Or is the New Strategy Just Overdue? <http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/10/10/or-is-the-new-strategy-just-overdue/> http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/10/10/or-is-the-new-strategy-just-overdue/ by Jonah Czerwinski on October 10, 2007 The Washington Post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR200710090 1026.html> ran a story today about the new <http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/nshs/2007/index.html> National Strategy for Homeland Security that emphasizes the timing chosen for the new document. The article misses some important points. The President's homeland security advisor, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/townsend-bio.html> Fran Townsend, is quoted as suggesting that "Homeland security both as a policy matter and as a concept didn't exist prior to 9/11 and prior to.President Bush assuming office." We may have called it "homeland defense" or "anti-terrorism" before, but it sure isn't the sole product of 9/11 or this Administration. Whether it was the <http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/index.html> Gilmore Commission (1999-2004) or the <http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/> Hart-Rudman Commission (1998-2001), or one of several other high-level efforts, that concept long predates the authors of the 2002 and 2007 Homeland Security Strategy documents. The Post writers go on to quote <http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/leadership/cilluffo.htm> Frank Cilluffo and <http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_experts/task,view/id,137/> David Heyman. Frank is candid in proposing that the new Strategy is more rearview mirror that proactive. Less than a contribution to the next Administration, he suggests it's an effort to preserve the Bush Administration's legacy. One would get that impression from the <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071009-1.html> fact sheet put out by the White House Press Office. A full third of that document is dedicated to past successes and advice for the Congress. David Heyman's analysis is focused on one of the elephants in the room: How do you carry out a strategy - old or new - if you have a depleted workforce? But the Post story quotes him as though the problem is a lack of "processes and operations to support" the Strategy. This seems odd since a major highlight in the new document, also explained in <http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/09/25/revised-homeland-security-strategy-under way/> this earlier post that broke the story of the Strategy being revised, that shows a very detailed process for policy, operations, and support. The story did not point out that the timing of this new Strategy may just be overdue. After the first Strategy in 2002, there was the 2003 Iraq invasion and the creation of a whole new enemy called "al Qaeda in Iraq," the Madrid bombings in 2004, London bombings in July 2005, and the Bali bombings later that same year. The Department of Homeland Security had only been around for six months at the time the first Strategy was issued. I can understand why the re-election effort in 2004 may have slowed things down in the policy shop, but why not issue a new Strategy in 2005? That would have given this Administration four years to carry it out. Did we have to wait to have the concept of natural disasters included more prominently into our Homeland Security doctrine until after Hurricane Katrina? (F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
