All levels of government must be prepared and respond.

Approximately sixteen years have gone since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, which killed 2,977 people and injured many more. The 9/11 terrorist strike paralyzed the country and was the first prolonged terrorist attack on American soil since the Pearl Harbor bombing in 1941. (Wirtz, 2004). The 9/11 terrorist attack also struck the heart of American government and destroyed a portion of the country’s most recognizable skyline (Wirtz, 2004). Furthermore, it created a stench that Americans, particularly New Yorkers, could detect several weeks later after the remains were recovered from the ashes (George, 2010). The 9/11 attack was an indication of the country’s vulnerability at that time. Today, the U.S. has made significant efforts toward closing security gaps that might result in terrorist attacks such as that of 9/11 (Boyd, 2016). I, therefore, believe that the country is in a better state of preparedness at all the government levels and could adequately and effectively respond if ISIS were to launch an attack in any U.S. urban environment. This paper explores the United States preparedness in the context of the responses of most local, state, and federal government levels to terrorist attacks, if a U.S. urban environment were to be attacked by ISIS, for example.

The State of Preparedness of the American State, Local, and Federal governments to Terrorist Attacks

Today, I feel the country is safer from the type of orchestrated attack that befell the country in the morning of September 11, 2001. It is harder today for various terrorist groups, such as the ISIS, to find their way into to the country, and even much harder for them to launch an attack if they manage to get into the country (Emeksiz, 2014). However, security gaps still exist within the United States security system that may lead to the occurrence of terrorist attacks. Besides, the current world has several individuals dedicated to exploiting such gaps, including those living in the United States, who can easily access military-grade weapons (Emeksiz, 2014). Terrorists, such as the ISIS members, are not deterred even by the prospect of their deaths, and they are committed to engaging in less aggressive acts that makes it difficult for the U.S. security agents to detect their attack in advance (Boyd, 2016). Therefore, it is still possible for any U.S. urban center to be attacked by terrorists, such as the ISIS. The question is how the country’s security personnel, at the local, state, and federal government levels, would respond in the event of such attacks. In my view, the U.S defenses are much stronger, and the security teams are more prepared than they were during the 9/11 attack. Besides, I believe the country is working towards achieving effective solutions to terrorist attacks given the progress made in the past decade.

The overall Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) budget has almost tripled since the year 2001, and the FBI’s mission of investigating and prosecuting crimes has been extended to preventing or stopping terrorists before they strike any part of the American soil (Lewis, 2012). Besides, most of the FBI’s new resources for technology upgrades, intelligence analysts, and additional agents have been directed to the prevention of terrorist attacks. Almost half of the FBI agents are currently attached to the national security, with some serving at both the local and state levels (Lewis, 2012).

Additionally, when the World Trade Center got attacked, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was aware of the two suspected terrorists that it had been tracking around the world, who were part of the group that launched the 9/11 attack. Besides, the CIA knew that the suspects had visited the U.S some months before the 9/11 attack (Wirtz, 2004). However, the CIA never shared such information with the FBI (Wirtz, 2004). Today, the U.S security agencies have made vast improvements, and they share the same threat databases and watch lists to ensure effective monitoring of the movement of potential terrorists (Pfleeger, 2012). Besides, the U.S. security agencies share intelligence tips across all the levels of governments, with the federal officials even sitting on various task forces with their counterparts at both the local, and state levels (Pfleeger, 2012). The U.S security agencies have, therefore, made significant improvements towards closing the security gaps and that is a clear indication of the country’s better states of preparedness if ISIS were to strike in any U.S. urban environment.

In the year 2001, the airport-security agencies were solely responsible for the airlines’ security. In fact, the U.S airlines employed about 16,000 low wages, poorly trained private screeners, who worked under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines, which allowed the kind of knives and box cutters used by hijackers (Wirtz, 2004). However, today, the U.S. airlines have about 46,000 screeners, most of whom are federal employees and adequately trained by the United States Transportation Security Administration. As a result, the U.S security, in the context screening processes at the airports, is undoubtedly tighter than it used to be in 2001 (Robinson & Mallik, 2015). Besides, the cockpit doors have been reinforced to block individuals who slip past the screeners, which makes it difficult for a repeat of the terrorist plot such as that of the 9/11 (Robinson & Mallik, 2015). That also shows that the U.S. security agencies have made great improvements and would not struggle much in responding to events of terrorists’ attacks, such as an attack by the ISIS.

