together. I think Americans would be amazed to know the total size of FEMA is only 2,600 people, and the number of people, for instance, they assign to the southeastern region of the United States, which extends from the Carolinas all the way through Florida to Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky is 115 people.
C. When we get to bridges and tunnels specifically, the good news is that civil engineers all want to be immortal and so they tend to overengineer things. Thank God for this because our bridges are aging, and not necessarily gracefully. They are getting more frail. Though it is challenging to blow up bridges and it is difficult to blow up tunnels, the means of doing so are problematic. But there is still a lot that could be done on surveillance. What we should be thinking about overall, though, is how to make these structures most resilient even if there weren’t terrorists, and there we can make a lot more investment.
D. This is probably one of weakest areas that the department has been struggling most with. What you have on one hand is an issue of trying to keep Americans engaged and alert since there has not been another terrorist attack since 9/11, and on the other hand being able to provide tangible guidance so people can respond to this threat. And the department has sort of oscillated back and forth between generating fear, as in raising alert systems, and efforts which are largely flawed, like ready.gov turned out to be, giving recommendations about how to secure yourself that most people didn’t act on or didn’t think were very credible. It needs help, Madison-Avenue-type help, and again needs to draw from civil society to get this message out. The best direction I think the department is going in, and I commend this, is the “all-hazards” approach. Virtually everything you would do to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist incident is what you’re going to have deal with if you had a major hurricane, or earthquake, or major snowstorm, and by building that capacity it will translate into more capability to deal with the terrorist incidents as well.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.