- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
April 23, 2009
Exclusive: Is Janet Napolitano Up to the Task of Keeping Americans Safe? (Part Two of Two)
DISCUSSION
So is Napolitano an asset or detriment to Homeland Security and our border security? This is not a trick question.
Trying to be fair, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But if early performance is indicator of judgment and future achievements, it doesn’t look good.
Napolitano discussed a recent review of the U.S. Northern border by DHS which “highlighted ongoing U.S. worries about how Canada conducts risk assessments of people entering the country and ‘very real’ differences in immigration and visa policy. That of course is a security concern," she said. Did any of us miss the outcry coming from our Northern States or their governors for greater government assistance to stop the flow from Manitoba, Quebec or Halifax?
I could be wrong. Perhaps Secretary Napolitano knows more about our northern border than I do. Apparently, those wily Canadians do need greater scrutiny. Rumor has it Budweiser and Sam Adams sense an invasion from Molson’s. Evidently, Napolitano thinks this threat should be treated the same as Mexico. Did the Dakotas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Washington get invaded when we weren’t watching? How many kidnappings of folks on Mackinaw Island with ransom notes from Toronto have we received? But with Napolitano’s logic taken to its ultimate conclusion, if Canada and border security with our Northern neighbor has to reach parity with Mexico, then both are equal threats to the U.S. Of course that is ludicrous. The Southern border of the United States is being overrun. The violence and drugs pouring in from Mexico speaks for itself. The only Canadian invasion that the U.S. experiences occurs every winter, and like birds flying South, our older friends from the North swell the senior living developments as able bodied sunbathing shoppers and diners in Florida, the Carolinas or Arizona.
As an aside, while the mainstream media derided Sarah Palin for claiming Alaska is an international state with proximity to a hostile country (Russia), it is now laying the mantle of credibility on Napolitano as being governor of an international border state – Arizona. No double standard there! Actually, given Napolitano’s newly focused attention on those wily Canadians, maybe Palin would have received more support had she vilified Canada instead of Russia. Crazy, right? Well, so is splitting our limited forces and diverting attention on the South to also focus on the North.
Yet in a recent announcement, "One of the things we need to be sensitive to is the very real feelings among southern border-states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," Napolitano said. Napolitano continued that there's still a feeling among some U.S. lawmakers that "we shouldn't go light on one (border) and heavy on the other." Since when should we care about hurting the feelings of drug lords, corrupt politicians and criminal illegals? Mexico has been a criminal, corrupt enterprise for decades. Finally, their current president is trying to make a difference, and should be lauded for trying to salvage what’s left of his country.
If fear of offending Mexican criminals forces us to dilute our border security and law enforcement/ICE enforcement efforts, and these bad guys are mostly violent drug lords, how will Obama-Napolitano fight the fifth column that is growing in the United States? This includes a new group that should be on our radar screen, recruiting our youth and prisoners into radical Islam – Somalis. The same fine friendly folks hoisting the Jolly Roger off the coast of Africa.
And the increasing firepower of the growing Jihadist groups – armor piercing and incendiary high power weapons – should not go unnoticed. These training camps are spreading nationwide. Are they enclaves for religious worship or recruiting and paramilitary training facilities? Most likely both, and therein lies a challenge for DHS. But while trying to sort out the distinction, DHS should also be trying to predict, identify and isolate placement of future training camps, looking for commonalities such as proximity to prisons, and/or in low socioeconomic areas with small local law enforcement and isolated middle or upper middle income towns within which to exploit criminal activities as source of income for the compounds. Further attention to these entities that may represent a growing criminal and asymmetric warfare enterprise is necessary.
FEMA used to be as much of a disaster (think Director Brown) as the disasters to which it was supposed to respond. Political appointees were part of the problem. Now, thanks to DHS and better leadership, FEMA has gone from a cocktail party joke and the stuff of disparaging t-shirts to approaching its former glory days in the aftermath of recent floods and post Katrina hurricanes.
