Is Homeland Security ‘fighting the previous war’?
Military planners frequently suffer from an over-reliance history when planning for future wars. It’s a syndrome often described as “fighting the previous war”. Paula Gordon, researcher in social and organizational learning at George Washington University, cautions that the same phenomenon might be afflicting security planners in the post 9/11 world.

A recent report by Gordon, entitled Improving Homeland Security & Critical Infrastructure Protection and Continuity Efforts seeks to address these concerns. “There are those who continue to feel that traditional kinds of risk analysis, risk/benefit analysis, and vulnerability and threat assessment are as feasible and relevant post- 9/11 as they were pre-9/11,” she says. “Those who grasped the implications of the changed reality recognize that ‘all bets are off’ concerning what might happen.” In light of these unprecedented times, Gordon argues that homeland security planners should develop and implement plans of actions that are multi-dimensional and multi-purpose and address as many contingencies as possible. “In the language of various fields, including emergency preparedness planning, strategies need to have a "dual use", "multi-use", or multi-hazard focus.” She says. “Actions need to serve a range of possible purposes or address more than one problem, threat, or challenge simultaneously. The common denominator is that all actions serve in some way to strengthen simultaneously national, economic, societal, and individual security.”