Critical thinking is a core requirement prior to the undertaking of significant decisions, especially in the context of homeland security. This is mainly because failure to make use of effective critical thinking during decision-making in the context of homeland security is bound to impose negative implications as in the case of the WMD and 9/11 Reports. These case studies offer adequate rationale for the need of effective decision-making frameworks within the Homeland Security (Browne & Stuart, 2007). Different critical thinking models can be applied to deduce the most effective decision to meet the demands of the context. This is context of the decision-making situation in homeland security including intelligence operations and response to emergencies in the country. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the critical thinking models and construct what is perceived to be the best critical thinking model that could be used in homeland security. In addition, the paper discusses how the identified critical thinking model could be used in support of homeland security using 9/11 to discuss how the event could have been prevented or mitigated using the identified critical thinking model.
According to Paul and Elder (2010), critical thinking is defined as a thinking strategy whereby the thinker aims at enhancing his/her thinking quality by using the intrinsic structures in thinking and deploying the intellectual standards on the thinking structures. Basing on this model, critical thinking comprises of three fundamental components, which include the elements of thought, intellectual standards, which are supposed to be deployed on the elements of thought and intellectual traits that are nurtured by a critical thinker and are due to constant application of the intellectual standards to the various elements of reasoning. The fundamental requirement to a powerful critical thinking is powerful questioning, which is a core requirement in the context of decision-making within Homeland Security (Browne & Stuart, 2007). This implies that a successful decision-making process is based on constantly the right questions; this is because questions are the driving force behind effective decision-making. The basic argument is that right questions form the framework of our thinking in the sense that they influence the information that is being sought prior to undertaking a decision. In addition, right questions usually lead us towards a particular direction, making them an essential element of individual thinking. The primary issue of concern is which model of critical thinking effectively suits the context of activities undertaken by Homeland Security (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2011).
In order to evaluate which critical thinking is effective within Homeland Security, it is vital to have an understanding of the nature of Homeland Security operations and how their failures in the past can be attributed to ineffective application of critical thinking through avenues such as poor statistics that influenced the decisions or non-actions relating to Homeland Security events. The decision-making process and activities undertaken by Homeland Security are complex and requires an in-depth analysis of the potential implications of the decisions and available options prior to the deployment of the decision into force. For example, security intelligence may informing a potential attack that is to be initiated within the American institutions located overseas, a failure in critical thinking means that the homeland security is likely to tighten its security operations overseas, and lay minimal efforts to enhance domestic security (Paul & Elder, 2010). This offers an opportunity through which terrorists and other like-minded individuals can initiate attacks on the United States. This implies that an effective critical thinking model that is applicable in the context of homeland security should be comprehensive and take into consideration all the available alternatives and their respective potential outcomes associated with the actions undertake. For instance, prior to the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the intelligence community had received adequate threats regarding the plans by Al Qaeda in the United States; however, an immediate military action was not implemented on grounds that it was a preliminary judgment. This was a fallacy taking into account the overwhelming evidence and intelligence gathered and the increasing warning regarding the potential threats to be initiated by Al Qaeda. In addition, the warnings indicated that the threat was to be initiated overseas, resulting homeland security reinforcing the security overseas, which in turn resulted to ignorance of domestic security that offered a potential loophole for the terrorists to exploit during the 9/11 attacks (9/11 Commission, 2005).
Basing on the above loopholes of the decision-making frameworks in the homeland security, it is arguably evident that the right questions model offers an effective critical thinking methodology through which the fallacies can be eliminated during future events. The Right Questions model entails asking questions with the aim of determining the issues and conclusions, the reasons, words and phrases that show ambiguity, the value conflicts and the underlying assumptions, the descriptive assumptions, availability of fallacies in the reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2010). The model also focuses on ascertaining the validity or the strength of the evidence; the availability of rival causes; whether the statistics are descriptive; the omission of any significant information and whether reasonable conclusions are attainable. It is arguably evident that the Right Questions model offers a more thorough analysis of the decisions and respective actions undertaken by the Homeland security compared to the Element of Thought thinking model. However, there are positive elements of the Elements of Thought model that can be integrated into the Right Questions model to reinforce the effectiveness of decision-making frameworks within Homeland Security. The recommendation is that all the positive aspects of the models should be blended in order to come up with a critical thinking framework that encompasses an in-depth understanding of the author’s viewpoint and an implicit analysis of the possible alternatives. The suggested model should incorporate all the eleven questions outlined in the Right Questions framework and the four questions of Element of Thought framework that are not outlined in the Right Question framework, which includes the author purpose and viewpoint, implications and basic concepts (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2011).
The recommended critical thinking model is more interactive because it emphasizes on a wider spectral analysis, which results to effective decision-making and the implementation of the respective actions. This implies that the recommended critical thinking, which outlines the eleven questions outlined in the Right Questions frameworks, purpose, viewpoints, implications and basic concepts, provides a framework through which readers and thinkers can evaluate multiple alternatives. Another notable difference between the two critical thinking frameworks is that the Right Questions model requires readers to recognize any instances of fallacies in the reasoning of the author through verification and validation of the evidence. Spotting rival causes and ensuring that the available statistics are accurate helps in evaluating the credibility of the action undertaken. In addition, the Right Questions model could result to very different conclusions in cases whereby the available evidence and intelligence misses important information. This is the apex of critical thinking within Homeland security, because it takes into consideration all the possible alternatives, which is a core requirement for critical thinking to be effective. On the other hand, the Element of Thought thinking model lays emphasis on four vital aspects that the Right Questions does not take into account (Browne & Stuart, 2007). The elements outlines in the recommended model are essential for the development of a general outline, which can be helpful in narrowing down towards an implicit analysis of the gathered evidence and intelligence prior to making a decision and deploying appropriate action within the homeland security.
