Critical Thinking for Homeland Security
Critical thinking is an essential skill in life that enables an individual or a group of people to analyze and evaluate a situation to form a judgment or make a final decision. The skills are crucial to the daily lives of all groups of people, including students, for enhancing their academic performances or security personnel to maintain order. Therefore, individuals should learn how to sharpen their critical thinking skills to increase their abilities to solve a particular issue. As a result, various authors such as Paul, Elder, Neil Browne, and Stuart Keeley have provided different frameworks and models to assist people in improving their abilities to think. For instance, Paul and Elder’s structure indicated that the aspect of reasoning comprises of eight essential elements that people must face when approaching a specific circumstance (Paul & Elder, 2006). Some of the concepts include the purpose, assumptions made, point of view, data or evidence, and the potential consequences. On the other end, Browne and Keeley formulated an approach consisting of the “right questions” that individuals must ask themselves while approaching a scenario that requires critical thinking (Browne & Keeley, 2007). Some of the questions are; what are the reasons, what are the issue and conclusion, what are the descriptive assumptions, and how good is the evidence. Therefore, the analysis conducted in this paper aims at constructing the best critical thinking model and how it could have been used by the department of homeland security to prevent the September 11, 2001, terrorism act on the World Trade Center. The framework utilizes concepts from the two mentioned models as well as other knowledge regarding critical thinking.
Over the past decades, the United States (U.S.) has faced and continues to meet increasingly complex and evolving risks of targeted violence and terrorism. For example, the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, famously known as the 9/11 attack, indicates some of the terrorism activities on U.S. soil. Due to this historical event, there has been mass fear among U.S. citizens, and the government has allocated more budget to national security to prevent such activity from happening again. One of the immediate reactions from the government included the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, whose efforts until today focus on preventing domestic terror attacks and targeted violence, providing cybersecurity, and immigration issues. The U.S. faces significant security threats from the radical Islamist terrorists and local terrorist activities that are not directed or inspired by foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) (The Department of Homeland Security [DHS], 2019). Also, these threats emerge from targeted violence, which does not fit the definition of terrorism since they lack a clear ideological motive but rather occur as a response to a perceived domestic grievance. These terror activities result in the loss of innocent lives and devastating long term effects on families, health issues, and the economy of a nation. For instance, the 9/11 attack resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths at the WTC, the Pentagon, and in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (Honan & Lucey, 2019). However, according to Brackbill et al. (2019), the event has continued impact of accumulated health effects among the individuals who were directly exposed to toxic debris in the air, such as asbestos, lead, and pulverized concrete. Today, these individuals face respiratory complications, neurologic conditions, and adverse mental health, especially post-traumatic stress disorder.
However, this event could have been prevented through the application of critical thinking models by the security department. The best analytical thinking model would begin by utilizing the first question, according to Browne and Keeley’s framework of “Asking the Right Questions”- What are the issue and the conclusion? According to them, a problem is a question or controversy under discussion, that must be identified to assist in the process of drawing conclusions. In this case, the responsible government departments could have used this idea to understand the issue and threat of terrorism in the U.S. The United States and its international facilities have always been a significant target for terror attacks even before the September 11 attacks. On October 23, 1983, there were truck bombings of U. and French military barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and claimed 295 lives (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2012). Also, there was a successful act of international terrorism, which involved a vehicle bombing at the same World Trade Center in February 1993. From a global perspective, data revealed a gradual increase in the frequency of attacks from 1970 to 2002 (Smith & Ziegler, 2017). Therefore, evaluating the historical context of this issue would enable the DHS to apply the appropriate measures and prepare for the growing domestic and worldwide tension about terrorism. Also, analyzing the historical context of an issue would enable the necessary bodies to draw the appropriate conclusions. In this case, the DHS would be able to conclude that the U.S. is a significant target by terrorists, and therefore must use the available resources to put in place the necessary security measures at all times.
