HOMELAND DEFENSEThe Past, Present, and Future of Homeland Defense
Homeland defense issues my be referred to as seams of ambiguity which doesn’t clearly define itself as either a defense or a law enforcement issue, and our adversaries have discovered the seam and they’re playing along that seam. And that’s what thrusts us into the gray areas that we’ve been talking about for at least two decades now.
In November 1944, Japan launched thousands of balloons carrying incendiary bombs across the Pacific, aiming to set fire to American forests and divert resources from the war effort. While the campaign caused minimal damage and few casualties, it highlights the vulnerability of the U.S. homeland to attack. To discuss lessons from this historical event, the current state of homeland defense, and how we might better prepare for the future, George Schwartz and Bert Tussing sat down with host Darrell Driver. Their conversation emphasizes the need for a whole-of-nation approach to preparedness and the importance of collaboration between government, military, and private sectors.
There are what we refer to as seams of ambiguity that doesn’t clearly define itself as either a defense or a law enforcement issue, and our adversaries have discovered the seam and they’re playing along that seam. And that’s what thrusts us into the gray areas that we’ve been talking about for at least two decades now.
Four Thoughts on “ The Past, Present, and Future of Homeland Defense”
1. B.C. says:
November 5, 2024 at 1:50 p.m.
At approximately the 27:00 or so point in this podcast, BG (ret.) Swartz uses the term and discusses a little bit the idea of “cognitive defense” (and, therefore, the idea of “cognitive attack?”); wherein, he notes that foreign adversaries are attacking us now, using such things as social media to create divisions, undermine American’s will and undermine our trust in institutions like our government, our free press, etc. (Thus, if we go to war, he considers that we may not be able to field the same degree of unified response that we were able to do during World War II.)
However, as to these such matters, should we not be looking — less to problems and activities relating to foreign adversaries — and more to problems that we/ourselves have created here at home? (Thus, problems which [a] WE CREATED and which, accordingly, [b] our foreign adversaries are simply “piggybacking” on?) Example:
“Overall, analysis has shown that globalization is properly considered a homeland security concern, as it disturbs existing economic and social patterns, leading to physical and economic damage to communities, feelings of disenchantment, loss of faith in government, and social unrest.
