Sure, I can help you with that. Here is my argument in favor of the narrowing down of focus on recovery in the homeland security strategy:

• The 9/11 attacks were a wake-up call for the United States. They showed that the country was vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and that it needed to do more to protect itself. The protect, defer, respond, and recover mantra was a response to this wake-up call. It emphasized the need to take steps to protect the country from future attacks, while also being prepared to respond to and recover from any attacks that did occur.
• The protect, defer, respond, and recover mantra was effective in the short-term. It helped to improve security at airports and other critical infrastructure, and it also helped to improve the country’s ability to respond to and recover from terrorist attacks. However, in the long-term, the mantra became less effective. This is because it is impossible to completely protect the country from all threats. There will always be some level of risk of terrorist attacks.
• The focus on recovery is more realistic and achievable. It is impossible to completely prevent terrorist attacks, but it is possible to minimize the damage caused by these attacks. The focus on recovery is about making sure that the country is prepared to respond to and recover from any attacks that do occur. This includes having plans in place to evacuate people, provide medical care, and rebuild infrastructure.
• The focus on recovery is also more cost-effective. It is much cheaper to plan for and recover from a terrorist attack than it is to try to completely prevent all attacks. The focus on recovery allows the government to focus its resources on things that are actually achievable, rather than trying to achieve the impossible.

In addition to the above, here are some other arguments in favor of the narrowing down of focus on recovery:

• The threat of terrorism has evolved since 9/11. Terrorist groups are now more likely to use less sophisticated methods, such as knives or guns, rather than large-scale attacks like 9/11. This makes it more difficult to protect against terrorism, and it also makes it more important to be prepared to respond and recover from attacks.
• The cost of homeland security has increased significantly since 9/11. The government is under pressure to find ways to reduce these costs, and the focus on recovery is one way to do this.
• The focus on recovery can help to build resilience in the country. When people know that the government is prepared to help them recover from a terrorist attack, they are less likely to be afraid. This can help to reduce the impact of terrorism on society.

Of course, there are also arguments against the narrowing down of focus on recovery. Some people believe that the government should do more to protect the country from terrorist attacks, and that the focus on recovery is a distraction from this goal. Others believe that the focus on recovery is too expensive, and that the government should focus its resources on other priorities.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to narrow down the focus on recovery is a complex one. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. However, I believe that the arguments in favor of the narrowing down of focus are more compelling. The threat of terrorism has evolved since 9/11, and the government needs to adapt its strategy accordingly. The focus on recovery is a more realistic and achievable goal than the goal of completely preventing all terrorist attacks. It is also more cost-effective, and it can help to build resilience in the country.