The second step of this critical thinking approach involves identifying the reason or purpose for the occurrence of an event. Both “Elements of Thoughts” and “Asking the Right Questions” models emphasize the significance of this step during the process of critical thinking. According to Browne and Keeley (2007), reasons provide answers for human curiosity and answering the question of why some people act the way they do or hold a particular opinion. Furthermore, this concept comprises either beliefs, analogies, or shreds of evidence that justify a person’s actions. On the other end, Paul and Elder hold that every reasoning or behavior has a purpose, and a critical thinker must strive to retrieve them to understand the entire problem. It is difficult to determine the motives behind a terror activity or find a significant reason to justify this unacceptable behavior. However, it is also essential to identify the potential causes that may lead to an act of terrorism, to address the avoidable ones, and to reduce the negative impacts. For instance, a publication on the September 11 attacks revealed that the event occurred as a form of retaliation for America’s support of Israel, its military presence in the Middle East, and involvement in the Persian Gulf War (September 11 Attacks, 2018). Therefore, understanding the dangers of these ongoing activities by the American forces on foreign lands could have assisted the DHS to prepare for a potential response from the terrorists.
After establishing the purpose of an event, the next step in this model involves identifying the underlying assumptions and value of conflict. Browne and Kelley (2007) hold that, in the process of critical thinking, the majority of arguments appear to be sensible at first glance. These arguments look good and are supported by reasons, which sometimes are inadequate to prove the conclusion(s). Therefore, there is a need to identify unstated or hidden beliefs to understand a specific argument truly. On the other end, the “elements of reasoning” also highlight the significance of assumptions in the process of critical thinking. The authors of the framework indicate that assumptions need to be clear and justified by sound evidence to lead a particular implication. Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security can use this step to identify the assumptions for the reasons for terror activities to support their conclusion. The approach will enable them first to ascertain the most influential value assumptions in their movement from causes to the implications. Regarding the 9/11 attacks, the security departments could have identified that terror activities can result in loss of lives, deterioration of the economy, and long term health issues of the citizens. For this reason, they would assume that a stable economy and citizens’ lives are more important than any other thin. As a result, they could have concluded that terrorism is an unacceptable activity and therefore deploy the necessary security measures, which could have prevented the event from happening.
The next step in this model involves reviewing the evidence or data to support the reasoning behind a particular issue. Any claim or decision requires evidence to convince oneself or others about its authenticity. Therefore, when approaching a terrorism issue, the DHS should always ask questions like: What is the proof? Where is the evidence? How do you know it is true? Can you prove it? Why do you believe that? Asking such questions will enable them to develop the best critical thinking skills and evaluate terrorism issues with the support of eligible pieces of evidence. For example, before the 9/11 attacks, there were several pieces of evidence and clues that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) failed to review and prevent the attack. For example, BBC News (2019) reported that leading to the 9/11 incident, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. from a cave in Tora Bora in February of 1996. It was crucial evidence that could have assisted in the decision to boost security measures in the country. Also, in their model on ‘Asking the Right Questions,” Browne and Keeley indicated that there is a need to evaluate how good the evidence is during decision making. It can be done by analyzing the source of the evidence and retrieving common knowledge from it. However, the CIA did not evaluate the evidence and information provided before the 9/11 attack. Instead, BBC News (2019) reported that the body did not believe that the evidence could pose a threat to the U.S. security system. Therefore, if they had considered this step and determined the reliability of the evidence, then the event could have been prevented.
The next critical step that might assist the Department of Homeland Security in critical thinking is asking the question, what vital information is omitted? The question simply seeks to find out the information that has been intentionally or accidentally left out during the process of decision making. According to the “Asking the Rights Questions” model, omission of information or data can result in incomplete reasoning, which is often inevitable due to several reasons. The first reason relates to the limited time, space, and communication between the communicating parties. For instance, the 9/11 commission criticized the National Security Agency (NSA) and its ability to analyze intercepted communication (Ryan & Cook, 2007). The report revealed that the NSA was in a position to report on communications with suspected terrorist property in the Middle East. However, due to misunderstandings and miscommunications, the body did not seek a court warrant to follow the matter, since they believed that it was the FBI’s duty. At the same time, the CIA perceived the move as targeting the U.S. citizens and possibly violating laws that direct the operations of NSA concerning the collection of foreign intelligence.
