Homeland Security Reorganization -- Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Great Debates
1

I’m not against Bush’s plan to create a new cabinet position, heading up a Department of Homeland Security, and to move various governmental units and responsibillities into the new department. OTOH it’s not a panacea.

I don’t see that it will make much difference. No doubt, analysts who have not been on the ball will give greater attention and focus to security, but that would have occurred regardess.

I expect Congress to do a good job in creating the new structure, although there’s always the risk that they’ll get it all balled up.

What do you think?

2

Useless bureaucratic layering. The obvious problem appears to be diffusion of resp. and power, lack of analytical capacity to deal with the intelligence already collected, lack of humint in the proper areas and lack of cooperation.

Frankly I think making Homeland Sec. (and I despise the name, fucking Iowan corny) department is rather adding to the layers.

3

I see this purely as an inefficient answer to decades of imcompetence on the parts of the various agencies such as the CIA, FNI, NSA, etc. How hard is it really to set up a dialogue between the agencies? Can’t the CIA tell INS, NSA, and FBI that someone is entering the country that might warrant observing? Do we really need a 196,000 person department to perform this task?

nahtanoj

4

We’ll have to wait and see. The creation of a new department, using pieces from old departments, usually involves a big transient disturbance with a loooong settling time. During the that time not much gets done except straigtening out the bureaucracy.

The Department of Defense is over 50 years old and some of the waves from its original creation are still present. I.e., the different services are not really one big, happy and efficient organization below the DOD organizational level.

5

My main concern is whether the agencies are going to be moved wholesale to the Homeland Security department or merely answer to the HS Secretary while remaining in their present department. The latter is an obvious “two masters” problem, but the former concerns me even more for some agencies:

Coast Guard. A multipurpose agency if there ever was one. Regulates vessels and their operators (equivalent of DMV), constructs and maintains navigational aids (equivalent of the FAA or a highway department), performs rescues (equivalent of fire deparment), and enforces the law at sea (general law and order, like the police, though it has focuses like drug interdiction and illegal immigration by sea).

Customs. The primary purpose of this agency is revenue collection, with anti-smuggling a close and related second.

FEMA. Many of the disasters FEMA deals with are natural and therefore totally unrelated to terrorism. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etcetera.

I fear that placing agencies like these wholly under the HS Department would cause them to focus on anti-terrorism to the exclusion, or at least the detriment, of their other vital tasks. I have the same concern about the (much-discussed in the media) “refocusing” of the FBI as an anti-terror agency. Bank robberies, wire frauds, kidnappings, and the whole panoply of interstate crimes aren’t going to stop just because of September 11. Should the FBI investigate terrorist threats? Of bloody course! Should they make it their primary task? IMHO, no!

6

We’ll have to wait and see.

Could easily result in unnecessary duplication - which would seem inconsistent with W’s proclaimed desire for a leaner gov’t.

OTOH - I work for a huge fed agency (the biggest, excluding armed forces) that about 5 years ago was split off from its cabinet-level department. We have a clearly defined function other than surfing the internet during work hours :wink: Yet in our prior situation we found ourselves competing for resources against our teammates who were doing “more glamorous” work.

Independence has allowed us to focus solely on our responsibilities. Which could be a good thing if Homeland Security responsibilities/goals/interests are clearly divisible from, say, Customs, Coast Guard, or INS interests in general. If not, I am not sure how it will work. I’m assuming, for example, that INS does some things that are not strictly related to Security. Will those be relegated to secondary status under the new regime?

Moreover, if my experience is any predictor, simply renaming organizations is in itself no guarantee of improved communication.

Finally, at the risk of sounding alarmist, I am a little wary that the reorganization of so much authority under the mantle of “security” may further contribute to increased police powers and decreased privacy. If government is set up such that it views everything as a “security” issue requiring police powers, it will respond in certain predetermined ways. For example, I seem to recall studies suggesting that police department personnel conduct themselves differently if their mission is described as “public service,” as opposed to “law enforcement.”

7

Uh - what John said, better and one minute quicker than me.

8

Here’s a link to the White House “book” on the proposed department. (This is a .pdf file.) It’s also available in html on the White House web page.

As far as I can tell, the administration’s main justification for this reorg is to rectify problems with communication of information and with clear lines of responsibility. I remain unsure why such rectification requires a new government department, rather than a few alterations of existing agency missions and an expansion of authority for the already existing Office of Homeland Security*. Can anyone shed light on this?

*Gotta agree with C on the rotten name. Not only is it corny, it’s just too suggestive of an uber-nationalistic mentality.

9

Where to begin? Some much wholesale cupidity! Lets start with:

The Enemy “Thousands of trained killers” boiling furiously with rage and hatred, flinging themselves against our nation. So where are they? What are they waiting for? No clue. But I can tell you this: if this lull persists, Our Leader will be taking credit.

"Of course, for security reasons, we cannot reveal how many dastardly plots have been foiled. But its a bunch of 'em! We can’t tell you about it. But we’re doing a hell of a job, yessireebob! Trust us.”

Is the timing suspicious? Well, rather. But soft! Turns out that they’ve been working on this plan for a Long Time. They didn’t just cobble it together in order to be seen as Doing Something, this is the fruit of conscientious labor, not just some slap-dash improv to take off the heat.

