To view this site you need Adobe Flash Player and your browser must allow javaScripts. Go here to get the latest Flash Player. EDITOR’S LETTER Taking stock at 100 days THE END OF THIS MONTH WILL MARK THE FIRST 100 DAYS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. (THE EXACT DATE OF THIS MILESTONE DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU COUNT INAUGURATION DAY, JAN. 20, AS A FULL WORKING DAY, WHICH I DO—SO APRIL 29 MARKS THE MOMENT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, YOU CAN EXTEND IT A DAY.) As a focused, non-partisan publication, dissection of the administration’s overall actions is beyond our scope; we’ll leave that commentary to others. We, however, are concerned with the state of homeland security and the department that bears its name, and here the first 100 days merit serious consideration, even if this is written well before the period is finished. Let’s say it up front: Secretary Janet Napolitano’s brisk, efficient and energetic tenure to date has been very impressive. She came to the department after six years of observing it as a governor and so approached it with a clear agenda and wellformulated ideas. On taking office, she requested sensible reviews and appears to be acting sensibly on their results. She wasted no time in any of this; it started the minute she was sworn in. This is in stark contrast to the Second Stage Review (2SR) of 2005, which began when Michael Chertoff took office on Feb. 15 and wasn’t completed until five months after it was initiated. In fairness, Chertoff’s 2SR was concerned with the fundamental structure and missions of the department. Napolitano inherited a department that experts and many legislators said was organizationally sound and shouldn’t be altered, with the sole exception being the debatable fate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. She started her race further down the track than Chertoff. That said, she certainly seems to have gotten off to a faster start. how real that threat is and how it’s an ongoing threat,” King said. However, Napolitano did something in that testimony that had long been missing from the national dialogue since Sept. 11, 2001: She clearly and succinctly defined “homeland security” and the department’s mission to give it its proper breadth. “At its core, I believe DHS has a straightforward mission,” Napolitano said, “to protect the American people from threats both foreign and domestic, both natural and manmade—to do all that we can to prevent threats from materializing, respond to them if they do and recover with resiliency.” And, she added, “…terrorism, Mr. King, I believe falls into that category [manmade] and is central to the category.” Napolitano was absolutely right. Her testimony was fair, balanced and comprehensive, encompassing all the hazards for which DHS has responsibility. Having put terrorism in its proper context, Napolitano should take the next step: put normalcy in its proper context within the terrorism color code and drop our state of alert to “blue” or “guarded.” There are currently advocates of scrapping the color code altogether as a discredited relic of the Bush administration. However, these people overlook the utility of a simple, easily recognizable state of alert that can be communicated instantly to every first responder and security official. As former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge put it, neither he, nor Attorney General John Ashcroft, nor Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller wanted to draw straws every time they had to alert the American public. The problem was not the notion of a code itself but its overly broad application in the days following 9/11 and then the suspicion that it was being used for political purposes (something that Napolitano specifically eschewed in her testimony on Capitol Hill). Further, under the Bush BY DAVID SILVERBERG NAPOLITANO CAN GO A LONG WAY TOWARD ASSURING THE PUBLIC AND SETTING A NEW TONE WITHOUT FOSTERING COMPLACENCY BY SIMPLY DROPPING “NORMAL” A NOTCH. administration the code got stuck on “yellow” or “elevated” as the normal state of affairs. That may have accurately reflected the state of mind of the Bush administration, but it also led to indifference and cynicism on the part of the public. Napolitano can go a long way toward assuring the public and setting a new tone without fostering complacency by simply dropping “normal” a notch. By now, the public and the homeland security community are well aware of the terrorist threat. Some changes to the code will bring praise as well as relief, while making the code a much more focused and effective instrument without damaging the security of the homeland. The next 100 days To date, Napolitano’s first 100 days have been ones of achievement and she’s to be congratulated on a very effective transition. As in any race, however, it’s the long haul that often proves the most challenging. There are roughly 1,460 days in a four-year presidential term. That’s a little over 14 100day periods. In many ways, the first 100 days are a sprint, while all the rest will be a slog. In the end, though, all that really counts is the state of the homeland when the finish line is crossed. HST Terrorism and color codes When Napolitano presented testimony on the department’s way forward before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Feb. 25, she was chided by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) for failing to mention the word “terrorism” in her prepared remarks. “I think it’s important for us in positions of leadership to constantly remind people Register online today for exclusive online content and eNewsletters HSToday Magazine | April 2009 3