Browne and Keeley indicate that the omission of information is inevitable because of the minimal attention span or interest by the decision-makers. Incomplete reasoning is always defined by quick messages, and the thinkers have very little time to pay attention to accurate information. For example, the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, admitted that in the days leading to the 9/11 attack, the intelligence community was more focused on foreign threats and paid little attention to potential domestic attacks (Cook &Ryan, 2007). The FBI and CIA received information that Al Qaeda had a massive interest in flight training. The terrorist organization had sent the later hijackers Nawaf Al Hazmi, Khalid Al Mihdar, and Zacarias Moussaoui to undertake the training in the United States (Cook & Ryan, 2007). Due to negligence, the two security bodies failed to connect the dot and stop the activity from occurring. Therefore, if these bodies could have applied this step in their critical thinking process, they could have ascertained the missing information, join them, and come up with an ideal solution or mitigation measure to prevent the attack from happening.
Fundamentally, critical thinking aims at proper making through the analysis of an underlying circumstance. These skills can be applied by the department of homeland security to solve problems related to terror activities. However, the analysis conducted in this essay focused on utilizing the principle concepts of “elements of thoughts” and “asking the rights questions” to develop a useful critical thinking model that could have been used by the DHS to prevent the 9/11 attack. The first step in the framework involves asking the question, what are the issue and the conclusion? The department can use this question to understand the historical context of terrorism in the U.S. and draw the necessary conclusions. After that, the second step is identifying the reason or purpose for specific behavior. With this stage, the DHS will be able to identify the factors that can result in a terror attack, and therefore, implement the necessary mitigation measures that could have prevented the September 11 attacks. The next step of the approach involves identifying the value assumptions that support the highlighted reasons for terrorism. In doing so, the department could have established a firm conclusion based on relevant and value assumptions. Another significant part of the model is to review the existing data to determine how good they are at supporting the problem. For instance, the CIA and FBI did not review the available body of evidence due to negligence; if they did, the 9/11 attack could have been prevented. Lastly, during the process of understanding an issue, the security organs should have asked themselves about the amount and significance of the information omitted. In conclusion, if the above steps could have been observed in the critical thinking process before the 9/11 attack, maybe the event could have been prevented.
References
BBC News. (2019, September 10). Viewpoint: Was CIA ‘too white’ to spot 9/11 clues?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49582852
Brackbill, R., M., Graber, J. M., & Robison, W. (2019). Editorial for “Long-term health effects
of the 9/11 disaster” in the international journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), 3289. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183289.
Brown, M.N., & Keeley, S.M. (2007). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking.
https://dl.uswr.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/131112/1/Browne%2CKeeley%20-%20Asking%20the%20Right%20Questions%2C%20A%20Guide%20to%20Critical%20Thinking%2C%208th%20Ed.pdf
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012, February 6). Testimony: The terrorist threat confronting
the United States. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states
Honan, K., & Lucey, C. (2019, September 11). Ground Zero ceremony marks the 18th
anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ground-zero-ceremony-marks-18th-anniversary-of-9-11-attacks-11568214162
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools.
Foundation of Critical Thinking, 4-22. https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf
September 11 attacks. (2018, August 25). https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks
Smith, M., & Zeigler, S.M. (2017). Terrorism before and after 9/11 – A more dangerous world?
Research and Politics, 1-8. doi.org/10.1177/2053168017739757
Ryan, J., & Cook, T. (2007, September 19). ‘U.S. spy chief: 9/11 could have been prevented.’
ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3621517&page=1
The Department of Homeland Security. (2019). Strategic framework for countering terrorism
and targeted violence. 1-34. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0920_plcy_strategic-framework-countering-terrorism-targeted-violence.pdf