Uh-huh. Amazing, isn’t it? Damn near everything else “leaked”, all kinds of embarrassing and ugly facts leak out, but not this. No hint, no clue. A organizational study that, if done correctly, needs the input of hundreds of people from all over the gummint. Out of all these turf protecting back stabbing beureaucrats not one leak? Extraordinary, no?

Unless, of course, they’re lying. Spinning. Whatever.

And what resources are to be re-assigned? Is a Coast Guard cutter captain to be reassigned to an anti-smallpox lab? An FBI agent off inspecting school cafeteria grade hamburger? Nonsense. Most everybody will continue to perform the same tasks they have training and experience to perform. Only those personnel who perform investigative functions will be refocused, and most of them will be in the FBI-CIA-ATF cabal. They will report to the same people they reported to before, and those people will brief Tom Ridge. Wow. Big whoppity whoop. Bet those terrists are shaking in their sandals now.

Further doth Our Leader assure us that all of this can be accomplished without the dreadful horror of Expanding Bureaucracy! Oh happy day! Our darkest fears are abated! No expanded bureaucracy, just an extra layer of organization! A grateful nation blubbers it’s gratitude!

Enough. If you’ve read this far, I have already belabored your attention span. Go in peace, and vote Republican no more.

10

I tend to agree with your POV, elucidator. However, Bush’s plan has bi-partisan support. It is close to what leading Democrats in Congress have been promoting.

11

True that the proposal has bi-partisan support. It looks like a very positive, very broad action that no politician would want to be seen obstructing. To blame only Republicans for the smoke & mirrors aspect is a bit naive. As far as the timing of the announcement, I’m thinking the D-Day anniversary has more to do with it than the current finger-pointing.

12

How could it not have bi-partisan support? Who the hell is gonna be caught in public voting against the Security for Our Widows and Orphans Against the Dastardly Terrorists and God Bless Our Heroes Act? Might as well bake a batch of cookies and send them to John Walker Lindh!

Further: it is a compromise masquerading as an initiative.

The Demos wanted a cabinet position as that gives Congress advise and consent powers, plus investigative authority. BushCo wanted to keep pretending that it was entirely an Executive branch matter, and Congress can butt out. He had no chance of getting away with this, so this way he knuckles under while appearing to Lead.

It also neatly permits Pubbies to share in the collective Congressional turf-build, without making them publicy confront Our Leader. Their ever-waning hopes rest upon those frail shoulders, they have no option but to march in lockstep with him, while performing standing ovations in reponse to his Churchillian orations.

Old wine, new bottle. Same clothes, same Emperor.

13

I’ll join the chorus of those panning the term “homeland.” It smacks of Fatherland, or something out of Tolkien, take your pick. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word “domestic” in this sense.

Beyond the superficial, though, it makes you wonder why actual domestic defense/intelligence wasn’t centrally coordinated before this. I know we never expected to be attacked on American soil, but you’d think someone would think it might come in handy some day. And I do think it’s a good idea to have the head of it all be an actual administration official, because Tom Ridge (what has he done other than the Rainbow Of Doom?) is being shielded from testifying before Congress by the White House, whereas an actual Secretary can not refuse such requests. I don’t care if it’s going to be a super-secret meeting like the current hearings are, at least have someone communicating with our elected officials (and yes, I do aim that comment at the Prez).

As it stands now the proposal seems a little in need of fine tuning - or a lot, I’m not claiming any expertise in how governmental bureaucracy works. But how involved will the FBI, CIA and NSA be in the new department? And what’s to stop some middle manager from stopping good info from going any higher than him/her when they think it’s bunk? Isn’t that one of the defenses of the administration about the pre-9/11 intel?

I hope it works, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

14

As I understand it (and I’m sure the Teeming Debators will correct me if I’m wrong) the CIA and FBI will not be under the Homeland umbrella. What good is that?

The whole “not putting the peices together” thing was mostly those two agencies not sharing vital information.

15

Raw intelligence regarding homeland security will be fed in from the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc, and will be analysed by the new department. Sort of a intel ‘clearing-house’, which certain intelligence community persons have been suggesting for years.

16

Ah yes, and you believe in the tooth fairy also, yes?

May I be so bold as to note, if only for the record, that the CIA was supposed to have been such a clearing house, you know Central Intelligence…

Ah well, if one’s Prez says so it must bloody well be so.

17

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Would it also be unkind to note that if the FBI, CIA, Army Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, et al really were all that keen to coordinate intelligence, there was no barrier to their doing so.

18

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011008.html

Which means, if my reading comprehension is up to par, that Homeland Security will report to the CIA and not the other way around.

From CNN

19

That’s my understanding as well. IMHO, any reorg that *doesn’t * involve either the CIA or the FBI is just a dog and pony show.

Also, this demand for more agents and investigatory powers is ridiculuous. We apparently had all kinds of clues, AND agents who wanted to follow them up, but couldn’t get permission to use the powers and resources already available. Decision making in the FBI has to be decentralized – Hoover set a mold in place, that the whole massive agency would be tasked by a small group of Washington insiders (who were always looking for headlines), that has yet to be broken.

20

Yep–it’s largely inter-service and interagency rivalry that keeps them from doing so. It’s all about the turf.