Adfero Group HSPI

After two decades of pouring resources and technology into patrolling the U.S. border with Mexico, there are encouraging signs that Congress is about to start asking the right question: what exactly have we bought for all that money? But the administration is continuing to drag its heels. A May 8 hearing of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on border and maritime security was intended to provide some answers to the critical question of how to assess progress along the border.

For several years, Security Debrief contributors have joined Francis Rose on Federal News Radio to discuss security issues and the role of the Federal government. For the homeland and national security crowd, In Depth with Francis Rose offers insightful and informative discussions, and there is a growing audience of listeners outside the Beltway. Recently, the news and talk radio magazine TALKERS added Francis Rose to its annual list of the top 250 talk show hosts in America.

Since the Obama campaign’s commercial heralding the President’s decision to launch the Bin Laden mission, people from all political corners have either cheered or jeered it. His detractors accuse the President of “spiking the football” and over-politicizing a decision that he said he himself said should not be politicized. For as honorable as the President’s spoken intentions may have been after Bin Laden’s termination a year ago, they have been abandoned for the very real, pragmatic electoral politics – when you have an advantage in anything, you take it and use it to its utmost.

Should President Obama be taking credit for the removal of Usama bin Laden from this mortal realm? The short answer is “yes,” based on the logic that if the mission that got UBL had failed, Obama would have had to take the blame. That said, it is a distorted view to think that nothing was done until before the present Administration arrived, and no one should be credited except President Obama.

On Monday, one of the Obama Administration’s heavies took to the Op-Ed page of the Washington Post to fight for cyber security. John Brennan, the President’s senior advisor on counterterrorism and homeland security, published a pretty impassioned piece reminding the Nation that cyber treats are real. Personally, I thought we were beyond the debate about the existence of the cyber threat and our need for better cyber defenses, cyber hygiene, training, and public-private info sharing. I guess there are still nay-sayers out there.

If Congress paid even one-tenth the amount of time trying to “fix” its own problems as it does in its petty meddling in the operations of TSA, the general public would have greater confidence in both organizations. Both entities could benefit from meaningful oversight and process improvement. But the joint hearing this week by the House Oversight and House Transportation committees was a one-sided effort, seemingly designed to point out problems without offering any serious solutions to those concerns – and it confirmed (yet again) for me why the Congressional labyrinth of DHS oversight needs to be addressed.

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, speaking before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, made a “dire prediction.” She warned the Senate that if Congress does not give DHS “the authority to designate critical infrastructure and set risk-based cyber security standards for it” [in] “a year or 18 months…we would have suffered a major infiltration or attack, and we will find that some part of our critical infrastructure was a gap.” The Secretary’s prediction and roundabout effort to foist responsibility on the Congress for her Department’s obvious lack of progress in assuring, beyond their protection, the operational resilience of America’s interdependent cyber and physical infrastructure challenges is — at best —ill-conceived.

Last week, I testified before the House Homeland Security Committee about Hezbollah capability to attack within the United States, should the group decide to do so. I explained that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that Hezbollah would attack America in the event of an attack on Iran, but also laid out four different scenarios of how they could carry out such an operation.

A brief exchange between Chairman Peter King and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson on Wednesday was strange. Rep. Thompson questioned the committee’s jurisdiction to hold a hearing on whether Iran and Hezbollah pose a terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Thompson’s “word of caution” should be taken again to his party’s leadership so they can understand the consequences of their failure to implement the only remaining recommendation of the 9-11 Commission – consolidating congressional oversight of homeland security.

As the U.S. fleet of icebreakers continues to age and fall behind the world’s arctic maritime community, the vision and fortitude of U.S. decision makers continues to wane. The recent announcement by Shell Oil to launch their $200 million arctic icebreaker in April 2012 should send a shiver up the spine of every Coastguardsman and mariner who has considered how the United States will deal with the future of operations in the high latitudes.

CQ Homeland Security conducted its annual survey of security challenges last year and the road ahead in 2012. The three-part series included comments from security experts throughout government and the private sector, many of whom are contributors to Security Debrief. Below is a rundown of some of their responses. Check out each of the story links to read more about important security efforts in 2012.

By Nelson Balido
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin last Thursday announced his resignation effective December 30. For folks who monitor border trade and security issues, this wasn’t exactly a surprise. But it was still a disappointment. Nevertheless, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made the right choice in naming deputy commissioner David Aguilar as the new acting commissioner.

In just over two weeks, barring an unanticipated miracle, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin’s recess appointment will run out. There are many positive things that can be said for how Bersin handled his tenure at CBP. Nevertheless, it does not appear that Bersin’s nomination is going to be approved by the Senate. Until DHS or the White House make their plans for Bersin’s replacement, even on an acting basis, clear and unequivocal, one wonders whether they even care about who leads this vital organization.

The U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security held a joint hearing today with the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs entitled “Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military Communities Inside the United States.” According to the Department of Defense, American soil is the most dangerous place for our service men and women outside of actual war zones due to radicalism and homegrown terrorism.

The first question asked in the Republican Presidential debate last night was on the Patriot Act—and all the candidates got it wrong. The investigative authorities in the act were described as something extraordinary—something special for the needs of national security. That is just incorrect. It is stunning that a decade after 9/11 so much misinformation about the act still pervades the public debate.

More than a year ago, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen spoke about how our growing national debt was becoming a national security threat. It was a stunning statement. With that as a backdrop, along with the federal budget drama of the past year, Congressional leaders pledged to work together, forming a so-called Supercommittee. After much discussion and pandering, we now have our end product – Failure. In fact, it’s bigger than failure… it’s an absolute surrender of leadership.

The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security held a hearing on how DHS and law enforcement agencies could take advantage of technology used by the Department of Defense. Many DoD systems have a significantly higher cost for civilian agencies than other technologies due to operational complexity and crew requirements. What better example do we have than the CBP’s use of the Predator UAV, which some estimates say costs $32,000 per illegal alien apprehended.

It has been four years since Congress made the bone-headed move mandating 100 percent screening of passenger plane cargo. Serious risk management is not Congress’s bag, as the institution demonstrates often. Fortunately, some elements within DHS sought to forge a new path, wisely piloting a program to conduct risk analyses of inbound air cargo and to focus DHS’s resources on the high-risk cargo, rather than attempting to subject all cargo to the same level of physical screening. This “risk-based” screening has been successful for DHS in other contexts.

Last week, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee held a hearing reviewing TSA screening procedures 10 years after 9/11. The buzz word of the hearing was “risk-based.” This has been characterized in some reporting as TSA’s newest screening strategy. In fact, risk-based screening has been attempted at TSA and DHS for years. The “news” is TSA’s public re-commitment to risk-based screening after several check-point screening miscues went viral.

Customs and Border Protection’s recently announced it had received a second Predator-B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Corpus Christi, Texas. As the Los Angeles Times disclosed in a must-read story for anyone interested in eliminating wasteful federal spending, the Corpus Christi-based UAV was one of three Predator UAVs that CBP would be accepting, even though there were not enough pilots to fly the ones that they already had. Why aren’t the budget hawks in Congress doing something about this? What in the world are they thinking?