Also, today, all American ports in all the levels of governments screen cargo using the latest technologies, including the use of radiation detectors. The screening systems are beyond airtight to ensure the closure of any security gap that may get exploited by terrorists (LaFree & Bersani, 201). Besides, a week after the 9/11 attack, the country was caught unaware when envelopes with deadly anthrax got spread to two U.S. Senate offices and several media outlets, which killed five people and hospitalized seventeen others (Wirtz, 2004). However, today, a collection of federal, state, and local security agencies have playbooks for various chemical and biological outbreaks that may be used by terrorists as alternative attack strategies (LaFree & Bersani, 2014). That shows that the United States security agencies would adequately respond if ISIS were to launch an attack in an American urban center using biological or chemical outbreak strategies.

The federal government has also made significant security investments in several cities and various high-profile towns and venues across the country (Caponecchia, 2012). The Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which consists of a section of the FBI agents, a few local and state police officers, and a few representatives of various federal law-enforcement agencies, has been adequately reinforced with both personnel and funding (Caponecchia, 2012). In the year 2001, the country had 35 Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which has today increased to 104 (George, 2010). Besides, the federal government has increased funding for the both the broader federal, state and local emergency-response and law-enforcement agencies, also called fusion centers (Caponecchia, 2012). The federal government has also sponsored drills and other related exercises aimed at helping both the local and state police departments and other emergency responders in rehearsing how they would collaborate and work together in an emergency situation (Boyd, 2016). Such training that involves emergency response officers from all the levels of government is helpful in stationing medical personnel at the site of an attack, as well as mapping out the distribution of mass casualties to various treatment centers (Boyd, 2016). Such training also forms clear indications that the country’s preparedness to terrorists’ attacks is in good state and progress and that more lives would be saved by the U.S. emergency response teams if ISIS were to attack a U.S. urban environment.

Conclusion

In overall, I believe all the U.S. levels of governments are in a better state of preparedness, and they would adequately and appropriately respond if ISIS were to attack a U.S. urban environment. Besides, I believe the country is working towards achieving effective solutions to terrorism-related threats given the greats security steps that have been made in the recent past. Since the 9/11 attack, the country has made significant positive adjustments, both emotionally and politically, towards ensuring rational decisions, as a people and as a government, in dealing with various terrorism threats. Therefore, in case of a major terrorist attack, such as an attack by the ISIS, in a U.S. urban environment or on U.S. facilities, I believe the country is significantly ready to respond than it was on September 11, 2001. I think the country’s preparedness is high enough to adequately take care of any attack that might be launched by terrorist groups, such as the ISIS. However, there is still a great need for a more coordinated interagency response, at all the government levels, that would eliminate the fears among U.S citizens of possible terrorist attacks. Closing the remaining security gaps requires additional expertise and extensive planning that would outsmart the various strategies used by different terrorist groups, such as the ISIS.

References

Boyd, K. (2016). Modeling Terrorist Attacks: Assessing Statistical Models to Evaluate Domestic and Ideologically International Attacks. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39(7-8), 712-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057610x.2016.1141003

Caponecchia, C. (2012). Relative Risk Perception for Terrorism: Implications for Preparedness and Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 32(9), 1524-1534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01784.x

Chang, H., & Kim, J. (2016). Steps We Have Taken and Steps We Must Take. Healthcare Informatics Research, 22(2), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.4258/hir.2016.22.2.63

Emeksiz, E. (2014). Mega Terrorist Attacks and Contingency Plan for Law Enforcement. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2544041

George, J. (2010). Review of Is America Safe? Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Emergency Preparedness. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1759

LaFree, G., & Bersani, B. (2014). County-Level Correlates of Terrorist Attacks in the United States. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(3), 455-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12092

Lewis, S. (2012). Emergency Preparedness – Working in Partnership. Journal of Terrorism Research, 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.15664/jtr.413

Pfleeger, S. (2012). Security Measurement Steps, Missteps, and Next Steps. IEEE Security & Privacy, 10(4), 5-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/msp.2012.106

Robinson, S., & Mallik, N. (2015). Varieties of Homeland Security: An Assessment of US State-level Definitions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 12(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2013-0084

Veness, S. (2012). Introduction: Emergency Preparedness. Journal of Terrorism Research, 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.15664/jtr.411

Wirtz, J. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. Political Science Quarterly, 119(4), 683-684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165x.2004.tb01293.x