Making the Public Full Partners in Homeland Security
Making the Public Full Partners in Homeland Security:
A Commitment to Diversity and Inclusiveness
Speech to the e-gov.com Homeland Security conference, December 10, 2002
by W. David Stephenson
Most of the talk on this panel is about technology, but I will address another aspect of building a culture of collaboration in homeland security that is harder to define, and hard for many to understand, let alone implement.
I believe what is needed - and, from public statements, not apparent so far — is a real commitment to diversity and inclusiveness.
I will illustrate that point by talking about two aspects: actively recruiting professionals who are radically different from those who currently predominate in the national security field, and, perhaps more controversially, making the general public full partners in the homeland security process.
First, we need a new strategic weapon to fight terrorism: the ENFP.
No, that’s not an Extraterrestrial Nuclear Fusion Project, but the ENFP personality type — Extroverted iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving - which may be familiar to those of you who have taken the Myers-Briggs personality test.
Here’s why.
Three months ago in this hotel, I spoke at the InfoWarCon 2002 conference about the need in Homeland Security for what call “Internet thinking,” — i.e. linking everything, substituting cyclical for linear processes, and, most of all, empowering individuals.
I found myself sitting at lunch during that conference with 8-10 veteran civilian DoD analysts. Their conversation turned to Myers-Briggs personality profiles.
It was not surprising to me at all to find that these men and women were almost all the same Myers-Briggs profile: Introverted, Logical, Thinking, and Judging, or (ILTJ). I for one want the people who analyze data that might be relevant to document terrorist resources to be detail-oriented, methodical — and willing to keep at it day in and day out, year after year.
By contrast, it’s no wonder that the DoD and most large bureaucracies don’t have many people like me - the ILTJ’s polar opposites: Extroverts, iNtuitive, Emotional and Perceiving.
To start with, only about 3-5% of the population is ENFPs, but there’s also the inescapable fact that we’re a pain in the neck to manage. One description of ENFPs will give you an idea of the problem: “ENFPs may find it difficult to work within the constraints of an institution, especially in following rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures. More frequently, institutional procedures and policies are target to be challenged and bent by the will of an ENFP”.
Who in their right mind would want to bring people like us this into an organization that is already overburdened and stressed? Even worse, who would want to manage someone like us?
The reason, I believe is that we ENFPs are absolutely crucial to anti-terrorism strategy - for it to be effective, we must be included.
Since September 11th, we’ve heard constantly about the failures to “connect the dots’ before then, and the necessity to make sure that never happen again.
At the risk of offending most people in this room, the more I learn about personality types, the more I’m convinced that many ILTJs may be physiologically incapable of “connecting the dots.” Their brains are hard-wired in a way that makes them superb at routine and methodical analysis, but that very skill at drilling down means they literally can’t see The Big Picture.
If I’m correct (and I’m sure there will be a lot of indignant responses during the question period!) that’s not an argument to get rid of ILTJs, but to diversify the intelligence community and bring in some of us on the other end of the spectrum.
Why?
Consider another description of ENFP traits that I believe match this unprecedented challenge. Not only must we “connecting the dots,”but, equally important, we must being flexible and ready to change directions and strategies on a moment’s notice, and being able to enroll those who are more timid through our vision and evangelism: “ENFPs are characteristic in their pursuit of the novel, their strong sense of the possible, and outstanding intuitive powers. At the same time, they have warmth and fun with people and generally are unusually skilled in handling people. Their extraverted role tends to be well developed, as is their capacity for the novel and the dramatic,” and, perhaps most relevant, “”They live in readiness for emergencies.”
I can’t emphasize it enough. In an era in which the new threats are challenging in large part specifically because they are unprecedented, require quick thinking, and willingness to abandon one approach as soon as you are stymied or the circumstances change, agencies not only need those rock-solid detail oriented people, but also a sprinkling of our type.
Now I’ll turn to what I believe is the mot crucial gap in current homeland security strategy: making the general public full partners.
One 9/11 anecdote will illustrate my point.
As you may have read in The New Yorker or other sources, actor James Woods flew from Boston to LA on Tuesday, August1, 201. I suspect that, by that date, the hijackers’ planning was in its final stages: they had observed there were usually fewer passengers on Tuesday Boston-LA flights, meaning fewer people to overcome and less fuel consumed by the weight of passengers and baggage.
Woods, who told The New Yorker’s Sy Hersh that “I watch people like a moviemaker,” observed 4 other first-class passengers who appeared to be Middle-Eastern and were traveling together, with no carry-ons. While others laughed at an in-flight movie,they paid no attention.
Woods concluded that the 4 were “casing” the plane for a hijacking, and told the flight attendant of his fears. Parenthetically, it’s important to note that Woods said in making the allegations that he was aware of the legal amifications of false accusations about hijackings.
The flight attendant shared Woods’ concerns, and they talked with the first officer, who said he would lock the cockpit door. The flight attendant also said she would report the incident. If she did, Hersh reported that the form probably disappeared in stacks of paperwork at a FAA regional office in Tulsa or Dallas.
Nothing more happened — until Sept. 11, when Woods took the initiative to report the incident to the LA FBI office. The next morning, he was awakened by an FBI agent, and said he’d get dressed and come to their office. The agent told Woods that wouldn’t be necessary: they were parked in his driveway. Woods told the agent that he was certain that two of the 4 men on his flight were among the 19 highjackers.
