Department of Homeland Security Unable To Define 'Homeland Security'
from the we-have-one-thing-to-do-and-that-is-[tbd] dept
The problem with large government agencies is "feature creep." If given a broad enough area to cover, years of territorial expansion and absorption of "related" entities will render the agency nearly unrecognizable from its original form. Not only that, but any stated directive or focus will have been lost, abandoned or hopelessly mutated as well.If the government agency was crafted in "response" to a tragic event, the problem is both magnified and accelerated. As Wired reports, slightly more than a decade on from its formation, the Department of Homeland Security is having trouble defining the very thing it's in charge of.
What is “homeland security?” The federal bureaucracy doesn’t know, and that’s problematic for a government that has been fighting the ill-defined “war on terror” following 9/11, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service.The varied definitions given by the DHS and the White House still put the main focus on "terrorism," but others list "Homeland Security" responsibilities as including border/maritime security, immigration, natural disasters and "other hazards."
In short, “homeland security” is whatever the government says it is.
Thirty federal entities — among them agriculture, education, labor, treasury and social security — are receiving “homeland security” funding. The actual Department of Homeland Security, created in the aftermath of 9/11, receives 52 percent of the “homeland security” money pie, according to the Tuesday report.
“Ten years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. government does not have a single definition for homeland security,” the report said. “Currently, different strategic documents and mission statements offer varying missions that are derived from different homeland security definitions.”
According to the Congressional Research Report, posted at Secrecy News, this lack of definition undermines the very "security" the agency is supposed to be providing.
“An absence of consensus about the inclusion of these policy areas may result in unintended consequences for national homeland security operations,” the CRS report [pdf] said. “For example, not including maritime security in the homeland security definition may result in policymakers, Congress, and stakeholders not adequately addressing maritime homeland security threats, or more specifically being able to prioritize federal investments in border versus intelligence activities.”Part of the problem here is the large number of entities who receive funding under the "Homeland Security" banner. Trying to craft a unified front is nearly impossible as each entity has its own "mission statement" to justify its funding. Speaking of which, the report thinks the funding itself could be adding layers of fuzziness to the "homeland security" definition.
“The competing and varied definitions in these documents may indicate that there is no succinct homeland security concept. Without a succinct homeland security concept, policymakers and entities with homeland security responsibilities may not successfully coordinate or focus on the highest prioritized or most necessary activities.”
At the national level, there does not appear to be an attempt to align definitions and missions among disparate federal entities. DHS is, however, attempting to align its definition and missions, but does not prioritize its missions; there is no clarity in the national strategies of federal, state, and local roles and responsibilities; and, potentially, funding is driving priorities rather than priorities driving the funding.Unsurprising, to say the least. This sort of normal government agency behavior does very little towards cutting through the vagueness surrounding it. This lack of clarity is the last thing you want to see in the DHS, either in its role as a "protector" or as a "respondent." This results in redundancy and inefficiency which hampers proactive and reactive measures, resulting in less of the safety and security the agency was created to provide.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: homeland security, mission
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Gotta have continuity of government at all costs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's easy enough to explain...
Why, if they had actual, listed goals, they might even have to show some real progress towards them!
Much better, both financially and control-wise for them to keep it as vague as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You have to look at this from the bureaucrat point of view
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DHS, FBI, CIA, DEA, ICE, NSA.... the list goes on.
Couldn't their functions be rolled into just 1 or 2 agencies? It just seems so inefficient to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Definition
/ˈhōmˌland/
Noun
1) A person's or a people's native land
So, other than native americans (and that can be argued), their mandate seems to be something about security for other countries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's taken 40 years to even begin to question the effectiveness of the war on drugs. I wonder if the politicians will learn from this, and rethink the approach they take on terrorism and copyright infringement. I really hope we won't be stuck with these issues for 40 years as well.
Waging war on your own population, and treating everyone as a criminal until proven innocent, is never a functional solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Reaching for the analogy:
That's because if someone's hands are repeatedly caught in the cookie jar, sooner or later they will have to incriminate and hunt down the baker. It just looks bad for the cookie-thief otherwise. Then you force them to bake cookies for free in confectionary "economic recovery" camp.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problems that give rise to Brooks law applies to any problem of co-ordination. For the problem of security it can be restated as adding another security agency makes it more likely that intelligence will not be passed to the right person in time to be of use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Definition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah it might make me sound like a cold hearted jackass but such decisions need to be made with a clear head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]