Introduction
The original homeland security organization was characterized by uncoordinated responses amongst its respective agencies and cooperation was a difficult aspect to achieve. Consequently, the paper will look at how operations were carried out before and after the change was instated in homeland security within the country.
Analysis of the homeland security before and after coordination of responses
The original homeland security was primarily regarded as a military affair that rarely incorporated all stakeholders involved in the defense of US territory. At that time, the roles and influences of the common citizenry, the private sector, local governments, federal agencies, and departments were placed on the periphery. Their actions need to be synchronized in a manner that was in tune with international patterns of terrorism. (Hughes, 2002) Before the reorganization of homeland security, it was generally asserted that defense resources used for civil missions were primarily focused on external efforts. Lots of attention was given to military immediate responses to disasters and support to civil authorities. However, all this changed when coordinated responses were embraced. At this very time, homeland security was not given a lot of precedence in resource allocation as foreign missions often took center stage. Most of the time, the country’s budget would only contain about two percent worth of spending for the protection of the US’s resources against chemical, information, biological and nuclear attacks. This implies that the kind of actions that homeland security was capable of carrying out was very minimal as intentions needed to be backed with financial capabilities. Prior to the reorganization, most emergencies were handled on a local front and there was definitely a lack of national scope in antiterrorist efforts. Because unity was deeply lacking, resources were employed poorly and there was general inefficiency in the manner in which security for the US population was guaranteed or enforced. (Carafano, 2006)
Coordinated responses ensured that the missions, objectives, and aims of most of the agencies and stakeholders involved in homeland security were harmonized. In this regard, nongovernmental organizations were placed on the same level as federal agencies, and local governments were considered just as much as other important stakeholders. In this regard, homeland security now has a strategy that they can work with those points them in the right direction. In other words, some critical aspects such as the deployment of military force can be done in a manner that conveys the national strategy. Unity of command was also another achievement made after instating coordinated responses for interagency operations. This implies that all the concerned units were placed under one command where they could be directed by a single authority. The effect was that issues of national interest could take precedence over the specific objectives of the units involved. Generally speaking, there were three areas that were improved and they include threat detection, protection against threats, and response in the event of threats. Measures for protecting infrastructure were streamlined, immigration issues and threat detection were smoothened and local & state actions could then be well-coordinated through state and local contributions of parties and homeland security could then take charge. (Homeland security, 2002)
Conclusion
The reorganization of homeland security created a situation in which interdepartmental and interagency operations could enhance and support actions and decisions that are critical in protecting US citizens from any potential disasters in the future.
References
Carafano, J. (2006). Missing pieces in homeland security. Heritage foundation Memorandum 1013; 456
Homeland security (2002). Guidance for interagency operations. Web.
Hughes, D. (2002). Homeland security – so little time and so many details. Aviation week and space technology 157(23 ), 71