To my knowledge, the resulting FBI investigation has never concluded whether or not two of the highjackers were on Woods’ flight. For purposes of discussion, let’s say they were.
I am convinced that, had an electronic process been in place that would have, on one hand, protected innocent people of false accusations — perhaps by requiring clicking a radio button saying “I make these accusations under penalty of law,” — and, on the other hand, guided Woods through an interactive process that would have escalated his complaint to immediate attention by authorities — James Woods might have single-handedly avoided 9/11, and have been a real hero, not just a celluloid one.
I tell that incident in some detail, because it could have been you or me on that plane — or one we take tomorrow. Would we meet with the same frustration?
Think about the nature of the terrorist threat: because surprise is terrorists’ greatest ally, and because their next target, likely as not, will be some other area of the country or totally different type of facility, such as a school or hospital (to induce the maximum panic in the general public), any American, in simply following their daily routines, is as likely as an FBI agent is to observe suspicious activity in tme to avoid another attack — provided that information doesn’t disappear into a stack of paper in some regional office.
I want to stress I am adamantly opposed to the TIPS program, and to Admiral Poindexter’s “Total Information Awareness” system that would sweep up and aggregate every bit of data about individuals into a data base subject to all sorts of potential abuse. I can’t think of a polite term to express my contempt for these programs and the mentality that created them. Anyone who knows of the history of the East German Stasi or the American Protective League (who used tactics such as tarring and feathering or forcing those suspected of disloyalty to kiss the flag to harass would-be German sympathizers during World War I), should understand that these programs are flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights. In my opinion — if they come to fruition — the terrorists will have won in part, by fundamentally changing our way of life.
Instead, I’m talking about a program that would simultaneously educate us about what is and isn’t a legitimate threat (such as the legitimate cultural practices of immigrant groups), and would simultaneously create a simple, effective method to report potential threats in time for them to be acted upon.
Equally impotant,it would empower us to act purposefully and with a minimum of direction to cope should another attack occur.
If we create such a program, we will simply be following in the footsteps of nations, especially Great Britain and Israel, that have far mor expeience than we do in dealing with terrorism. For example, Israel sent every household a pamphlet on recognizing potential car bombers and what to do. Great Britain plans a massive education program, including mock drills, to inform the public about what to do in case of a chemical or biological attack.
As Mike Hillyard, a former Marine captain who now teaches Homeland Security courses, has written, there is ample historic precedent for such a program right here. “During the American Revolution, this and was the battleground for a protracted engagement. An enemy of foreign and domestic composition — Tory colonists, the British Army and foreign mercenaries - fought against us and the danger of attack was focused specifically on people and their propery.”
Are we, the citizens, up to the challenge of being full partners in Homeland Security?
All you have to do is look at the last two years to realize the power of informed, empowered individuals. In addition to Woods’ potential role, there was also the heroism of the Flight 93 passengers, the passengers who overwhelmed the shoe bomber, the tips by members of the Islamic community in Lackawanna NY resulting in arrest of the alleged al-Qaida sleeper cell and, closer to home, the alert truck driver who finaly fingered the alleged snipers here.
Technology can be a potent ally in creating such a program. Recently, the Telephia research firm reported that 50% of the American population now have cell phones. As 9/11 showed, we will definitely use them in a crisis The question is whether we will do so purposefully and calmly — armed with information that we can download in advance on issues such as emergency supplies and evacuation routes, or whether we will use them in panic, sharing our ignorance.
I find it troubling that I can download photos of the 10 most wanted terrorists to my Palm from one private site, and I get disaster alerts from another, but not from the government.
Will it be difficult to create such a partnership with the general public? You bet! Is there risk in disclosing more information with the public when the terrorism alert level is increased? You bet!
However, as someone from outside the Beltway, I must tell you that the relative calmness the public shows about another attack will vanish in an instant if there is one, because we know so little about what to do in response.
As Clark Staten of the Emergency Response and Research Institute told Newhouse News Service, “the psychogenic aspect of this (terrorist situation) - panic if you will- has been given short shrift by planners. And yet it is at the root of what terrorism is all about.”
Let me give you one example.
There is an excellent pamphlet, Citizen’s Preparedness Guide, prepared by the National Crime Prevention Council under funing from the DoJ and released last January. I found it online totally by accident when searching for the Israeli pamphlet I mentioned earlier. I have never seen a copy of it in print, nor have any of the police departments in my region even heard of it!
Why wasn’t that booklet sent to every household, and/or the contents been made available for downloading to a PDA?
The recently announced Citizens Corp program has some promise as an answer to my concerns, but I’m not certain, in this era of “Bowling Alone,” as Robert Putnam calls it, whether most people will actually participate in such an organization.
In conclusion, I believe it is the people, and varying skills, ideas and insights that each of us — no matter how humble, brings to the situaton — which, in partnership with federal and state agencies will help us cope with the terrorism threat.
Yes, we ENFP’s are difficult to manage, and yes, when you bring the general public into programs in a meaningful way you’re asking for problems. Bu the problem is too big, too unpredictable, and the chance that the person who will find himself in the right place is the right time is James Woods the individual, not James Woods playing the role of National Security Advisor, to do otherwise.
Thank you.
