Working for Change March 21, 2003
Homeland security bonanza
By Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange
"It is not possible to defeat terrorism. Terrorism takes a couple of loonies in a basement putting together a bomb or some other device. We can gain a measure of defense against terrorists but we can not ever be terrorism-proof." --Jonathan Tal, President, Homeland Security Research Corporation
After President Bush had issued his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and only days before the commencement of the bombing of Iraq, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge again raised the terror alert to orange, indicating a high risk of attacks. As U.S.-sponsored terror was unleashed on Iraq, Ridge warned that agents of Iraq, other terrorist organizations, or even "disgruntled individuals" may respond to the War in Iraq by "conduct[ing] terrorist attacks" here or abroad."
For the second time in less than two months the terror alert had been raised: In late February, nearly three weeks after the government cranked up its alert to orange, Attorney General John Ashcroft, in consultation with the Homeland Security Council, lowered the threat level to yellow -- an "elevated risk of terrorist attack." The Orange Alert, triggered in part by false information provided by an al-Qaeda prisoner, set the 24/7 cable news networks off on ten days of fear-mongering and created a mini-bonanza for the duct tape industry and stores selling survival supplies.
A USA Today story headlined "Survival planning starts at home" provided steps the public should take in case of a terrorist attack involving biological, chemical or radiological weapons. Noah Schactman of Tech Central Station wrote: "When the level is at orange... more federal air marshals are supposed to ride airplane flights, more cars around airports are supposed to be inspected, and more people are supposed to be closely questioned at the country's borders."
This time the orange alert could last well beyond the duration of the War with Iraq.
For most Americans, these alerts add to the climate of confusion and fear: For folks doing business in homeland security, it's another good day at the office.
Jonathan Tal is president and publisher of the San Jose, California-based, and privately-owned, Homeland Security Research Corporation (HRSC). "Before September 11, there was no industry and now there is one," Tal told me in an early-February telephone interview. "In the year 2000, $5 billion was spent in [US] homeland security for things like airport security, the border patrol, the INS, etcetera. In 2001, $20 billion was spent; in 2002, $30 billion; in 2003, it will be close to $100 billion [including the federal, state, local, private sector]; and by 2008, we project that $180 billion will be spent on homeland security in order to protect the country appropriately.
"The industry is realizing that it's a brand new brave new world out here," said Tal, who has worked with counter-terrorism and security agencies in Israel, Great Britain and the US for more than thirty years. "Everyday HRSC [which also has offices in Boston and Israel] gets calls from venture capitalists about new projects. I recently got a call from a guy who was [determined] to spend lots of money [raising] bomb sniffing dogs."
Jonathan Tal sees three possible scenarios for terrorism in this country:
1. A "spectacular event": "Every once in a while there will be a spectacular act, like 9/11 in the US, involving a massive amount of casualties, and it will capture the attention of the public as a whole."
2. "Lower-grade events": "There will be ongoing lower grade attacks like the one in Bali. These will be smaller events like a suicide bomber in a mall or something similar to the LAX incident last summer."
3. "Best scenario": -- "We've seen all we are going to get and that will be it."
While scenario one is possible, Tal thinks it unlikely. "Basically we're in for a series of "lower-grade" events; that's the "most likely scenario for the foreseeable future."
Homeland security -- a new marketing frontier
Three thousand dollars was the cost of admission to the recent "Technology & Homeland Security Summit," an "invitation-only event that brought together 30 to 45 top-level executives and officials from five sectors of the homeland security arena: government, industry consultants, venture capitalists/investors, established technology companies and the most promising emerging technology companies."
Applicants for this exclusive event had to provide their bonifides within the security industry and then be approved by the applications committee. The February 20-21 gathering was held at the Lafayette Park Hotel & Spa in Lafayette, California, a suburb of San Francisco. The $3000 fee covered handouts and registration, not transportation or hotel fees. The 2-day meeting was billed as an opportunity for "participants (to) exchange ideas, learn about the latest trends, and make important connections at the highest levels of the... homeland security world."
Speakers included an array of well-connected corporate and government officials, including: Greg Pepus of In-Q-Tel, a private, CIA funded non-profit enterprise whose stated mission is "to identify and invest in cutting edge information technology (IT) solutions that serve U.S. national interests"; Peter Verga, a Special Assistant for Homeland Security who directs the Dept. of Defense Homeland Security Task Force and "is responsible for... establish[ing] policies and procedures to focus and upgrade DoD's preparation for, and response to, acts of terror"; and Hilary Goldstone, President of Millennium Financial Advisory Group, an investment bank "advising security, defense and biotechnology companies... [and] companies in other areas of technological innovation."
Mark Spooner, one of the event's sponsors and Division Manager of Analytic Services Inc. (ANSER) (http://www.homelandsecurity.org), also spoke. ANSER is a non-profit public service research institute providing "research, planning, program management, and other services in support of the national interest... [as well as] support for the Dept. of Defense and other Government and commercial clients." The ANSER Homeland Security Institute was established April 2001, and serves as a clearinghouse on Homeland Security matters for government and academic organizations.
The Summit was also sponsored by the Sunrise Agency (http://www.thesunriseagency.com/), a marketing and PR firm, primarily serving early-stage, rapid-growth companies; the Millennium Financial Advisory Group; as well as Jonathan Tal's Homeland Security Research Corporation (HSRC) (http://www.hsrc.biz/), which provides analysis, forecasts and reports about the industry and its products.
This conference was one of several kickoff events for the newly formed Homeland Security Leadership Association (HSLA) (http://www.hsleadership.org/). The HSLA is a non-profit, globally-focused industry association that aims to link member groups to federal, state and local government agencies around the world that are dealing with homeland security and foreign, domestic, and economic policy. In the coming months, dozens of homeland security events will promote networking of vendors, venture capitalists and government officials.
Homelandsecurity.com?
Will homeland security go the way of the dot-coms or is it a "growth industry with no limits," as Jonathan Tal believes? John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Va., a non-partisan clearinghouse for information on national security affairs, told Contra Costa Times reporter Ellen Lee a few months back that the rush to get in on the ground floor of the homeland security industry is like a game in which "many will play, few will win." "Everybody is buying lottery tickets," he said. "What everybody is doing is playing the odds."
George Smith, Senior Fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, was less sanguine than Tal about the industry's prospects in a recent telephone interview. As with most industries, Smith said, "there will be winners and losers. I think there will be growth in the security industry overall, but in the years to come it will be an extremely competitive situation. People who persist in thinking that there will be quick sales will fall by the wayside in the next five years." When questions are raised about how much money is being spent by the government on homeland security projects, "people arguing for more security may get their foot in the door but in the end, they may not sell much."
Smith pointed out that the war on terrorism, driven by the possibility of future incidents, has spawned "an industry of fear. It will be competitive and cutthroat, and the marketing departments at these companies will have a field day. Selling the threat of terrorism will ultimately be as important as the meat and potatoes of the projects themselves. Marketing departments will gain the attention of politicos and the media by pointing out specific scenarios and that will help drive the industry," he added. However, "in the long term, resistance could build as the public becomes inoculated against the hype. All this will be moot of course if another major incident happens and re-sparks the thing again."
Jonathan Tal has little time for, or interest, in the causes of terrorism: It's the threat of terrorism -- real or imagined -- that will keep the industry robust. The industry is all dressed up and ready to rumble. With so much money spent promoting fear, and investing in and cranking out elaborate security projects, it may take a major terrorist incident in the homeland to justify all the preparation.
Copyright © 2003, Working Assets Online
