Download PDF How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11 eBook Janet Napolitano Karen Breslau
Download As PDF : How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11 eBook Janet Napolitano Karen Breslau
Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano offers an insightful analysis of American security at home and a prescription for the future.
Created in the wake of the greatest tragedy to occur on U.S. soil, the Department of Homeland Security was handed a sweeping mandate make America safer. It would encompass intelligence and law enforcement agencies, oversee natural disasters, commercial aviation, border security and ICE, cybersecurity, and terrorism, among others. From 2009-2013, Janet Napolitano ran DHS and oversaw 22 federal agencies with 230,000 employees.
In How Safe Are We?, Napolitano pulls no punches, reckoning with the critics who call it Frankenstein's Monster of government run amok, and taking a hard look at the challenges we'll be facing in the future. But ultimately, she argues that the huge, multifaceted department is vital to our nation's security. An agency that's part terrorism prevention, part intelligence agency, part law enforcement, public safety, disaster recovery make for an odd combination the protocol-driven, tradition-bound Washington D.C. culture. But, she says, it has made us more safe, secure, and resilient.
Napolitano not only answers the titular question, but grapples with how these security efforts have changed our country and society. Where are the failures that leave us vulnerable and what has our 1 trillion dollar investment yielded over the last 15 years? And why haven't we had another massive terrorist attack in the U.S. since September 11th, 2001? In our current political climate, where Donald Trump has politicized nearly every aspect of the department, Napolitano's clarifying, bold vision is needed now more than ever.
Download PDF How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11 eBook Janet Napolitano Karen Breslau
"Janet Napolitano served honorably as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013. In How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11, she draws on her experience to cast a vision for the future of security in the U.S. For all of her experience and the details about her time at DHS, her proposals don't have a lot to add, and her tone of anti-Trump administration criticism detracted from her message.
I do appreciate one of her over-arching messages: the mission and scope of DHS's work is much more expansive and effective than most Americans realize. She writes "we are made safer through the unseen, uncelebrated work" of all the combined agencies and programs under DHS. By her reckoning, "the country has effectively ensured that a reprise of a 9/11-style attack cannot happen." Skeptics will surely object to her certainty on this point and many others, but her descriptions of plots foiled and crises averted make a strong case.
Aside from the undeniable assertion that DHS does great work in keeping the country safer, she can't resist getting some blatant partisan jabs in as she looks to the future of DHS. These come across as part typical Democrat Trump hatred, and part arrogance that she is great and others are not so much. Her two big points by which she claims superiority over the "embarrassing" Trump administration are climate change and border policies.
She writes that "many Americans, including elected officials, have infuriatingly turned a blind eye to preparing for the biggest and most irreversible risk of all, climate change." She leaves no room for disagreement here, no chance that climate scientists and researchers in related fields might have opinions contrary to hers. She continues: "It's truly horrifying to know that the number of policy makers in this country who deny climate change is not insignificant." She has no room in her world view to consider that those policy makers may have legitimate reasons for denying climate change, or at least her interpretation of the implications of climate change.
Even worse is her stance on the border. She, like many Democrats, pulls of the rhetorical trick of condemning Trump's position on the border while essentially agreeing with most of what the president actually says. She creates a straw man position, stating that Trump "simplistically suggests we simply seal the border with a wall." Then she goes on to talk about technological and personnel improvements that we can make at the border, points that Trump himself, as well as just about any Democrat or Republican politician, has made. She writes, "most of the news and nearly all of the mythology is generated by the 2 percent of the human and cargo traffic that is illegal." Well, duh. She herself talks about the 350 million people and $44 billion worth of freight that cross legally from Mexico. Given her 2 percent figure, I, for one, would think that 7 million people and nearly a billion dollars worth of freight would exceed the realm of "mythology" and move closer to the category of "crisis."
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Napolitano did a commendable job at DHS. And I don't necessarily fault someone for tooting her own horn in a memoir of public service like this. But her criticisms of the Trump administration and her successors at DHS fall flat in light of her partisanship.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!"
