TERRORISM MITIGATION
Introduction
New York City, which serves as part of my community, is prone to terrorist attacks. A study conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) in the University of Maryland labels New York City as the most frequent site where terrorist attacks are largely mitigated. The research’s credibility is based on data facts accrued from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) that pinpoints comprehensive incidences of terror attacks. In many cases, the targets are predominantly government and business facilities affecting not only NY but also the larger United States. The illegal group, Al-Qaeda, perpetrate most terror attacks. The paper seeks to denote how as an emergency manager, I can be proactive in fighting terrorist attack prevention, various gaps existing in terrorism mitigation, and how the National Mitigation Framework can lower the risk of a looming terror attack.
Proactive terrorism prevention
As an emergency manager, it is integral to involve stakeholders in the pre-event recovery planning (Ripley et al., 2020). The most significant step would be championing for situational awareness. Such a consistent, systematic, and routine action would be vital in raising the individual consciousness, thereby alerting people on potential threats. Creating prior situational awareness is core in laying out options that help people react wisely to a looming terrorist activity. In other words, it would help encourage and empower individuals by instilling not only a sense of readiness but also self-preservation. By so doing, confidence is heightened, minimizing incidences of panic that hamper the survivability techniques. In a life-threatening scenario, as an emergency manager, I would pay close attention to instincts, note suspicious things and activities that look out of place, listen to the odd, unusual, and doubtful sound, identify entrances, exits, and several exit areas.
Gaps in terrorism mitigation
In the NY community, various gaps exist that need better funding and accomplishment. The five mission areas of National Preparedness depict massive failures. There is a sleek response in preventing terrorism events, protecting the citizens and their assets, mitigating life and property loss, rapid response in saving lives, and the timely recovery process to restore housing, infrastructure, and resiliency amongst the affected. Therefore, as denoted by FEMA in the five mission areas, preparedness grants should be raised to enable a better proactive response.
Mitigation framework guidelines
The National Mitigation Framework, as illustrated by Homeland Security (2016), helps describe how communities can effectively reduce a potential terror attack. By paying close attention to the framework, emergency managers can better understand risks. Such is made possible by developing decisions on community vulnerability to hazards and threats. The framework exudes experience through a joint and shared taskforce between the emergency manager, stakeholders, intelligence, science, and technology. Since the framework is risk-driven instead of incident occurrence, the risk consideration factor encourages cooperative behaviors that lower the likelihood of a terrorist attack (Homeland Security, 2016).
Conclusion
From the preceding, the National Mitigation Framework is an integral tool for emergency managers and the community alike in mitigating risks like terror attacks prone to the NY community. As such, various partners work coordinately in coming up with critical decisions essential in building the five mission areas and capabilities. Therefore, by disbursing appropriate resources and finances, the security and resilience of New York City and America as a whole are made better, healthier, and safer.
References
Homeland Security. (2016). National Mitigation Framework (No. 87). Office of Homeland Security.
Ripley, S., Kaiser, L. H., Campbell, E., Shadwell, J., Johnson, D., & Neely, D. (2020). Engaging stakeholders in pre-event recovery planning: Using a recovery capitals framework. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 35(3), 25.