- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
April 22, 2009
Exclusive: Is Janet Napolitano Up to the Task of Keeping Americans Safe? (Part One of Two)
No one should doubt that one of the most important Cabinet posts is that of Secretary of Homeland Security. Terrorism is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. The U.S. faces a daunting array of threats to our domestic security. The occupant of that post must be up to the job. The stakes are too high. While Secretary of Commerce, Education, Agriculture and other Cabinet posts have merit, few Americans can name the posts – let alone their Secretaries. But nearly everyone who is at least occasionally paying attention to the real world can name the Secretary of Homeland Security.
And to prove her gravitas, last week Secretary Napolitano allowed a DHS report to paint veterans as possible converts from war heroes to terrorists. Not an inspiring performance.
Threats to the US: 2009
Let’s take inventory of the Homeland Security threats facing the United States: Numerous inadequately secured sources of hazardous materials (think weapons of convenience); a growing fifth column of radical Islamists in our midst developing paramilitary training camps containing increasingly powerful weapons including in all likelihood advanced armor piercing high caliber arms, our own home grown crazies (think Timothy McVeigh); ~11 million illegal aliens, some of which are violent criminals, members of gangs, drug cartels or engaged in the ‘human pipeline (jihadists and others), human trafficking, domestic gangs and drug cartels going international and teaming up with global criminal or terrorist groups.
Then from a FEMA perspective: The aging, weakening levees and other protective infrastructure (think New Orleans, Fargo).
From a health preparedness perspective, DHS has yet to provide the true leadership to connect all the preparedness regimes, NIMS notwithstanding. Overcrowded health care facilities incapable of dealing with a widespread epidemic, overburdened and undertrained public health departments are mostly unprepared how to spend DHS funds and clearly unfamiliar with security – in spite of being an ersatz performance culture of preparedness.
Then there’s the persistent vulnerability based upon government reports…our porous borders to the North and South, a Mexico problem that threatens the security of several US states.
Let’s not forget the political officials on the take or not paying their taxes. While we’re at it, we continue to face, even eight years post-9/11, inadequate safeguards on technology transfers, biological labs, cyber terrorism, protections against tainted imported products (intentional and accidental), inadequate screening of shipping, poorly protected railways carrying highly toxic chemicals, readily available radioactive materials, inconsistent security oversight of BSL 3 and BSL 4 labs (hold the most dangerous pathogens known) nationwide and the list goes on and on and on. The public remains woefully disengaged from the preparedness process as suggested by numerous security experts, the World At Risk Report Commission, and studies demonstrate first responder agencies – medical and law enforcement are inadequately prepared for asymmetric warfare using unconventional weapons.
Oh and let’s not forget those über dangerous folks – our veterans. Yes, the “go to” people our nation depended upon to protect the Republic have now been labeled potential targets as vulnerable to extremist recruitment and possibly a risk factor for extreme violence. Painting all veterans with the same brush is an indefensible and abominable treatment of people who served their country. Yet the veterans are described as dupes of right wing influence in a DHS report. Veterans as a group deserve better treatment and respect, and do not warrant being singled out as a threat to domestic security. The U.S. government’s track record on caring for returning veterans is in need of further scrutiny, NOT the folks who wore the uniform.
And the “go to” person President Obama tapped to handle these problems is none other than Janet Napolitano. You could almost hear the terrorists cheering and the career intelligence professionals groaning from day one. Is there anyone tracking morale or retirements at the key agencies under the DHS umbrella? Bringing disparately functioning performance cultures together – intelligence, law enforcement, disaster response – has its merits, but when the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan, that is not the time to exchange business cards. And clearly, the silo mentality within organizations historically has been a barrier to effective collaboration, especially when you add the layers of security classifications and the complexities of “courtesy clearances.” But putting these agencies under one roof isn’t the instant cure for these ills, proximity to teams notwithstanding. No one should doubt the dedication of the respective agencies in DHS or disrespect their noble efforts for a good cause, but DHS is still being pulled by multiple strings in different directions; net result…where is it going? And who ultimately is leading it?
Is Janet Napolitano up to the job? And if not, what can we do about it? There are many ways to examine the effectiveness of public policies and the people hired to create, enforce or repair them. Since the proof is in the tasting, ones record, resume or list of actions is evidence enough.
Let’s take a look at Secretary Napolitano’s first public efforts.