Product details
|
Tags : How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11 - edition by Janet Napolitano, Karen Breslau. Download it once and read it on your device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11.,ebook,Janet Napolitano, Karen Breslau,How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11,PublicAffairs,GENERAL,General Adult,HISTORY / United States / 21st Century,History/United States - 21st Century,Internal security - United States Internal security - United States,Internal security;United States.,Napolitano, Janet Napolitano, Janet,National security - United States National security - United States,National security;United States.,Non-Fiction,POLITICAL SCIENCE / Security (National International),POLITICAL SCIENCE / Terrorism,POLITICAL SCIENCE / Women in Politics,Political Science/American Government - National,Political Science/Intelligence Espionage,Political Science/Law Enforcement,Politics/Intl Relations,Terrorism - United States - Prevention Terrorism - United States - Prevention,Terrorism;United States;Prevention.,United States - Politics and government - 1989- United States - Politics and government - 1989-,United States United States,homeland security; obama; hillary clinton; underwear bomber; FEMA; hurricane sandy; hurricane katrina; United States Secretary of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security; Governor of Arizona; University of California; Secretary of Homeland Security,homeland security; obama; hillary clinton; underwear bomber; FEMA; hurricane sandy; hurricane katrina; United States Secretary of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security; Governor of Arizona; University of California; Secretary of Homeland Security
How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11 eBook Janet Napolitano Karen Breslau Reviews :
How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11 eBook Janet Napolitano Karen Breslau Reviews
- It is a great review of the security of our country since 9/11. Thoroughly researched and beautifully written, and in large part apolitical. It is a good understanding of where we were, what we got right in fighting terrorism and what needs to be improved, and how much the threats are changing.
- Janet Napolitano served honorably as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013. In How Safe Are We? Homeland Security Since 9/11, she draws on her experience to cast a vision for the future of security in the U.S. For all of her experience and the details about her time at DHS, her proposals don't have a lot to add, and her tone of anti-Trump administration criticism detracted from her message.
I do appreciate one of her over-arching messages the mission and scope of DHS's work is much more expansive and effective than most Americans realize. She writes "we are made safer through the unseen, uncelebrated work" of all the combined agencies and programs under DHS. By her reckoning, "the country has effectively ensured that a reprise of a 9/11-style attack cannot happen." Skeptics will surely object to her certainty on this point and many others, but her descriptions of plots foiled and crises averted make a strong case.
Aside from the undeniable assertion that DHS does great work in keeping the country safer, she can't resist getting some blatant partisan jabs in as she looks to the future of DHS. These come across as part typical Democrat Trump hatred, and part arrogance that she is great and others are not so much. Her two big points by which she claims superiority over the "embarrassing" Trump administration are climate change and border policies.
She writes that "many Americans, including elected officials, have infuriatingly turned a blind eye to preparing for the biggest and most irreversible risk of all, climate change." She leaves no room for disagreement here, no chance that climate scientists and researchers in related fields might have opinions contrary to hers. She continues "It's truly horrifying to know that the number of policy makers in this country who deny climate change is not insignificant." She has no room in her world view to consider that those policy makers may have legitimate reasons for denying climate change, or at least her interpretation of the implications of climate change.
Even worse is her stance on the border. She, like many Democrats, pulls of the rhetorical trick of condemning Trump's position on the border while essentially agreeing with most of what the president actually says. She creates a straw man position, stating that Trump "simplistically suggests we simply seal the border with a wall." Then she goes on to talk about technological and personnel improvements that we can make at the border, points that Trump himself, as well as just about any Democrat or Republican politician, has made. She writes, "most of the news and nearly all of the mythology is generated by the 2 percent of the human and cargo traffic that is illegal." Well, duh. She herself talks about the 350 million people and $44 billion worth of freight that cross legally from Mexico. Given her 2 percent figure, I, for one, would think that 7 million people and nearly a billion dollars worth of freight would exceed the realm of "mythology" and move closer to the category of "crisis."
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Napolitano did a commendable job at DHS. And I don't necessarily fault someone for tooting her own horn in a memoir of public service like this. But her criticisms of the Trump administration and her successors at DHS fall flat in light of her partisanship.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy! - This book 95% about issues facing homeland security and 5% autobiography. The writing was great, it flowed well, and it was a quick read. The only thing I was left disappointed in was the lack of depth; I was hoping for more detailed insight into the issues facing DHS/National Security. You could find the same big picture knowledge about the issues presented in this book by going to google and sticking to non-partisan websites. So if you haven't been paying attention to the news about the border or about our low level of cybersecurity this book will provide you with "high level" insights. If you are generally informed of such issues this book is not for you. {I got an ARC from Perseus Books via NetGalley.com}
- This is an extremely well written and insightful book about what has happened to get us to our current state of affairs in America. I did not find it partisan and appreciated the calm intelligence and experience the authors brought to the subject. Recommend highly.
- I received a free copy from the great NETGALLEY.
Okay this book disappointed me, the writing is great, the information is great but the solutions are vague or nonexistent. My biggest complaint was I was looking a for a new vision and kept feeling like I had been down this road before. Just my take,.
