Meeting the Homeland Security Challenge: A Principled Strategy for a Balanced and Practical Response

Authors’ Note: The following article was written before the events of September 11. As devastating as that day was, we have chosen not to revise the article. Rather, we believe that the very nature of those attacks only reinforces our basic arguments. The events of the 11 were not, despite the militaristic tones used by numerous commentators, recognizably military in nature. To the contrary, these attacks were almost certainly carried out by a non-state actor and used unarguably non-military means. We do not question the potential for state-sponsorship or complicity in the events of the 11, nor do we dispute the potential necessity and appropriateness of a forceful military response against any state found to have knowingly harbored or actively aided those responsible. However, the fact remains that these attacks exploited security weaknesses in a key component of our national economy, the air travel system. Moreover, other critical components of the national transportation system and economic infrastructure are equally vulnerable. Accordingly, an effective Homeland Security regime will necessarily involve significantly improved domestic security provisions implemented by government and the private sector. Those provisions must be built on a solid legal foundation and must be implemented so as to be effective and acceptable, both economically and societally. As Thomas Friedman put it in his New York Times column on 13 September, “We...have to fight in a way that is effective without destroying the very open society we are trying to protect...We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. It won’t be easy. It will require our best strategists, our most creative diplomats and our bravest soldiers.” In that spirit, we offer our thoughts. Semper Paratus.