Obama's Homeland Security Looks A Lot Like Bush's
Watch the video
Based on what was billed as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's big policy speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, there won't be any major shifts, at least initially, in the Obama Administration's approach to homeland security. Yes, she may do away with the oft-ridiculed, color-coded threat advisory created under the first Homeland Security secretary, Tom Ridge. But she may not, depending on what the task force she assigned to the project comes back with. On a range of other issues, the Obama Administration's approach sounds very much like the prior administration's, only more of it. For instance, Napolitano sang the praises of counter-terrorism intelligence being shared between federal, state and local agencies through arrangements known as fusion centers. She said:
She would essentially be building on the strategy begun by the Bush homeland security officials who were big believers in the centers as well. She also talked up the Obama Administration's efforts to begin homeland security not within U.S. borders but overseas.
But this, too, is an extension of the approach begun by the Bush Administration. Napolitano appeared to acknowledge as much as her remarks continued:
Bush homeland security officials would often warn about complacency, especially as 9/11 receded further into the past. Napolitano sounded just like her predecessors Ridge and Michael Chertoff in that respect too. And she talked about educating the populace about how to be the eyes and ears of counter-terrorism and also how to respond to the aftermath of man-made or natural disasters. Another excerpt:
This "public as a liability" idea appeared to be a shot by Napolitano at the Bush Administration. But as someone who covered the creation of the department and followed it closely for several years, the line strikes me as something of a cheap shot since the Bush homeland security officials often encouraged the idea that the public was the first line of defense. Again, it was seen as the eyes and ears. There was one definite difference between Napolitano and her predecessors, however: her president has a rapport with the rest of the world, especially the Arab and Muslim part of it, that Bush didn't have. She said:
In the end, however, her speech was definitely more of a validation of the Bush Administration's homeland-security approach than a break with it.
DeepJournal
Sign up for the free mailing list. |
9 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4
‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy
8 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - 3
Syria and Iran are like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard
7 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2
On the interests of the parties involved in the Syrian conflict and the role of the media
6 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1
Who is behind the chemical weapons attack in Syria?
1 April 2013
Albert Spits: Creëer je eigen financiële veiligheid
Beluister het interview
|