Improvise, Adapt and Overcome

Based on your reading of White's book, Defending the Homeland, and any other sources, what do you feel is the appropriate role, if any, for state and local police in counterterrorism, national security and intelligence? Would you subscribe more to the "eyes and ears" or the "crime response and prevention approach?" Do you think the public, or the police themselves, want state and local police to assume that role, and what are the potential pros and cons of such a role?

Author: Jonathan B. Smith

Michigan State University 's School of Criminal Justice
Foundations of Homeland Security
Professor Phillip D. Schertzing, Ph.D.
Module 8: Security vs Civil Liberties? Criminal Justice and Constitutional Issues in Homeland Security

I believe that the crisis management events following 9/11 clearly established law enforcements role in counterterrorism, national security and intelligence.

Whether we like it or not, law enforcement is inextricably intertwined in the low intensity "War on Terror." Based upon the fact that homeland security was one of the five major issues of the election of 2004, I feel that both the public and the law enforcement community would favor an "eyes and ears" approach if they believed that this position would help improve our national security.

There are over 600,000 law enforcement officers in service throughout the nation today. Why shouldn't we choose to engage them in the fight against terrorism? The infrastructure is already in place and available to serve. Below is a quick review of the pros and cons for implementing an "eyes and ears" approach.

The current "War on Terror" is more of a shadow war than a traditional war, defined by Clausewitz (See White, 2004, p. 46). The terrorists are inclined to use asymmetrical warfare tactics due to the overwhelming superiority of our military. Thus, they choose to engage in a battle to undermine the confidence of the nation by attempting to demonstrate our inability to protect our citizens in their every day lives.

I strongly believe that now is a time to employ our vast law enforcement infrastructure in a counterrorism effort to exploit our strengths, uncover their weaknesses (asymmetry's Achilles Heel is that it is only effective if the terrorist's infrastructure is "hidden in the shadows,") and eliminate any advantages that the terrorists' asymmetrical tactics afford them.

In any battle, those who can most effectively adapt their strengths and exploit the enemy's weakness will prevail. The U.S. Marines have a motto to remind the troops how to perform under fire, even under the most dire conditions, "improvise, adapt, and overcome." I believe we can win the "War on Terrorism," but we must all learn from the Marines and "improvise, adapt and overcome."

Author: Jonathan B. Smith

Michigan State University 's School of Criminal Justice
Foundations of Homeland Security
Module 8: Security vs Civil Liberties? Criminal Justice and Constitutional Issues in Homeland Security

Works Cited:

White, Jonathan R. (2004). Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Security.
Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

Advisory System | Bio Terror | DHS Priorities | DHS Progress | Emergency Management | Homeland Security Defined | Infrastructure |
Law Enforcement | OK City | Research Priorities | Terror Insurance | Terrorism Today | WMD of Choice | WTC Health Issues

Download Brochure
908.233.7503