One if by Land, Two if by Sea

“Listen my children and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five; hardly a man is now alive who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, “If the British march By land or sea from the town to-night, Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch of the North Church tower as a signal light, One if by land, and two if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be, ready to ride and spread the alarm through every Middlesex village and farm, for the country folk to be up and to arm.”

—From the poem Paul Revere’s Ride by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Longfellow’s portrayal of a steadfast patriot riding valiantly through the night in April 1775 is not entirely accurate. What is true is that Paul Revere and his collaborators had set up a simple, effective and low tech system for warning against threats from the British: two lanterns, one church steeple and three men on horseback.

Similarly, when faced with the increased risk of terrorist attacks following 9/11, President Bush issued a presidential directive in May 2002 to implement a relatively simple, although more technologically advanced system than Paul Revere’s. The Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) was comprised of five color-coded levels for identifying the risk of a terrorist threat: green for low, blue for guarded, yellow for elevated, orange for high and red for severe. However, the simplicity of the system led to its eventual downfall because it did not provide instructions for the public on what actions to take based on threat level. Instead critics claimed that instead of alleviating their fears, the system kept the American public in a constant state of fear.

Today we have the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) which was launched in 2011. According to the system’s website, it was designed as a method to communicate “information about terrorist threats by providing timely, detailed information to the public, government agencies, first responders, airports and other transportation hubs, and the private sector.” Furthermore, those who promote the system claims that “It recognizes that Americans all share responsibility for the nation’s security, and should always be aware of the heightened risk of terrorist attack in the United States and what they should do.”

The NTAS was touted as the latest and greatest method for warning the American people about impending terrorist threats. Not only did it promise to alert us to these threats, but when possible it would also provide the geographic location and instructions on what to do — and all within a timely manner. The system has a great website and signing up for alerts is very simple. But here is where it gets confusing: the system has never issued an alert…well not to the American public. Hopefully warnings have been issued to government agencies, first responders and/or the private sector. And, one would hope, as a result of those warnings threats were averted. But really…not one, single alert issued in the past three years to those who will most assuredly bear the brunt of a terrorist attack!

The press has been circulating reports about the Islamic State’s use of media sites to call for Western extremists to systematically hunt down and eliminate the families of American soldiers. Sounds like threat to me that could warrant an alert being sent out. And should we ignore the Defense Secretary Hagel’s reported warning about the imminent and direct threat to the U.S. as an attempt to garner more funding for military spending. What about the radicalization of American youth overseas? How is it possible that there is nothing to share with the public? Not even an alert to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior?

Oh wait, since its implementation in July 2010, the “See Something, Say Something,” public education campaign has been the primary method for engaging the public in suspicious activity reporting for criminal activities and terrorist threats. But this system does not broadcast any type of warning…it is essentially a one-way conversation, information comes in from the public but they receive nothing in return.

The Department of Homeland Security has indicated in electronic and printed media the sentiment that the American public is a critical component in our fight against terrorism. So I ask, what’s the problem? Is it that the government says one thing but actually means something else? Is it that Americans cannot be trusted to do the right thing if such an alert is ever issued? Or perhaps our intelligence community is confident that it has everything under control on the counter-terrorism front? Whatever the rationale, Americans deserve to have a system they can depend on to warn them of an impending terrorist threat.

Granted, one can never predict with absolute certainty how people are going to react in an emergency. However, we do have models that show the correlation between broadcasted alerts and the resulting appropriate public reaction. The National Weather Service began issuing flood warnings in 1891 and since then has evolved into a trusted organization for providing warnings to the public. The warning tone of the national emergency alert system is familiar all across the Nation. Americans have been taught since childhood to recognize its meaning and know that it is always accompanied by information on the threat and instructions on how to respond. Most recently, the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) has allowed for the integration of this and other national alert and warning systems. Unfortunately, NTAS is not one of these systems. But maybe it should be.