The aim of this paper is to explain why the National Infrastructure Protection Plan is effective and critique it in the context of strategic targets. Moreover, the paper will point out the reasons why the bottom-up approach is most appropriate taking into account the current setup of country’s security protections.
There are several reasons why the NIPP is effective in terms of strategic targets. There are certain programs that support the plan and these programs provide an organized approach with their accomplices. Moreover, under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, private sectors and operators are coordinated by the government. The next reason is that all country’s critical issues are properly and effectively addressed (Caldwell, 2010). These critical issues include security of country’s natural assets, protection of the US citizens and infrastructure from terrorist attacks. The National Infrastructure Protection Plan has also contributed with the set-up of mandates for each industry.
The bottom-up approach can be defined as a way of tasks distribution when an organization or in this particular case, the government sets up several smaller organizations to complete a task (Molander, 2004). In such case, the government will be able to collect important information from these branches and use it to provide enough attention to each industry. The bottom-up approach is the most suitable in the process of creating the NIPP, since in this case smaller organizations will be created on each level and thus, the government will be able to collect information from its citizens and identify the key areas of country’s security protections. In such case, all parts of the system will work together to ensure the security of the nation. Under the bottom-up approach, it will be possible to collect intelligence on any terrorists’ threat towards the United States of America.
Reference
Caldwell, S. L. (2010). Critical infrastructure protection: update to National Infrastructure Protection Plan includes increased emphasis on risk management and resilience: report to congressional requesters. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office.
Molander, P. (2004). Fiscal federalism in unitary states. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