Secretary Napolitano gave us a great insight from day one into what she was all about. In fact, no sooner had her words faded from her initial roll out she was then called out to explain why the expurgation of terms such as “terrorist,”, “terrorism,” and “the war on terror” from the lexicon of preparedness and DHS after her first speech to Congress.
Napolitano replied to the criticism: “In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused disasters.’ That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
When I first heard the term “man-caused disasters” my first thought was the South Park episode where they spoof form VP Al Gore and his global warming hysteria, replacing it on the show with manic concerns over a dangerous creature – he was trying to warn the kids about “man-bear-pig.” (Check it out on YouTube…it is hysterically funny). Then I thought the biggest “man-caused disaster” was the election of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the total control of the White House and Congress by folks who don’t seem to grasp the reality of good versus evil. It may soundssquare and trite but both exist. The latter cannot be wished away or destroyed as easily as erasing words in a policy book.
“Man caused disasters.” Let’s be frank. How does sounding like an idiot enhance Secretary Napolitano’s capability “to prepare for all risks?” Buying into this, let alone being a mouthpiece for such nonsense, is beneath this intelligent woman. She is not an idiot. She should not be placed in or agree to a position where she has to sound like one. Actions always speak louder than words. Weak words betoken weak actions.
But let’s drink the Kool Aid® for a moment. If a change in definition could enhance capability, adopt the slightly more meaningful terms the Brits use: “Disruptive Threats” or “Disruptive Challenges” – even though those are inadequate to the task as well. Though not as comical as “man-caused disasters” or “man-bear-pig” they, too fail to underscore the intent, the context, the evil associated with the event. Terrorism is just that – an act – a willing, deliberate, planned, and executed act of murder and destruction. “Man-caused disasters” or “all risks” do a disservice to the special and specific category of threat we face – terrorism, the intentional use of violence directed consciously by people towards other specific human and physical targets for the sole purpose of killing and frightening and destroying to accomplish an agenda.
Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tornados, even plane crashes occur without intent or the specific targeting of individuals, societies or cultures. To suggest therefore that intentional mayhem should be linked terminologically or pragmatically with unintentional or natural events is intellectually dishonest, undermines our credibility and distracts our focus from that of preparedness to that of wordsmith. In addition to WMD preparedness, I’ve worked on several hurricane responses. I can tell you the only common ground “disasters” and “terrorism” share are the casualties and the need for effective preparedness. To suggest PIJ or Hamas blowing up a school bus is comparable to a “disaster” – disastrous though the events are, demonstrates a lack of coherence. The angels are always in the details. This latest round of sanitizing our efforts for global approval truly demonstrate we have become paper tigers as Osama bin Laden has repeatedly denounced the U.S.; only he didn’t realize he was being literal. Our best preparedness efforts are now being played out with a dictionary and pen instead of substantive, visible and real efforts, weapons, instruments or resources.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the security professional in me is reminded that “disaster” misleads. Terrorism may be disastrous, evil and cause widespread destruction, but it is not a “disaster,” natural or otherwise. It is an act of war; it is an attack. It is a deliberate and unprovoked set of destructive events meant to harm, destroy and maim. There are injured people with real blood, and the reality that these events are recurring; the terrorists will be back. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods as “disasters” don’t hang around surreptitiously only to come back next week or in a few days or months. They also don’t lurk in the shadows waiting for ambulances to arrive so that they can knock them out in wave two. Terrorists do that. Blizzards don’t hold back a few snow flakes to play “gotcha” with the rescue vehicles. Terrorists come back. Deliberately. The very use of a term that suggests a “hands off,” almost serendipitous occurrence tantamount to a hurricane, flood or earthquake also is an insult to the victims of terrorism. No one with any clue about the enemies and evil we face would foist this idiocy on the public sensibility and more egregiously, set the rules of engagement for her legions of real security professionals who actually fight the good fight in the trenches, streets, backwaters and danger zones, not the salons of Georgetown and the corner offices of the beltway.
We are so worried about Europe and the world liking us that we have forgotten what it means to be “us.” Did the leaders of the G-20 bleed on 9/11? Was it buildings in Moscow, London, Paris, Berlin, Caracas, or Nairobi that were in flames on 9/11? No, it was “US” and we continue to be a target. Only it would now seem that our biggest adversaries aren’t the bad guys outside but the weak leadership from within, and the cowards, apologists or one world elitists who elected them.
Have we forgotten the old adage “Nations have alliances and interests, not friends?” Is it desirable to have friends on the world stage? Absolutely! But someone like Vladimir Putin realizes alliances based upon interests have more lasting power than the transitory applause from adoring crowds in global capitals. What happens in the board rooms and parliaments of Paris, London, Ankara and Rome matter, and their willingness to collaborate substantively with U.S. partnerships?