Seriously, though, of all the “kings men” in Obama-land, the one person who actually would be a good Homeland Security Chief is Rahm Emmanuel – part Michael Corleone, part Scarface, does anyone think for one minute if he felt a terrorist was his enemy “The Enforcer Emmanuel” wouldn’t use his impressive DNC intelligence network, let alone our nation’s covert teams and surveillance assets to hunt that person down? The Enforcer may not know much about disasters, security or law enforcement, but in terms of resolve, a strategic brilliance General Patton would admire, a ruthlessness Putin could relate to, willingness to destroy enemies, fearlessness at describing adversaries as enemies of his cause, the skills to use brute force, subterfuge or stealth tactics as suit his agenda – this guy is just tough enough to be a good Secretary of DHS. But Napolitano? She’s wishy washy, sometimes a pitbull, sometimes a Barbie.
Was she the best candidate that Obama could find?
Sadly, to make my point, let’s look at DHS for what it is – a confluence of intelligence, investigation and enforcement agencies pulled together for one purpose, to protect the United States homeland. Shouldn’t we have someone from that performance culture for the top job?
For a moment, let’s abandon our “willing suspension of disbelief” concerning presidential appointees, and hold to the notion our leaders actually hire people based upon merit, not party loyalty. Answer this simple question. Could Janet Napolitano, coming straight off of being a governor (former attorney general notwithstanding) be hired to head up the intelligence/security branches (NOT as a political, business rainmaker) of Blackwater (Xe), Triple Canopy, Securitas, IPC International, Booz Allen Hamilton, ASIS International (a professional organization for, but not direct provider of security professionals), or the less well known but no less important security, paramilitary or intelligence companies dotting the beltway? Yet she is hired to head up the granddaddy of all security enterprises, the DHS. What’s wrong with this picture? Let’s think about the private sector – there are lots of top flight, large, multimillion dollar and multibillion dollar security firms in the United States and internationally. Does anyone think if Janet Napolitano waltzed into any of them she’d be tapped to lead the intelligence group? The security group? The international terrorism group? The counterintelligence group? The “man-created disaster” group?
The bigger question we as a nation, regardless of political party affiliation should ask ourselves: should all cabinet level agencies be headed by political appointees with minimal credentials? Or credentials that put them squarely in bed with the same people they will now have to regulate? Should those who will become the ultimate regulators at least have followed the rules before taking the job? Should industry insiders be tapped to then oversee the very industries that they will return to when they leave the Cabinet? At what point do we appoint folks with street credibility, candidates who are respected by the very people they will command, are above petty party politics, have bipartisan support for their integrity even if they are drawn from a political ideology, and understand the performance cultures of the professionals they will lead? Does Napolitano fit the bill? Certainly she passed the political litmus test (not that that factored into Obama’s decision, right?). As one of the first high profile governors to endorse candidate Obama almost a year before the election – a boost he clearly needed – such political capital has clearly helped in her appointment. She was also considered for other cabinet posts.
Now what can we do about this?
The voice of the people is still a powerful tool. The Republic rises and falls on the efforts of citizens. Public opinion matters. Family security matters.
Until and unless at least a large public outcry, bipartisan efforts among the centrists in both parties or one political party wakes up, smells the coffee and takes a courageous stand on the real threats that face our nation – growing cyber threats and industrial as well as “traditional” espionage, local law enforcement that is outgunned and out manned to stand against the forces across the border, the Jihadist camps within the U.S. that include radicalization, inconsistent efforts and false starts in biosurveillance, inadequate biosafety lab security, port security, radiation threats, and opportunities for resource adaptation in converting readily accessed chemicals and hazardous materials into weapons, criminal illegals and the ultimate criminalization of a new North Mexico Southwest U.S. – we will have bigger problems than watching those crafty veterans.
Apparently, our leaders’ strategy to make the U.S. safe is to apologize for being a super power, changing the dictionary so as to use meaningless words in lieu of a focused strategy, and trying to empathize with our enemies. I would prefer the Sun Tzu approach: that we try to understand them. Do I wish we didn’t have adversaries, enemies or competitors to the well being of the U.S.? Absolutely. Would I prefer giving hugs and offering an olive branch, building more hospitals and paying teachers more instead of buying F22s? You bet – if only we lived in a world where bonhomie is genuine and nations/people were trustworthy. But Sun Tzu cautioned that “if you want peace, you must prepare for war.” Schoolyard bullies do not pick on the strong. And we must be strong lest we lose our ability to protect the weak. Those who do not cheer for Team U.S. are following the old saying “never interrupt an enemy who is making a mistake.” We are making mistakes.
