Intelligence Warnings

Scenario of policy paper 4:
Subject Matter: Intelligence Warnings

Closely following the September 11 attacks, the FBI issues a terrorist-threat advisory to security agencies in seven states warning of possible attacks on suspension bridges on the West Coast. The governor of California decides to issue a public warning regarding the threat at a press conference, citing “credible evidence” indicating that an attack could occur during rush hour over a five day period. He names three specific bridges being targeted and gives the exact time frame of potential attacks, asserting it is his “obligation to inform the public,” and to ensure their safety.

The governor’s announcement surprises the FBI and several state and federal agencies, which play down the warning and maintain that the threat was “uncorroborated” and that the information was never meant for public release. As a result of the announcement, local security measures are strengthened at bridges in major cities in California, and the public is left frightened and rattled by a host of mixed messages -unsure how to be both cautious and go on with their daily lives.

Several days later, the FBI issues another message stating the intelligence behind the warning had not been credible. Following the false alarm, critics argue the governor’s warning, and others like it, unnecessarily panic the public and numb them to real threats.

In response to the growing criticism, you have been commissioned by the Attorney General’s office to propose a national policy and procedures regarding threat warnings, defining how state and federal officials should alert the public to possible terrorist threats and what information should be released.
Guidelines

1. What is the current intelligence warning procedures in the United States?
2. To what extent are elected officials responsible for informing the public of possible terrorist threats? What are the drawbacks and benefits of such warnings?
3. How can officials balance the need to warn the public of possible terrorist threats while still promoting public resilience and preventing widespread panic?
4. How “credible” and/or specific must intelligence be before a public warning is issued or even effective?
5. How can officials warn the public to possible threats without revealing crucial intelligence information or exposing sources?
Required Reading:

1. Freedman, Lawrence. “The Politics of Warning: Terrorism and Risk Communication.” Intelligence and National Security [Journal]. Vol. 20, No. 3, Sept. 2005.
2. Gannon John C. “Statement to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” Fourth public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, October 14, 2003
3. McCarthy, Mary O. “Statement to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” Fourth public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, October 14, 2003
4. Sullivan, John P. and Wirtz, James J. “Terrorism Early Warning and Counterterrorism Intelligence” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 21: 13-25, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008
5. Wermuth, Michael A. “Improving Terrorism Warnings – The Homeland Security System.” Testimony presented to the House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threat, and International Relations, March 16, 2004

Related Link:

1. Shenon, Philip. “A Nation Challenged: The California Alert; F.B.I Lifts the Warning About West Coast Bridges.” The New York Times. November, 7, 2001. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5DD1039F934A35752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

How to write a policy paper?

As indicated on the syllabus, you have to write three policy papers (max. 5 pages). It requires extensive research and thoughtful synthesis of primary and secondary sources. A policy paper, however, requires succinct consideration of policy options for a particular audience (e.g., officials, bureaucrats, politicians, development practitioners, donors). This means that the format will also be different from a research paper. Some might say that a policy paper is more “professional” because it is geared towards readers who have a limited amount of time to make a practical decision, while a research paper is more “academic” because it pays more attention to the scholarly roots of particular arguments and judges their merit on intellectual and logical criteria. This exercise is a hybrid between a policy paper and a research paper. Students will have to use the components and structure of a policy paper, but use academic arguments and citations

Goals
– To provide a balanced analysis on a particular policy issue
– Analysis is used to help a policymaker make a decision based on your insights
– Makes recommendation, but analysis leading to recommendation is crucial
– Papers can often be written on difficult issues with no clear answer either way

Components of a Policy Paper
Please use the following nine components as guidelines for phrasing the sub-headings in the paper.

1. Executive Summary: This should be a short summary (approx. 250 words) of the purpose of the paper and its recommendations. It typically appears single-spaced on the cover of a paper or position paper. [Because you are not really writing this paper as part of your job, please indicate in an additional sentence the audience for whom the paper is intended, e.g., a particular NGO, government agency, legislator/politician, branch of an international organization. Be as specific as possible.

2. Statement of the Issue/Problem: Phrase the topic as a question that requires a decision. This can be as short as one question. Here are a few examples:
– What role can the {any political, social, religious organization of your choice} play in enhancing the {political/economic/social} status of {any disadvantaged group of your choice}?
– Should {any organization/government of your choice} provide humanitarian assistance to people in the {any war zone/natural disaster situation of your choice}?
– How should {any country or region of your choice} respond to the investment interest of {any multinational corporation or financial institution of your choice}?
– Who should take the responsibility for {fixing any development problem of your choice}?
– When should {any country/organization of your choice} decide to intervene in {any development problem/crisis of your choice}?

3. Background (of the problem): Include only the essential facts that a decision maker “needs to know” to understand the context of the problem. Assume that you have been hired to filter through reams of information on behalf of a very busy and sleep-deprived person. Be clear, precise, and succinct. If you want or need to give extensive details (on technical or methodological questions, for example), it is best to do so in one or more appendixes.

4. Statement of your organization’s interests in the issue: This is meant to remind the reader of why the issue matters for the country/group/organization that you are advising. If, for example, you were the National Security Advisor for the US, then it would be appropriate to review the US’s geo-strategic, economic, or humanitarian interest in the problem at hand.

5. Pre-existing Policies: This summarizes what has been done (by others and the entity that you represent) about the problem thus far. Depending on your topic, some of the information may have already been presented in #3 (e.g., perhaps the problem itself stems from some other country or organization’s intervention). The objective of this section is to inform the reader of policy options that have already been pursued, if any. Note that the absence of action may be considered a policy decision.

6. Policy Options: This section delineates the possible courses of action or inaction that your organization may pursue. Please provide the decision maker with at least three potential courses of action. Some of them may be wildly unrealistic in your opinion, but please pose them as policy options nonetheless. At the same time, it would not be prudent to overwhelm the decision maker with too many choices. I would cap the menu of options at five choices–just think of how hard it is to choose your courses each semester.

7. Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Policy Option: Write this section from the perspective of the entity that you represent. For clarity, you may present the pros and cons of the options in bullet points or outline format. This may seem like stacking the deck since some options may have only one advantage and several downsides, but it isn’t always that obvious. For instance, one measly advantage may conform most fully with the interests of the organization summarized in #4. It is up to you to advise the decision maker if it is worth it.

8. Your Recommendation: After prioritizing the relative pros and cons of the above options, please recommend one option to your employer. Yes, this may require going out on a limb on an extremely complex issue that challenges your ethical instincts. But if you have agreed to advise a particular country/organization/person, then you will be asked to make a recommendation on their behalf.

9. Sources Consulted or Recommended: This is essentially an annotated bibliography in the event that the decision maker has the interest and time to read up on a specific issue. Please provide a one to three sentence description and evaluation of each source listed in this section. Aside from standard books and articles, on-line sources and personal interviews may be cited. Please see me if you have any questions about the acceptability of your research materials.

General Comments: Beware of the following pitfalls in writing memos to a political or executive audience:
– Using flowery or sycophantic language
– Lecturing the audience
– Being too abstract. Make specific suggestions whenever possible
– Focusing solely on your theory rather than the conclusions of your arguments and/or your research

Remember, your memorandum will discuss a problem needing a solution. Summarize it, describe it, and then make recommendations. Use detail when necessary, but be concise. Congressional staffers frequently speak of the “subway test” — that is memos should be short enough so that Members can read them while taking the subway ride from their offices to the Capitol.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!