Washington Business Spring 2012 | Page 21

washington business Does the rise of the importance of technology concern you? We know how to fight battles on land, but the rules of cyber warfare are more vague. It’s a challenge and opportunity at the same time. The international norms involving nation state cyber activities have not yet been fully developed, and given America’s unique capabilities, I think our nation is in a position to help lead development of those international norms. One of the reasons we’re so engaged is frankly, the centers of excellence right here in the state of Washington. We’re an IT-rich environment when you take a look at the civilian employment of our cyber warriors, it’s Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, Siemens, you name it, it’s the smorgasbord of the players in the Washington information technology economy. How have you seen security threats since Sept. 11 change? What do you anticipate? The threats have dramatically altered. None of them have completely been removed. But the fact is, we’re no longer protected by oceans and the continental United States is really part of a global field of engagement for the people who would do us harm. For the We’re an IT-rich environment when you take a look at the civilian employment of our cyber warriors, it’s Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, Siemens, you name it, it’s the smorgasbord of the players in the Washington information technology economy. Hopefully that will translate into civilian jobs, too. It works both ways. We’ve seen National Guardsmen develop skills through their unit affiliation that are in high demand by the Washington private sector, and we also draw upon people whose skills were developed in the private sector that we need for military operations. How do you think the families and employers are holding up after so many years now of heightened service? We don’t see any waning of support, frankly, from families or employers. Employers are like every individual taxpayer. They have an eye not only on their corporate bottom line, but also on the national bottom line. The cost savings of relying upon the National Guard and reserve components is absolutely staggering. After 20 years, the average active duty airman, for example, draws an average annual compensation package of $80,000 a year. The average citizen airman, same status, same years of service, draws about $10,000 a year. What can employers do to help National Guard and Reserve? There are a number of employers who continue to maintain their company insurance benefits for the members while they’re activated. Reserve component members can transfer to tri-care assistance, but quite often that means a child with special needs or a family member with long-term care arrangements with a very specific medical provider have to change for the period that the member is activated, so there are very serious family impacts and personal medical impacts from changing from an employer provided to a government provided health care plan. And quite often that’s just for a period of six months, but for a family you can imagine how traumatic that would be. So employers who do that have my undying gratitude. first few years after the 9/11 attacks and after the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, the focus was on al-Qaida and the centrally planned operations against the United States that were most often characterized in the public’s eye by al-Qaida … And so there has been a metamorphosis from a centrally planned campaign against the United States from a distance far from our shores, to a philosophical network of organizations and small clusters of actors and even individuals. That’s much more difficult to monitor and interdict. And most recently, homegrown violent extremists being generated within our prison systems based upon a terrorist or terrorism ideology, or the American citizens initially traveling abroad to engage in Jihad abroad, now they’re being encouraged to stay in the United States and act in the United States. Their movement to Yemen and Somalia and other locations for training allows them to be detected. If they remain in the United States, they’re far less likely to come under scrutiny until they act. When you look back on it now, can you describe what it was like in the first year following the 9/11 attacks? What stands out is the return on our investment in early engagement and early preparation. I became adjutant general in September 1999 and within a couple of months, we dealt with the World Trade Organization riots. Shortly after that, Gov. Locke gave a green light to form a statewide committee on terrorism. We began meeting monthly with a broad community of public and private sector representatives. We began meeting in April 2000, so by the time the 9/11 attacks occurred, our state had nearly a two-year head start for creating a network of parties necessary to respond appropriately. In February of 2000, I was privileged to lead a discussion at the National Governors Association of homeland security advisers from all of the states and territories. And the critical vulnerabilities that we had identified in Washington state were embraced by all other states and kind of became the national list of things our nation needed to