Abstract
This paper aims at establishing the validity of Dr. Stephen Flynn’s recommendation for resilience in the event of a tragedy. Terrorism, particularly the September 11 attacks, and other adverse events have occurred in the United States over the past two decades, thereby prompting the need for proper planning for future events. The government does not carry the entire responsibility of developing national resilience; rather, every member of the community has a role to play. There is an urgent need for a continuous national willingness to advance robustness in order to lessen the risk of a discernible hazard, a readiness to speedily respond and recover from the tragedy and, once the initial effects of the event have abated, the initiative to adapt accordingly. The lessons taught by disasters are always noteworthy. Thus, it would be careless for any country to go about their normal operations after a disaster and be ignorant of the fact that there is a possibility of another tragedy in the future.
Keywords: resilience, robustness, recovery, adaptation, readiness
The United States of America has encountered several adverse events over the past two decades, with the September 11 attacks perceived to be the most adverse. Other disastrous events include the Northeast blackout of 2003, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in 2010. In the wake of such occurrences, the United States should be well-prepared to cope with the immediate and long-term effects and manage, or immediately restore, business capacities and vital community infrastructure (Brose, 2015). These operations following adverse events should be carried out with reduced individual, social, and economic impacts. Dr. Stephen Flynn, who served as the lead policy advisor on homeland security for the presidential transition team following President Obama’s election, recommends resilience during terrible times (Flynn, 2004). This paper evaluates Flynn’s recommendations to try and arrive at a reasonable and informed conclusion.
According to Flynn, the government and other relevant parties need to step up whenever a tragedy occurs and prevent the feeling of powerlessness and vulnerability that follows. By helping the general population to deal with disasters, they are likely to be less frightened. Achieving national resilience, nonetheless, calls for more than a statement or speech by the government (Brose, 2015). It necessitates a sustained national sense of responsibility for the development of a high level of stoutness to mitigate the danger of a predictable hazard, a readiness to respond promptly and heal after the disaster and, at the moment the danger has passed, the disposition to adapt accordingly.
Robustness
For the purposes of this paper, Robustness is associated with the ability to carry on with normal operations, even after the occurrence of a tragedy. Notably, the current administration intentions to reinvest in energy, health care, and infrastructure as a component of the country’s economic stimulus strategy offers an important platform to model systems and structures that can withstand the pressure resulting from disasters. Robustness may also be achieved by prioritizing projects that boost redundancies in vital systems (Kahan and George, 2009). Therefore, it is imperative for the government to invest in essential services such as emergency management, public health, and public safety to cater for events that are less likely to occur but which would cause grave damages.
Readiness
Readiness has to with the process of building top-level preparedness to spot and manage a tragedy once it has occurred. It involves the ability to determine the most efficient course of action and make both initial remedial procedures and damage control the top priorities, as well as the ability to relay these decisions to the people on the ground (Kahan and George, 2009). It is important to note that readiness depends more on people and planning than technology.
Fast Recovery and Adaptation
Quick recovery is the capacity to restore things to their normal condition within a short timeframe once immediate impacts of tragedy have abated. This necessitates meticulously designed and well-implemented contingency plans, adequate emergency procedures, and the means to transport emergency personnel and resources to the disaster area (Kahan and George, 2009). The final aspect of resilience is adaptation, which comes into play a considerable duration after the tragic event. Therefore, there needs to be a desire to learn the lessons taught by the tragedy. In other words, it would be reckless for the country to resume normal activity without the considering the possibility of future crises of a similar nature.
Conclusions
With the United States being in constant danger of tragic events that may have severe social and economic effects, there is a need for resilience, according to Dr. Flynn. The discussion is in support of this argument and evaluates various aspects of resilience, and how they may be useful in the event of a disaster. The government, as well as the general population, should be inclined towards making pragmatic changes to enhance robustness, resourcefulness, and rapid recovery to handle the next disaster.
References
Brose, D. A. (Ed.). (2015). Developing a Framework for Measuring Community Resilience: Summary of a Workshop. National Academies Press.
Flynn, S. (2004). America the vulnerable: How our government is failing to protect us from terrorism. Harper Collins.
Kahan, J. H., Allen, A. C., & George, J. K. (2009). An operational framework for resilience. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management,6(1).
