"Are we safer?: DHS: A work in progress"

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Are we safer?
DHS: A work in progress
By Mason Stockstill
The Ontario (CA) Daily Bulletin


It was the largest reorganization of the federal government since the
aftermath of World War II.

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, the United
States had an umbrella agency charged with protecting the safety of everyone
in the country.

"The continuing threat of terrorism, the threat of mass murder on our own
soil, will be met with a unified, effective response," said President Bush
on Nov. 25 of that year, at the signing of the Homeland Security Act.

"America will be better able to respond to any future attacks, to reduce our
vulnerability and, most important, prevent the terrorists from taking
innocent American lives," he said.

In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, consolidating the nation's
disparate intelligence, emergency response and national security operations
into a single, cabinet-level department was generally considered the right
move to make.

Since that time, however, cracks have appeared in the facade of the
Department of Homeland Security. Problems with internal organization,
coupled with much-publicized disasters, including the slow response to
Hurricane Katrina, have led many to question how effective the new
department can be.

"The issue of the Homeland Security Department is almost a Dickensian story,
because it takes a lot of twists and turns, and some of it isn't very
pretty," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who chairs the the Senate
Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security. "Some of it is
good; some of it is not."

FOUNDED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

The attacks of Sept. 11 did more than bring bloodshed and terror to U.S.
shores. They also exposed glaring flaws in the way the nation's intelligence
and security apparatus worked - or, rather, did not work.

The web of bureaucracy that had grown around the different agencies led to
difficulties in internal communication. For example, the 9/11 Commission
noted in its report following the attacks that the head of the CIA found out
about the FBI's arrest of terrorist conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui before
the FBI's own counterterrorism official did.

In order to prevent those problems from recurring, the nation's intelligence
and security agencies needed to be coordinated at the top level, the
commission recommended.

"The agencies are like a set of specialists in a hospital, each ordering
tests, looking for symptoms and prescribing medications," the report stated.
"What is missing is the attending physician who makes sure they work as a
team."

At the time the commission's recommendations were released, the Department
of Homeland Security had already been created. The commission wanted to go
beyond that, urging the creation of a director of national intelligence, and
a national counterterrorism center.

Both those entities were created as a result of the commission's
recommendations, and intelligence operatives from numerous agencies - who
previously guarded their turf with intense jealousy - now share office space
and information.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was intended to address
similar concerns: that the nation's security was hampered by poor
communication among different arms of government. Combining those
departments was intended to solve that problem.

But commissioners later developed concerns with the way the department was
managing its own intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Testifying last year before two House committees charged with intelligence
oversight, former 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste said the authority
of Homeland Security's Office of Information Analysis was "clouded" by the
creation of other federal agencies and its lack of resources.

Ben-Veniste's comments underscore one quandary the department has struggled
with since its very creation: despite the attempt to consolidate authority
into one department, there are still areas where responsibility is unclear.

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?

Most of the problems identified in the newly reorganized agency's first few
years stem from the difficulties in managing so many different arms of
government under an entirely new structure. Border security and immigration
policy is a glaring example.

When the department was created, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
was abolished, and its functions were incorporated - along with the former
U.S. Customs Service - into three new agencies: Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.

The new arrangement prompted immediate and ongoing criticism from many both
inside and outside the affected agencies, who said the structure was not an
improvement over the old situation, and in fact made things worse.

"The split of responsibilities between the CBP and ICE was done without a
compelling reason," according to a joint report by the Heritage Foundation
and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The report, which recommended combining ICE and CBP, also suggested
eliminating several layers of management within the Department of Homeland
Security, which employs more than 150,000 people through its member
agencies. 

Another report, from the department's Inspector General, found "an
environment of uncertainty and mistrust" between the two agencies.

The department faces difficulties in other areas as well. Its Science and
Technology Directorate - which was created to oversee work on detection and
prevention of biological and nuclear weapons, previously located in labs run
by the Department of Energy - has been criticized by many for lacking
direction.

"I would be enthusiastic about putting more money into their operations if I
felt that there was some sort of coherent plan as to what they were going to
do with those funds," Sen. Gregg said at a hearing in July. "You get just
the opposite feeling from the Science and Technology Directorate."

That situation has hampered numerous efforts, such as the creation of a
system for handling medical response after a large-scale disaster.

"I believe the current organizational framework is a setup for failure and
leaves our population's health at risk," said Dr. Scott Lillibridge,
director of the University of Texas' Center for Biosecurity and Public
Health Preparedness, at a committee hearing in May.

Even five years and $28 billion after the anthrax attacks of 2001, "there is
still confusion" as to whose responsibility such a medical response would
be, Lillibridge said.

The answer: the Department of Homeland Security.

PUBLIC FAILURES

The problems at Homeland Security have not been lost on the American public.

Among the most visible manifestations of the department's existence is the
color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, in which the potential threat
of a terrorist attack is represented by one of five levels, ranging from Low
Risk (green) to Severe Risk (red).

Since its implementation in March 2002, the alert level has never been lower
than Elevated Risk - yellow - and has been raised eight times. More
frequently, however, its usefulness has come under harsh questioning, and
even ridicule.

A report from the Congressional Research Service found "inconsistent
messages" hampered the system's ability to convey information to the public.
Former Rep. Christopher Cox called the system "useless" and suggested in
press interviews that it may have lessened security, since polls showed the
public found the color-coded alerts confusing.

Indeed, even the department appears confused by its own system. 

On its Web site, the alert level is erroneously described as being raised
"from orange to yellow" on March 17, 2003, and May 20, 2003. On those dates,
the level was actually raised from yellow to orange.

Additionally, a study earlier this year by doctoral students at the Missouri
School of Journalism found that statements in Homeland Security press
releases often did not match the level indicated by the color-coded system.

Missteps not related to the department's anti-terror mission also have left
it with a black eye.

In 2004, President Bush picked former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik as the
next department secretary, only to see Kerik withdraw his name after several
potential scandals surfaced, including suspected mob connections,
allegations of extramarital affairs and hiring an illegal immigrant as a
nanny.

Most notably, the Federal Emergency Management Agency - now a part of
Homeland Security - has been frequently criticized as among the worst
agencies in the federal government, particularly in its slow response to the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Gulf Coast states last year.

WORK IN PROGRESS

Though the new department experienced its share of growing pains, its
leaders also chalked up many significant accomplishments.

For example, managing the fledgling Transportation Security Administration
and its more than 50,000 airport screeners was completed under Homeland
Security's auspices, as were new standards for baggage screening and other
security measures.

Additionally, Customs and Border Protection's massive plan for safeguarding
the nation's seaports, the Container Security Initiative, moved forward
quickly after its creation. 

The nation's tracking of student visas - a top priority after it was
publicized that several 9/11 hijackers obtained U.S. student visas - also
has improved notably in the past five years.

The department also headed a collaborative effort to create the National
Incident Management System, which provides a common approach for all the law
enforcement and other emergency responders in the country to use in the
event of an emergency.

Still, most of the successes that have happened under Homeland Security
involve work that its agencies had begun before they were incorporated into
the umbrella department, said Donald Kettl, who analyzes homeland security
for the New York-based research organization The Century Foundation

"If you look at the department's performance overall, what it has done best
is what already was being done well," Kettl said. "What it has had the most
trouble with is what it was most supposed to try to solve."

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************