Fostering Community Resilience

Homeland Security and Hurricane Katrina

Tom Lansford, Jack Covarrubias, Justin Miller

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781409402497
• eBook ISBN: 9781317133834
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Social Sciences

Using the Mississippi Gulf Coast as a case study, this book focuses on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and develops the concept of resilience and how it applies to Homeland Security in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster to hit the United States. Through the lens of the national response to Hurricane Katrina and the local lens of the recovery of the Mississippi Gulf Coast community, this work elucidates the particular qualities that make a community and a nation more resilient, discussing resilience as a concept and an application. Additionally, it explores in-depth the interconnected fields that comprise resilience; including economic, social, infrastructure, and political domains. By examining what went right, what went wrong, and what can be improved upon during the Mississippi Gulf Coast's recovery, scholars and policymakers can better understand community resilience not just as a concept, but also as a practice.

Chapter 1
Resilience and Homeland Security

Counterterrorism organizations necessarily function in a top-down manner, while emergency management agencies require a bottom-up structure. When FEMA required the autonomy to function in response to catastrophic hurricanes, they were hampered by the top-down bureaucratic structure of DHS.

Kenneth Hansen, Associate Professor, California State University-Fresno

But this transformation will not take place overnight. It will be a long-term effort that requires a close partnership between government and its citizens. It will demand a careful rethinking by citizens about the values inherent in our political system and which of these we most want to protect.

Dick Thornburgh, Former US Attorney General and Governor of Pennsylvania

Introduction

The statements above reflect much of the frustration that exists within the system of United States homeland security. American resources are finite, political will often has a short memory, and affecting substantive change within a national disaster-response system is difficult. Unable to prepare for all risks, the federal government must hedge its bets against those that pose the greatest threat. Understanding this, other systems or processes must be developed to account for the gaps that currently exist in America’s network of homeland security. Comprehensive community resilience would provide one means to fill this void. Community resilience offers the federal government a systemic approach to magnify the capabilities and resources that exist at all levels of government (sub-local, local, state, national, and even international), with those capacities that exist in the private sector, including those of the business community, non-governmental organizations, private volunteer groups, community groups, families and individuals. Community resilience also provides capabilities that range through the entire spectrum of disaster preparedness and response, allowing for the formation of a holistic approach to homeland security.

The concept of homeland security is, in and of itself, not new. Homeland security policy, in one form or another, has existed since the formation of the republic. Recognition of the major threats to homeland security is also not new. Early in 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a report that explained that the United States has three distinct locations that are highly vulnerable to disaster and pose a great concern to the national effort of ensuring homeland security. The first was New York City and the possibility of a terrorist attack. The second was New Orleans and the crisis that would follow if its levees were to collapse. The last was the danger posed to San Francisco by the risk of a major earthquake.1

Such warning signs are nothing new to American citizens, and were confirmed by the two wake-up calls in New York and New Orleans that verified FEMA’s predictions. While it is correct to assume that the majority of Americans will be fortunate enough to never experience such crises; the odds are changing and responsible policy demands that government enact policies to be prepared to respond and recover from threats and their manifestations. As our world becomes more globalized, individuals and small groups are increasingly empowered to affect US national interests. Expected population increases throughout the world are as follows: 7.2 billion by 2015, 7.9 billion by 2025, and 9.3 billion by 2050.2 As people and development transition to areas of limited space and economic opportunity a subsequent increase in community vulnerability takes place. In fact, nearly half of Americans live within 50 miles of its coastline.3 Concurrently, the trends confirm that global and US disasters are on the rise, with an emphasis on those that are hydro-meteorological.4 This will continue as coastal populations continue to increase and be complicated as coastal populations face new challenges in resource allocation and protection, including land and water usage. Consequently, natural disasters are likely to continue to cause greater damage and destruction as they impact increasingly growing and concentrated populations and infrastructure (and populations and infrastructure that are often not prepared or equipped to deal with the crises because of changes in work, home and community life).5 Further, these threats only represent one piece of the homeland security puzzle. Terrorist activities around the world also pose a significant, albeit uneven, challenge to homeland security policy and the pursuit of US interests. What can the United States do to account for this change? How does this affect US homeland security?

The twenty-first century has been an era marked with significant change for the United States, and for the formation, development and implementation of homeland security policy. This chapter explores the effect of this change on homeland security, while this book intends to explain the gaps that exist within it and one possible avenue the United States can take to improve it. The Mississippi Gulf Coast’s experiences in the aftermath and recovery from Hurricane Katrina specifically address the need for enhanced protection. The scope of this work is to introduce the topic of community resilience and explain its utility in not only strengthening individual communities against all hazards, but also its ability to improve US homeland security from a relatively new, “bottom-up” perspective.

Understanding Homeland Security

At a Pentagon briefing on September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed what he thought represented the most significant current threat to the United States. “The Pentagon bureaucracy…with brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the US and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.”6 As United States Secretary of Defense, one could argue that Rumsfeld should have been the most informed individual in the United States in regard to the actual defense of the homeland. However, the next day would prove Rumsfeld’s limited perspective reflected America’s vulnerability. As American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. both his and Americans’ understanding of threats were about to fundamentally change. It is this exact misunderstanding that is at the root of current difficulties within the system of US homeland security.

