Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness

Introduction

Improvement of collaboration and coordination among different organizations of the government is very crucial to achieving success of worldwide efforts of combating acts which constitutes crime or threaten the safety of the citizens and bringing to and situations that propel people to committing acts of terror (Gereghty, 2012, p.4). Among the things that the military have emphasized is the need for teamwork rather than individual work since working together as team has better chances of achieving success.

In 2005, the U.S. Army emphasized the need for education, doctrine and guidelines among different agencies that would see the improvement of its capability to formulate and carry out all government’s remedies for contingencies from keeping peace to disorders (Gereghty, 2012, p.14). The different legislations within various organizations have been found to diminish the collaboration among different agencies which are mandated to enhance the security of the people. These established regulations and traditions within these companies have been noted to lack mutual association with other bodies mandated to provide safety to the public, and therefore they cannot bring together the delivery of service and formulation of laws since they cannot cross both the inside and outside boundaries (Gereghty, 2012, p.8).

The organizations’ robust laws have also hindered the collaboration among different bodies since they contain discretion in the manner in which they enforce laws but become strict in the way they are interpreted. Additionally, the guidelines in these bodies further justify the reason for lack of collaboration across agency lines (Hess & Wrobleski, 2006, p.12). The influences of politics within these bodies have also had an impact in the working together towards common objectives of safeguarding the citizens. Domestic security like any other field is prone to politicking. This greatly hinders efforts to bring together diverse organizations that are responsible for safety as politics occasionally fails to develop good policy outcomes (Hess & Wrobleski, 2006, p.19).

The collaboration of different organs incorporates merging together to find a solution to a particular problem or achieve an identified objective. It is assumed that through collaboration, organs raise their effectiveness, availability of resource as well as capabilities to make decisions and hence help greatly in finding a solution to a society’s problem that could not be solved by a single body doing the work alone (Hess & Wrobleski, 2006, p.28). When a severe destruction occurs from an undesirable event and the safety of a large population becomes compromised, close collaboration among quick response personnel and government organs is necessary.

During these situations, both the government and private resources and information must be brought together so as to enable collaboration of units responsible for emergency response that would otherwise have been independent (Laipson & Romanova, 2005, p.57). In such scenarios, merging and coordination across bodies and jurisdictional boundaries can be accomplished with the availability of interoperable technologies that rely on mutual standards and orders formulated prior to a disaster. To boost this collaboration, there is need to enhance effective communication where information is shared across federal organs as well as state and local bodies (Laipson & Romanova, 2005, p.72). This ensures that all information is received and hence no time for suspects to carry out their attacks.

There is also the need to enhance the peaceful coexistence among the federal, state and local organs in order to prevent complications that may arise during the process of investigations such as to prevent loss and overlooking of information or even being ignored (Meyer, 2007, p.44). Furthermore, it is necessary to incorporate state and local jurisdictions in the process of formulating national policies and guidelines. Despite proving important and same partners with federal government in enhancing security of the citizens, their contribution in the development of policies of the nation is little (Meyer, 2007, p.53).

The collaboration can further be enhanced through coordinated missions, planning and jurisdictional regulations and duties that are clear particularly in the areas where there are organized crimes. Moreover, it is important to lower the number of organs in order to prevent many organizations performing the same functions, and division of roles within many organs (Phillips, 2007, p.31). This also necessitates the reduction of federal bodies being granted local jurisdiction powers to evade the complication of issues concerning good jurisdiction and authority.

Another aspect that can help promote the collaboration of different organs during a disaster is the identification of key organs in the operation. The nature of the need being responded to as well as the geographic region will aid in identifying the organizations to involve in the collaboration effort. The resources that a body possesses that can be useful to the joint exercise must also be considered (Meyer, 2007, p.45). Understanding an organization’s operating guidelines, aims and ongoing projects can help greatly in evaluating the role they should be tasked with. Joint training activities and planning will foster how organs appreciate themselves.

In order to boost collaboration among different organs in safeguarding the public, there is the need to ensure that the flow of resources is adequate. This involves clear indication of the type of resources each body will be required to provide when need arises, and the manner in which they will be utilized (Phillips, 2007, p.39). This will make sure that every organ understands its expectation and requirement in terms of finances, personnel and physical resources.

References

Gereghty, M. (2012). Climate change, forest fire management & interagency cooperation in Canada. Waterloo, Ont.: University of Waterloo.

Hess, K., & Wrobleski, H. (2006). Police operations. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Laipson, E., & Romanova, O. (2005). Improving the interagency process to face 21st century security challenges. Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center.

Meyer, D. (2007). Normalizing Executive Department Boundaries: A Timely First Step to Improving Interagency Coordination. Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center.

Phillips, B. (2009). Disaster recovery. Boca Raton: CRC Press.