You know that you are screwed up when the Taliban thinks our olive branch, one world, Kumbaya approach is “lunancy.” Al Qaeda, which is still alive and functioning, continues to think we are weak, and merely paper tigers. China and Russia are either bemused by us or hold us in outright contempt; their industrial espionage, cyber threat capacity as well as ownership of much of our financial instruments make them part landlord, part threat. From Brighton Beach to South Beach, if you think borscht is the cash product in those zones, you might be tippling on too much Stoli.
The prime directive seems to be “do not offend.” Any efforts at progress in security will now be accidental, scrutinized or attenuated. If we are afraid to offend, and we are, how will we fight highly skilled, well financed, strategic and tactical adversaries?
So far, Napolitano has primarily tinkered with ICE. But there are lots more agencies under the DHS umbrella; each with an opportunity to offend our adversaries and thus, soon to be sent to the woodshed. Is this any way to treat professionals who have dedicated their lives to protecting the U.S.? Just wait until the CIA hires a hooker or other agency impolitely arrests a potential Jihadist. The Napolitano effect on DHS is just beginning.
Yet there are real issues that need remedying at DHS, which should merit her attention – the profligate spending on grants with little oversight or outcomes metrics, the lack of universal security guidelines for BSL 3 and 4 labs, uncoordinated approach to biological weapon security/detection/surveillance, securing radioactive materials and food security programming.
There’s a lesson to be learned here. While political loyalty neither makes nor detracts from inherent skill in and of itself, the risk arises when a non response expert assumes the leadership of complex agencies designed to make life or death decisions and do dangerous and potentially “offensive” work.
No one should argue that Secretary Napolitano isn’t an intelligent woman. She is intelligent, politically savvy, bright, and has been a dedicated public servant. But….
CONCLUSION
Semantics, political correctness and a border war with Canada, and labeling veterans as a potential threat at DHS: C’mon POTUS….was Janet Napolitano the best you could find for the job?
Our current strategies against the Taliban, the war on terrorism, border security, criminal illegals, and of course the trillion dollar job bill that has little hope of creating jobs are clearly inadequate. How could the Obama Administration could conceive of a solution to the U.S./Mexico border problem by looking north? How could the Obama team conceive of fighting terrorists with a dictionary instead of real action? How could Team Obama spend more time investigating ICE officers doing their job than the potential illegals they arrested? How could Team Obama vilify veterans and freedom of speech at the same time in response to thousands of U.S. citizens protesting current Administration policies? Is this the best Team Obama can come up with?
There are better ways to protect the homeland. It will not be a magic bullet or one-size-fits-all solution. Increasing human intelligence capabilities, enhancing the science training of law enforcement, expanding the expertise base, implementing biometrics and increased surveillance, stricter enforcement, stronger border security, while uniformly holding sanctuary cities to a standard, and limiting employers who hire illegals, increasing human intelligence (intentionally repeated), and limiting radicalization. Moreover, DHS must create greater public private partnerships to enhance security; much of the U.S. infrastructure is non government owned. These partnerships will enhance the “boots on the ground” and help lower the risk of espionage, provide added resources against asymmetric warfare, prevent diversion of potentially dangerous materials – biological, chemical and radiological, help identify cyber threats and other disruptive challenges. Homeland security as you can see requires more than changing a page in the dictionary.
President Harry Truman is often quoted as saying “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” As Homeland Security chief, your job is to take the fight to the bad guys, even if they get mad at you. A person (terrorist) who has sworn to blow you up is neither worried about the words you lob at him nor is likely to abandon his objectives to kill and destroy based upon a kinder, gentler vocabulary. But the scary part is this: our leaders actually believe abandoning accurate language for sweeter sonnets is a critical or credible weapon in the U.S. arsenal against dangerous entities.
Should we give Secretary Napolitano the benefit of the doubt? How lucky do you feel?
Secretary Napolitano – weak on security and immigration enforcement, strong on the policy of appeasement! How can we defeat terrorism when we can no longer name it? If her best strategy is to avoid offending people, unless they are U.S. veterans, maybe it is time to look for a new leader of 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 |
|
