So, to your question, must we sacrifice a measure of liberty to achieve security? I would say no. What we need are methodologies that the public understands, and to a degree, “owns” as part of a national effort to detect and prevent terrorism and violent activity.

 

You write in depth about how government and law enforcement need to work with communities to interrupt the radicalization process. How can communities empower themselves to identify and prevent violent extremism and who should be the catalyst for that effort? Are communities waiting for the federal, state and local governments to take the first step?

Communities may be waiting for government to take the first step; however, in initiating the engagement, government need not take the lead. Government-driven programs prioritizing crime reduction may miss the need to focus on “whole of community” strategies or outcomes. Community and business development, unemployment, healthcare, immigration anxieties and nuisance concerns (e.g., graffiti) may fail to maintain equal footing on the list of public safety priorities, but are nonetheless just as important to a safe community.

Organizations representing the community, like social services, faith-based groups, schools, or local businesses, to name a few, have a stake in identifying and prioritizing community challenges. Communities do not need the government to dictate their shared values and principles. Who we are as a country is not granted to us. It grows out of our populations. Yet, all communities can benefit from guidance [from government] on best practices, effective services and accurate knowledge that can enhance safety. Increased public safety reduces opportunities for personal grievances to mature into the kind of violence we see associated with domestic terrorism. A holistic community approach enhances public safety, and it addresses the threat of HVE in a way that reduces the overall risk of terrorism, not just seeks to stop terrorists.

 

You recently testified before Congress about the lessons learned from the Boston bombing. There appeared to be some divergent opinions on who constitutes the greatest threat. Should counterterrorism efforts be focused on one group or ideology over another?

The Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said, “If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.” In counterterrorism, it is not sufficient to just “know your enemy.” Addressing homegrown violence means we must look within our own society to identify threats and find ways to mitigate them. There is no “other” anymore. In the book, I reference the example of the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. More than two-thirds of the people interned were American citizens, half of them children. Yet, none had ever shown disloyalty to the United States, and throughout the war, none of the people who were convicted of spying for Japan were of Japanese or even Asian ancestry. Looking to our current context, the simple truth is that there is no terrorist profile. We make a serious error in acting as if there were.

Homeland security must evolve into a profession. To do so, introduction to opportunities should be presented to young people alongside other attractive career opportunities. The K-12 effort should educate and inform students about disaster preparedness and response via courses designed to give them life-long skills, regardless of their chosen profession. Would we not be better off with every student at a certain grade level certified in first aid? Think of the possibilities if older students were CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) trained or even instructors in the field? This is not intended to build a paranoid nation but instead create a more confident republic, ready and capable of managing 21^st century events.

Securing a democracy is challenging, but there is a widespread, and I’ll add, erroneous, view that democracies are particularly vulnerable to terrorism and because of that, we must curtail our rights to defend our nation. Abandoning our principles at the first sign of adversity says to our adversary that we have a double standard – one for ourselves and one for “others,” whoever that may be. If residents perceive a government bias, given insensitive polices, programs or rhetoric, it creates a foundation for grievances. This creates what I call in the book a “cognitive opening.” It is an event or experience that yields a personal grievance. This in turn makes someone more susceptible to accepting an extremist ideology. Targeting entire communities for investigation based on stereotypes produces flawed intelligence, and it marginalizes the community that needs support. In these circumstances, extremists have an opportunity to recruit new followers.

 

Though there has been vast national security investment since the 9/11 attacks, you write that homeland security has not yet become a defined and focused profession. What are the next steps for cultivating a true profession focused on analyzing the HVE threat and how it manifests?

Our security programs must be based on evidence and facts. By pushing counterterrorism into an evidence-based discipline, we can garner public support and credibility, which is critical. Understanding the people, processes, and outcomes associated with HVE recruitment, radicalization, and violent action arms communities with important knowledge. Messaging – real or virtual – is the strongest weapon our adversaries possess. Fortunately, words and messages can be countered. A better understanding of HVE must come through a multi-disciplinary approach because such a method can better identify research gaps. That in turn leads to more comprehensive and effective counterterrorism strategies. A better understanding of how people engage ideologies will give us greater knowledge of how extremists use ideas and violence, as well as help us develop community resistance. Research that gathers and analyzes relevant data using innovative methodologies can inform a new set of policies and programs.

 

With DHS Secretary Napolitano leaving her post, what are the priorities the new secretary should address to stem the threat from HVE?

Homeland security cannot be thought of as an agency. It must become part of our culture. Fostering this would be an admirable and important – although challenging – task for the new secretary. The notion of taking care of ourselves is not relieving the government of its responsibilities, but rather empowering our communities to consider unrealized potential. The education of the public remains the most important element to facilitate this process.

Homeland security must evolve into a profession. To do so, introduction to opportunities should be presented to young people alongside other attractive career opportunities. The K-12 effort should educate and inform students about disaster preparedness and response via courses designed to give them life-long skills, regardless of their chosen profession. Would we not be better off with every student at a certain grade level certified in first aid? Think of the possibilities if older students were CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) trained or even instructors in the field? This is not intended to build a paranoid nation but instead create a more confident republic, ready and capable of managing 21^st century events.

Lastly, the notion of government service must be considered an opportunity of honor. I have always thought of it as such. It should be incentivized and rewarded with education. For example, one year of service to yield one year of college tuition. Last year, more than 64 million Americans volunteered through formal organizations. That is a 5-year high. We can capitalize on that engagement as a means to build a more secure population. We have the talent, the desire and the resources. Building this capacity needs but one thing – leadership.