Ignorance is Not Bliss

I received the following piece through the FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education (EMI) Project. Secretary Chertoff replies to the New York Times article which correlated anxiety induced by homeland security to increased incidence of heart problems.

“Last week, the New York Times Science section ran a column that posed the question: What is more dangerous – al Qaeda or homeland security? Pointing to a recent study about cardiac health problems caused by anxiety, columnist John Tierney suggested that continuing elevated threat levels – and changes in security measures – may spur anxiety-based heart damage that harms more people than al Qaeda.

“I’ll admit that I began to read the article expecting at the end it would be tongue in cheek. But this didn’t turn out to be satire. The Times seems to feel that where terrorism is concerned ignorance is, if not bliss, at least tranquility. Of course, there are a couple of quick points to be made. Contrary to Mr. Tierney’s assertion, the United States Government does not frequently change the alert level, and when we do we explain as fully as possible why. I could also point out that the Times’ advice suggests that the newspaper itself may be a bigger cause of anxiety-related heart disease, what with the recent reporting about foiled terrorist plots in Spain and Germany, and, less happily, the Bhutto assassination, and bombings in Pakistan and Algeria.

“But I want to take the Times’ point more seriously, because it is an example (more obvious and outlandish than usual, perhaps) of an increasing strain of intellectual denial when it comes to terrorism. As I have often said, our approach to terrorism must be balanced. Neither complacency nor hysteria is appropriate in dealing with a global struggle that will be with us for the foreseeable future. The right answer is to acknowledge the threat, manage the risk and make the necessary reasonable and cost-effective investments that we need to secure ourselves and respond if necessary. And averting our eyes from the threat of terrorism will seem very hollow when the abandonment of security leads to tragic losses that cannot be ignored

“We certainly debate about what the right balance of security is, but does it make sense to pretend that what we read about doesn’t exist? When facts become uncomfortable or upsetting, should we ignore them? On the Times’ theory, we should also not discuss preparing for pandemic flu or major catastrophes. The anxiety caused by a 21st century in which technology has given terrorists and militants unprecedented destructive capabilities is very real. The constructive approach to that anxiety however, is not to wish it away or pretend that it doesn’t exist. The correct approach is to confront the danger, be transparent about the facts, and build real capabilities that assure us that we have maximized our chances of averting or minimizing harm. These are the kinds of behaviors that calm--rather than promote--anxiety.

“Ignoring the danger leads neither to bliss nor tranquility. Rather, we should recognize that in a world where man-made and natural hazards exist, the most constructive outlet of anxiety is to motivate solid, intelligent, and balanced preparation.”

Michael Chertoff

On one hand, I’m not prepared to agree with the New York Times assertion that there is a correlation between increased homeland security levels and heart conditions. At least here in Cincinnati, most people don’t know what the current homeland security level is or why it is at its current level. Outside of health officials and emergency managers, most people have not heard of pandemic flu and even those that have really don’t understand why they should be prepared. People here in Cincinnati (and I’m willing to bet elsewhere in the United States) are far more concerned about the potential of an economic recession or number of violent crimes being committed by plain old US criminals. Cincinnatians and Northern Kentuckians are far more worried about the potential merger of Delta Airlines with another major carrier and the potential loss of jobs at the Delta hub. Others are more concerned about their favorite sports team or the latest scandal of their favorite entertainer. If homeland security were at the forefront of most people’s concerns, it would certainly have been reflected in the talking points of the presidential candidates. The buzzword for presidential candidates now is “change” versus defense of the homeland.

On the other hand, I believe Secretary Chertoff and Department of Homeland Security misses the important point that it isn’t enough to just tell people that “wolves” are dangerous but help them understand how “wolves” pose a risk and what people can do about it. Intelligence analysts are very familiar with the difficulty of keeping leaders focused on a threat when that threat fails to ever materialize. For example, the Soviet Union was always viewed as a threat due to its political and military views which were diametrically opposed to those held by the United States. But other than during the Cuban missile crisis, the US and Soviet Union postured more than ever actually showing signs of attacking. It became increasingly hard to be prepared for an event that over the course of time did not seem in the late 1980’s to be as likely as it did in the 1950’s. Homeland security is going through a similar, albeit compressed, cycle where a terrorist attack is not foremost on the minds of average citizens. Perhaps those living in New York or Washington D.C. (where the attacks occurred) may have a more heightened sense of concern of attack but I doubt it rises to the level of creating heart conditions in citizens. The Department of Homeland Security needs to not only be the broker of information concerning threats, they need to educate the average citizen on their role in maintaining and improving the defense of the homeland. For example, the United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow however the threat level is High, or Orange, for all domestic and international flights. What does that mean to the average citizen? For most people is means only small amounts of liquids, aerosols and gels are allowed in carry-on baggage. I doubt if the majority of passengers now even are aware of why they are limited to only certain carry-on items.

According the DHS website however citizens should also be doing the following;

• All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately.
• Everyone should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency.

The first recommendation can be assumed that any law-abiding citizen does this as a matter of course. The second recommendation, to prepare an emergency preparedness kit, is not one most people are aware of much less actually have completed. In one of the courses I teach, I have the students create a list of items they would need to be self-sustaining for 72 hours. Most have never thought about this before and even fewer realize that a good list of items for an emergency kit can be found at www.ready.gov. The students quickly learn what is needed and how ill-prepared they are to evacuate in the event of a disaster. While having the information posted on the DHS is good, without a program to emphasize the information through education and public awareness program the information fails to have the desired impact.

Secretary Chertoff is right about the continued risk to the United States but the way only to increase awareness is through education and training. Proper training would lead to citizens being more aware of their roles which in-turn would increase the preparedness of citizens as a whole. Preparation is the best means of reducing any anxiety induced by the threat of terrorist attack. And of course, training and education eliminates ignorance.