Janet Napolitano thinks the change from “terrorism” to “man-caused disaster” or “man-bear-pig” or “freedom fighters for the other side” is just a “nuance.” If that’s the story she’s standing behind, then clearly Secretary Napolitano lacks the gravitas, intellect or stomach for the job. Pandering because you might offend shows a weakness of character, and an unwillingness to confront the enemy. Pretty soon the term “enemy” will be replaced by “misunderstood contrarians” or some similarly silly translation. If the head of Homeland Security doesn’t have the courage to stand up to the idiots force feeding her new dialogue and is too afraid to describe the bad guys as “the enemy” and then call them what they are “terrorists,” how on God’s earth can we ever expect her to have the resolve to actually do something in the physical, the real, the now, against these malefactors? If she is too afraid to insult them, I guess killing them is out of the question.
Now let’s turn our attention to the border. For decades, Mexico has been exporting their worst instead of best and brightest. Criminals, drug lords, illiterates, career welfare recipients and, yes, the decent hard worker trying to build a better life – but mostly weapons, drugs, crime are what our border states – Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, California – face. Entire border cities are at risk on both sides of the Rio Grande and dividing line. Violence, kidnappings, murder are all spilling into the United States. So, too are radical Islamists who have found common ground with the bad guys, and an effective “people pipeline” to enter the United States. But the biggest threat we face isn’t the danger on the border, but the weak leaders we have who are entrusted with our safety and tasked with addressing this growing Mexican threat.
Some have embraced Napolitano as a hawk, a “get tough on illegal immigration” professional, lauding her achievements as a state attorney general and governor, and a great choice for DHS. Others remind us that Arizona has the worst track record on stemming the tide of illegal immigrants, which has the highest percentage of illegal aliens to overall population. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal immigrants account for 9.7% of the total population in Arizona, the highest percentage of any state. Napolitano vetoed important legislation that had a real chance at reducing criminal aliens, and left in her wake Phoenix as one of the top cities in the world for kidnapping. Let me repeat that, Phoenix, Arizona – a U.S. city, not a city in Guatemala, Colombia or Mexico (Mexico City tops the list) – suffers from a significant kidnapping problem. This is her legacy.
Now let’s fast forward to the present.
There are those who extol the virtues of Napolitano as a staunch advocate for border security, having written her predecessor for some homeland assistance. Then there are some immigration hawks who were concerned Napolitano would impose draconian restrictions on ICE raids and roundups of illegals, instead forcing them to go after employers. Those fears seemed to abate when in late February Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raided an engine plant in Bellingham, Washington, resulting in 28 people suspected of being illegals who were arrested. According to several reports, many of the plant workers were from Mexico or Central America and used false documents to get hired. And what did Napolitano do? Instead of praising her agents, she ordered a full review on their efforts. Apparently the Secretary was not informed about the raid before it occurred. Whether her actions are related to her ego or underscore a more fundamental issue – a rubber stamp of Obama’s election promise to alter the focus from illegals to employers – remains to be seen. Obama can’t be too motivated to stem illegal immigration unless he is willing to toss out his aunt, who is living off the taxpayers in the Boston region.
With 11 million illegals in the United States, and a tenuous economy, we cannot afford to support the illegals of countries that have a responsibility to their own citizens. Do we have an ethical responsibility to be compassionate as a wealthy and enlightened nation? Yes. But do we have an endless capacity to be the world’s caretaker? No. Within the confines of the 11 million is a combination of folks looking for the Great American Dream, and criminals. What we are descending into in terms of our reasoning is the abandonment of the notion of responsibility. Nations have a moral responsibility to care for their citizens; it is disingenuous to transfer that responsibility to another sovereign nation. At the same time, employers who hire illegals, the city governments that tacitly approve of this behavior and the law enforcement folks who turn their back on the problem are part of the problem and should be held accountable as well. All human beings have value. Any cost benefit analysis cannot diminish the inherent grace of people. But the financial cost to the US is just that, a net cost – uncompensated health care costs, crime costs – direct and indirect, welfare, overpopulated schools, and so on.