How the critical thinking model can be used in support of homeland security
Failures of the decisions and actions undertaken by the homeland security have contributed significantly to historical events such as the September 11 attacks and intelligence failures during the WMD in Iran and Afghanistan. This section outlines the various ways through which the suggested critical thinking can be deployed to support decision-making process and the credibility of the actions undertaken by the Homeland Security. This entails an analysis of the fallacies of logic that influenced the decisions culminating to the September 11 attacks (9/11 Commission, 2005).
The recommended critical thinking model relies on a wider spectral analysis, which forms the core of critical thinking. A wider spectral analysis implies that the decision made is based on an analysis of the various alternatives and their corresponding outcomes. With regard to this, the recommended critical thinking model could have played a significant role in eliminating and mitigating the September 11 attacks on the United States. For instance, the threats that the United States intelligence received regarding the threats were directed to the US institutions outside the country, due to lack of a wider spectral analysis, Homeland security reinforced security overseas and failed to mobilize domestic security agencies (Browne & Stuart, 2007). This is because the critical thinking framework deployed by homeland security could gather the missing information or link, which could have resulted to a different decision and action altogether. A wider spectral analysis implies that homeland security could have reinforced security at all levels, including domestic and overseas security. Such an approach when undertaking a decisive action could have mitigated the September 11 attacks since it could have eliminated all the security vulnerabilities in the US associated with laying much focus on overseas security. An outcome of this is that the United States emphasized on disruption efforts overseas and its focus to eradicate Al Qaeda through the covert operations in Afghanistan, the terrorist used this vulnerability to overwhelm domestic security, which culminated to the September 11 attacks. The attacks can be attributed to fallacies of logic, which resulted to misguided conclusions and actions that ignored the significance of domestic security in combating terrorism (Browne & Stuart, 2007).
Another logical fallacy evident in the case of the 9/11 is poor statistics that resulted to non-actions by the security agencies in the United States. The recommended critical thinking model lays emphasis on identifying any missing information that could be deployed to imply a different conclusion that is viable in the context. This is evident as the cases of suspicion leading to the 9/11 attacks did not prompt urgent action. The 9/11 Report highlights that no individual was working on the late leads observed during the 2001 summer to link them with the high level of threat reporting. One official states that no analytic work predicted the lightning that could link the thundercloud to the ground. In addition, despite the persistent warnings that the US received regarding the threats, the intelligence community failed to deploy any military action in time on claims that it was preliminary judgment yet the presented evidence was a clear indication of an imminent attack on the United States (Paul & Elder, 2010). The Bush administration was rigid regarding the alternatives available such as military action for a response relating to a previous attack initiated by the Al Qaeda on the Cole, such an approach does not reflect an effective critical thinking methodology to be applied in the context of Homeland Security. The recommended critical thinking model offers a framework through which the fallacies of logic associated with poor statistics can be eliminated. Poor statistics are likely to imply misguided decisions and actions that results to the creation of a perception noted by preliminary judgment or an ignorance of the available alternatives for action at the Homeland security. Other fallacies of logic identified in the report included the failure of the intelligence to link Zacarias Moussaoui interests in flight training for the objective of deploying an airplane to a terrorist attack as a potential indicator of an attack on the United States. The basic implications of the findings of the 9/11 Commission is that there were numerous failures and fallacies associated with imagination, intelligence and management. This is because the security agencies underestimated the gravity of the imminent terrorist attack (WMD Commision, 2005). The situation is further worsened by the fact that security officials in the United States perceived the potential terrorist threat as uncertain. This failure can be attributed to failures of the critical thinking frameworks that do not highlight the assumptions and the potential implications associated with their viewpoints regarding the magnitude of the threat. The recommended critical thinking model could have been effective in conducting an analysis of the available decisions and actions such as military options. This entails an analysis of the pros and cons of the military options and the potential impacts that it may impose on the credibility of the United States in case Osama Bin Laden was missed and the magnitude of collateral damage being unimaginable. The policymakers cited inadequate intelligence to deploy an actionable military strike that would offset the potential risks such as collateral damage (Browne & Stuart, 2007).
Conclusion
Effective critical thinking framework is a core requirement in Homeland Security because of the complexity of the decisions and respective actions undertaken by the body. This is mainly because a misguided decisive action can impose negative implications on the credibility of the United States at the international level. With this regard, the recommended critical thinking framework to function effectively within the Homeland Security is that the model should integrate all the positive aspects of the models order to come up with a critical thinking framework that encompasses an in-depth understanding of the decision situation and an implicit analysis of the possible alternatives. The suggested model should incorporate all the eleven questions outlined in the Right Questions framework and the four questions of Element of Thought framework that are not outlined in the Right Question framework, which includes the author purpose and viewpoint, implications and basic concepts. This is because the recommended critical thinking model relies on a wider spectral analysis, which forms the core of critical thinking. A wider spectral analysis implies that the decision made is based on an analysis of the various alternatives and their corresponding outcomes (9/11 Commission, 2005).

References
9/11 Commission. (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorists Upon the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Browne, N., & Stuart, M. (2007). Asking The Right Questions, A Guide To Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2011). The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from Learning How to Ask Powerful, Probing Questions: http://www.criticalthinking.org/print-page.cfm?pageID=481
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
WMD Commision. (2005, March 31). WMD Report. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from The WMD Commission Report: http://myedison.tesc.edu/tescdocs/Web_Courses/HLS-355 OL/Summaries/WMD_Report_overview.pdf