What Are We Going to Do the “Day After?”

Home Forums Leadership and Management What Are We Going to Do the “Day After?”

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Curt Klun 6 years, 7 months ago.

  • Author
  • #158084

    Curt Klun

    It is just a matter of time . . . It’s not a matter of if but when we will experience another attack, and if chemical, nuclear, or biological elements are involved, the damage is going to be far, far uglier than the attacks of 9-11.

    In February, DNI Clapper testified before Congress that the threat is real, it is immediate, and it is interconnected:

    “The United States no longer faces — as in the Cold War — one dominant threat. Rather, it is the multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats — and the actors behind them — that constitute our biggest challenge. Indeed, even the four categories [counterterrorism, counterproliferation, cybersecurity, and counterintelligence] are also inextricably linked, reflecting a quickly changing international environment of rising new powers, rapid diffusion of power to nonstate actors and ever greater access by individuals and small groups to lethal technologies.”

    Where do we stand as a people in facing this 21st century threat? Our current national security structure was designed nearly sixty years ago to face the now defunct Soviet Union. Worse yet, the major 9-11 Commission and the Project on National Security Reform recommendations to revamp our national security structure remain unimplemented.


    We have a clarion call to stand in the breach, so I invite you to join this discussion. The topic at hand is two-fold:

    • What can we do as practitioners to collaborate to change the interagency/national security structure to prevent a coming disaster?

    • If we cannot make incremental changes among ourselves, what can we do so that the day after attack happens our immediate and long-term national response will be well thought out and effective?

  • #158092

    Curt Klun

    Discussion String One: “The Unsung Acolytes”

    I’m naming the first sub-discussion string, in honor of two exceptional groups of practitioners of change: Colonel Boyd’s group of Pentagon Revolutionaries and Colonel Richard Suter’s Red Flag team.

    You can read about Colonel Boyd in this terrific and inspiring article: How Col. John Boyd Beat The Generals (Saga of a Pentagon Revolutionary)

    The take-away from reading about these heroes is that informal groups can succeed in making institutional change. What ideas do you have about how we can collaborate to spur interagency/national security structure change?

  • #158090

    Great questions, Curt. What would you say are the key people to bring to this conversation in terms of agency function? I’d like to promote this discussion a bit more…

  • #158088

    Curt Klun

    Hi Andrew,

    I certainly think that every GovLoop member has something to contribute to this topic, and the most valuable folks would be those who have experienced the trials and tribulations of the interagency process and are determined to help change it for the better.

    As far as key realms, I’d say that they would be anyone formerly or currently working in/with the public (state, local and federal,) educational, non-governmental, or private spheres to include:

    • Defense
    • Intelligence
    • Law Enforcement
    • Cyber
    • Homeland
    • State
    • International Organizations
    • National Security Counsel
    • Legislature
    • Transparency/Citizen Involvement

    I’m sure that I’ll think of a dozen more after this post has been sealed, but I wanted to give you my off-the-cuff thoughts.

  • #158086

    Curt Klun

    Discussion String Two: “The Wilberforce Team”

    As Dr. Peter Hammond aptly states in his 2007 article, marking the 200th anniversary of the end of slavery in the United Kingdom, “William Wilberforce remains an inspiring example to all of us – of courage, integrity and perseverance against all odds.” Therefore, it is appropriate that we honor this champion of statutory change by naming our second sub-discussion string to this icon and his compatriots. This discussion is intended to talk about how we can promote and bring into reality a well thought-out, new national security structure.

    Echoing John Newton counsel to Wilberforce, “It is hoped and believed that the Lord has raised you up for the good of His Church and for the good of the nation.” Now is the time to step forward to lend your support and skills.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.