As a footnote, most of the 28 arrested in the above mentioned ICE raid were then given work permits and released without bail. And the officers are being investigated. How upside down is this? As if that isn’t negligent enough, Napolitano has put the brakes on upcoming raids that were planned. It is likely ICE will get new marching orders. This seems to be hypocritical given transcripts of her testimony to Congress when she was a governor: “Let me be abundantly plain and clear: security of the U.S. – Mexico border is a Federal responsibility.” Really? Would someone please e-mail the Secretary a copy of the transcripts?
As if leaving the major city of her state the kidnap capital of the U.S., while governor she thought it was fine to allow illegals to obtain welfare (Arizona residents were not so convinced), stifled local police from enforcing immigration laws, and vetoed a bill to outlaw sanctuary cities that have policies prohibiting their employees from reporting illegal immigrants. There are a number of examples of her back and forth approach to this critical security issue.
How do we address the problem? Some think the border wall is one approach in a multipronged strategy. Napolitano doesn’t, even though some data suggest where the wall is, illegals decline. Napolitano’s view on the border fence: ”You show me a 50 foot fence and I’ll show you a 51 foot ladder.” Hmm, I wonder if Home Depot or the local fire departments are aware of these ladders.
The net result of Janet Napolitano’s legacy is that Arizona is front and center in the border war. There are more illegal immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico through her state than any other in the Union. Let me sum up her mindset with this quote from her testimony to Congress as governor:
“It takes an average of ten years to receive a legal immigrant visa from Mexico, which only serves as an incentive to cross illegally. For employers competing for the best and brightest across the globe, the demand for H-1B visas is so great that annual quotas are filled each year by April, forcing high tech companies to wait months or years to hire qualified foreign engineers, ultimately rendering the United States less competitive.”
Our students’ math and science skills falling behind those of students in other countries make the U.S. less competitive. Not to be snarky, but how many qualified engineers, rocket scientists, econometric experts or bioscience researchers are coming in from Mexico illegally? C’mon…is Mexico the MIT of South America? That’s not a dig against Mexico or Mexicans – but how is our technology gap going to be repaired from illegal immigration from a predominantly poor country with less than inspiring literacy rates? IF this is the logic, the prism through which Napolitano views the problem, Arizona will only serve as a cautionary tale and image of where the United States will be in a few years.
And, instead of addressing the growing fifth column of extremists in the U.S. who are recruiting from the prisons, from schools as well as obtaining high tech educations from top universities, and raising funds which are then sent to jJhadists in the Middle East, DHS under Secretary Napolitano worries about and presents a report on the threat of conservatives, people in favor of limited taxation and critics of President Obama as the real threat to domestic security.
In a recent article, Michelle Malkin well describes the situation: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has turned her attention away from acts of Islamic jihad on American soil (which she now refers to as “man-caused disasters”). Instead, her department is sounding the alarm over an unquantified “resurgence” in “right-wing extremism activity.” On April 7th, the Homeland Security Department sent a nine-page warning memo to law-enforcement offices across the country titled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
Apparently the nationwide TEA parties have unsettled DHS – perhaps they were concerned what was brewing. Seriously – are peaceful protestors to be feared especially when they are exercising a Constitutionally protected right? If this is how President Obama and his team are going to handle vocal criticism – focusing Cabinet level organizations and the downstream agencies that must follow the resulting edicts on the loyal opposition – we have a much bigger problem than profligate government spending and taxation with no end in sight.
Secretary Napolitano should be above politics – homeland security is about keeping the Republic safe, not participating in political mind control. Can ultra right wing people be dangerous? Of course. Can ultra left wing people be dangerous? Certainly. Does that mean we target people by ideology without evidence of danger? As long as it is peaceful we should revel in the freedom of the left or right being able to express viewpoints. That is what makes us great. Clearly, Secretary Napolitano can find other groups for which to worry about and focus limited preparedness resources than veterans and the TEA party revolutionaries.
Now let’s look at the north as DHS seems so concerned. Do we have to worry about the Canadian border? To a degree, yes. It is a long and relatively unguarded expanse of entry points that can be exploited. But to focus on the north when our southern border is being exploited is foolish, wasteful and inefficient.
Are the weapons of law abiding citizens within the U.S. posing a threat to communities straddling the border as a source of arms to drug dealers? No and to suggest otherwise is a myth. But unless the myth is debunked, it will gain a life of its own and there will be a further erosion of the Second Amendment. Don’t be surprised if DHS takes aim at the Second Amendment. The weapons harbored by law abiding citizens are hardly of interest to drug lords. They are getting weapons from arms dealers who are alive and well straddling the border.
Part Two will discuss the question of whether Secretary Napolitano is an asset or a detriment to homeland security.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
