Personal Perspective on the Terrorism Risk
Lamonte D. Purdie
From
a federal government insider’s
perspective, I have intimately observed and have participated in the U.S.
federal governments efforts to combat terrorism. Prior
to 1993, the terrorism threat stemmed
from and combat efforts targeted domestically based right- and
left-wing, and
other extremist groups and individuals. Subsequent
to 1993, the U.S. federal government began more aggressive efforts to
combat
various types of terrorism, to include threats from state sponsors of
terrorism
(groups and individuals) categorized as international terrorism, and
the tools
of terrorism, such as weapons of mass destruction (i.e., chemical,
biological
and nuclear). The international
terrorism threat was focused on individuals or groups that were
primarily based
outside of the United States
or either
posed a terrorism threat to the United
States.
The subsequent and deliberate plane crashes into the twin towers of the
World Trade
Center
in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington,
D.C.
on September 11, 2001 were pentacle events that reinvigorated the United
States’ efforts to combat terrorism. However, this time around would be different. Now the U.S.
federal government has changed its strategy, by attempting to fine tune
its
operations or expand previous efforts to combat terrorism.
Regardless
of which aspect of terrorism
is being combated, either domestically or internationally, today’s
efforts to
combat terrorism goes further. Previously,
efforts centered on select and individualized areas of defense,
intelligence
and law enforcement. Today, such efforts
are broad base and national. No longer
are the traditional federal agencies involved in combating terrorism
(i.e.,
Department of Defense, CIA, FBI, and FEMA). More
federal, state and local agencies are involved, to
include the
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, and
Interior, to
name a few. However, these collective
preemptive
efforts, in no particular order, are primarily lead by the following
categories: defense, intelligence, law
enforcement and
protection of the homeland. However,
without fail, each effort has or is not without contemptuous problems
or
controversy. In defense, it continues to
face the human casualties of the war in Iraq,
with the death of hundreds of U.S.
and
allied country troops, and civil liberties issues in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. In intelligence—trying not to leave “one leaf
unturned,” many of the U.S. Intelligence Community agencies are
frantically
trying to collect, analyze, and report intelligence.
In law enforcement—it must constantly sort
through the thousands of threats received daily and determine which
ones are
worth pursuing. And lastly, protection
of the homeland—all of the aforementioned problems transcend the
Department of
Homeland Security. However, as the
youngest and more recently the largest federal department, it continues
to
struggle with establishing a unified force, maintaining a steady
leadership,
and coordinating homeland security efforts with state and local
agencies,
academia and contractors.
All of the
aforementioned preemptive efforts have experienced similar problems
along the
way. Such problems have included changes
in key personnel, technological issues, legalities, public perception
problems
and turf battles. Overall, the efforts
of the United States
to combat terrorism are not without fail. One
could use the metaphor of the tortoise (turtle) and
the hare
(rabbit) race. The U.S.
federal government can be labeled as the tortoise; moving at a steady
pace to combat
terrorism. While terrorism in general is
the rabbit; fast moving and multiplying. Eventually,
the tortoise wins the race! And so to
shall the U.S.
federal
government and all of its partners.