Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Policy

President Bush’s “Global War on Terror” coalition, formed in response to 9/11, transformed the United States politically, culturally, economically and technologically. The current counterterrorism path is effectively gathering intel on known threats; however U.S. vulnerability to unspecified attacks coupled with lack of U.S. foreign aid oversight leave potential pitfalls.

The majority of U.S. dollars and resources have focused on four directorates within the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism: 1) Homeland Security and Multilateral Affairs, 2) Operations, 3) Programs, Policy, and Budget, and 4) Regional Affairs. The fourth directorate, Regional Affairs, supports policy development related to international and national counterterrorism. Key strategies from the directorates are:

1.    Focus on forming strategic intelligence partnerships, antiterrorism assistance, and counter-terrorist financing.

2.    Enhance authority to gather intelligence on suspected terrorists while not going too far, by collecting phone records beyond that of known terrorists. If this Act expires in 2019, it would then be a weakness.  

3.    The FDA’s Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats launched a Medical Countermeasures Initiative in response to the anthrax-laced mailings and in anticipation of future medical threats.

4.    The U.S. 2019 aid budget of $53.1 billion is a combination of the Department of State and Agency for International Development budgets.

5.    While difficult to track given multi-agency support, the U.S. counterterrorism budget, $187 billion annually, has been adequate to identify major threats; however, the U.S. is falling behind on issues, such as the ASAT program, that could negatively affect our military capabilities and advantages.

While the U.S. has remained at the forefront of counterterrorism globally, the current policy has limitations:

1.    Whistleblowers and leaking of critical confidential information to the public.

2.    Rash diplomacy where a stance or response is provided publicly before consideration of consequences.

3.    Lack of human intelligence on the ground worldwide leads to a greater likelihood that important information will be missed or not discovered in time to stop another attack.

If the U.S. desires to continue its goal of making the world safer while advancing U.S. security interests, then policy reform, such as inter-agency partnering platforms, is needed. Additionally, the U.S. could pursue partnering with other states when possible to enhance security measures, have stricter imports screening, and have better foreign aid oversight. With the current U.S. foreign policy, it’s important to build alliances now before the country’s altered image is the new norm.