The following year, the Homeland Security Council would label this new aspect of defense—homeland security—as a “concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.”7 The events that took place within this time period undoubtedly warranted such a focus for homeland security. With global mega cities such as Madrid, Riyadi, Jakarta, Istanbul and London all suffering terrorist attacks, such an extensive scope was warranted. Yet the events on the US Gulf Coast following August 29, 2005, would illuminate the limits of this orientation. Hurricane Katrina, and its catastrophic and detrimental impact on individuals, families, and communities along the Gulf Coast, has challenged Americans to develop new methods in providing homeland security.

Within a span of four years the United States experienced two of its worst disasters in its history. There have been no other successful terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, nor has there been a major natural disaster with the same destructive capacity as Katrina. As a result, some claim that both American attitudes and policies crafted to mitigate such crises are backsliding. Stephen Flynn, one of the most reputable United States homeland security scholars, describes this problem when he states:

Despite all the rhetoric since September 11, 2001, and some new federal spending on homeland security, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to acts of catastrophic terrorism on US soil. Even the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath by all levels of our government failed to serve as a wake-up call. Managing the risk associated with predictable large-scale natural and man-made disasters remains far from our nation’s top priorities.8

Homeland security scholars such as Chris Bellavita attribute the current vulnerability of American security to an “issue attention cycle,” a term developed by Charles Downs. According to this concept, the amount of time since the last disaster and our willingness to prepare for the next are inversely related. With the last catastrophe occurring in 2005 how does this affect the United States’ willingness to make appropriate choices about resource allocation in order to continue to develop and maintain an effective homeland security policy. Stained after its much-criticized response to Hurricane Katrina, limited by a declining economy and affected by the increasing rate of global disasters, the federal government does not have much room for error, if any, in the coming years.

Evolution of Homeland Security

Presently, homeland security in the United States focuses on the prevention and mitigation of both man-made and natural disasters. Throughout its history, American homeland security has been mainly reactive to these threats and lacked successful, proactive policies, procedures or infrastructure. Whether it be the firestorm that burned Chicago to the ground in 1871, the earthquake that left over 225,000 homeless in San Francisco in 1906, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the panic created through fear of Cold War nuclear annihilation, the incident at Three Miles Island, or the attacks of September 11, 2001, America continues to adapt slowly to the perpetual dangers that emanate from its geographic and political position in the world.

One of the many struggles in achieving effective US homeland security is overcoming the different perspectives that individuals, organizations and governments hold towards their location, jurisdiction, and responsibility. Due to the limitations of international and domestic terrorists, not all of Americans are either potential targets or will become victims of terrorist attacks, despite how many believe they are threatened. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for 9/11, spent half a million dollars incurring over $500 billion in damages, even though their targets were limited to just four buildings in the United States.9 Both the economic and political capitals of the world pose greater challenges in preventing terrorist attacks and therefore require different preventative and mitigating tools. Citizens in the Midwest are not accustomed to the negative effects of hurricanes. Do a city fire chief and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent working in the same location share the same priorities towards homeland security spending? Should they? If a coherent national framework for homeland security is to be developed it must be able to account for and accommodate these differences. For they, in essence, represent various components of the totality of the needs of the entire nation.

It was not until after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina that US homeland security policy as a whole shifted focus to prevent both natural and man-made disasters. Throughout its history, most governmental levels (especially the federal) of US government placed a greater emphasis on man-made threats. As Stephen Flynn notes “the folly of a myopic focus on terrorism became abundantly clear when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, and Alabama in late August 2005.”10 As with military strategy, homeland security must avoid preparing to fight only the last war, or in this case, preparing for the last catastrophic event.

In order to gain insight into the modern era of homeland security and what its future may entail, an evaluation of its historical progression is necessary. As previously discussed, disasters come in two forms: natural and man-made. Both types of disasters are increasing in both frequency and magnitude.11 Due to the consequences associated with the United States’ political, economic and cultural growth, greater support has been given to those tools that protect against human threats. Natural disasters did not begin to comprise much of the homeland security dialogue until the late 1970s with the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Those events help to explain the development of homeland security.

Ultimately, there have been three eras in US history that provide context to the evolution of homeland security before 9/11 and the focus that has been placed upon preventing man-made disasters. These eras are America’s Foundation, World War II, and the aftermath of the Cold War. Due to the fact that the United States has reacted differently to natural disasters than those that have been man-made, homeland security has progressed separately and differently in each era. However, the lessons learned from these events also help to explain the system of homeland security today and must not be overlooked.

Era One—America’s Foundation

After the end of the American War of Independence in 1783, the United States desperately needed to establish its own form of security both domestically and internationally. Given the centrality of British rule against which they were rebelling, the United States opted towards a decentralized model of government created under the Articles of Confederation. Using this model until 1789, the United States gained autonomy but failed to ensure legitimate domestic control. This is exemplified through the decline of several state economies, rebellion in Massachusetts, and lack of conformity between interstate trade, thereby reducing profitability and inevitably security.12 America’s firs...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Resilience and Homeland Security
• 2 Hurricane Katrina’s Impact on the Mississippi Gulf Coast
• 3 The Mississippi Gulf Coast: The Fabric of Community Resolve
• 4 The Mississippi Gulf Coast: Rebuilding Infrastructure
• 5 The Mississippi Gulf Coast: Fostering Political Resilience
• 6 The Mississippi Gulf Coast: Economic Recovery and Growth
• 7 Some Lessons in Resilience
• Appendix A: Selected Major United States Natural Disasters, 1900-Present
• Appendix B: Gulfport’s History with Tropical Storm Systems, 1872-2005
• Bibliography
• Index