On the cover of the Tuesday, February 2, 2005 Washington Post is a headline that comes as no surprise. It says Infighting Cited at Homeland Security. Squabbles blamed for department's inefficiencies. I am sure there is a link somewhere, but since the Washington Post requires you to register, something I feel is not in my best interest or yours, you will just have to follow along or find an unencumbered link somewhere, but I digress.
Squabbles at DHS should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the entire process that not only created the department, but also manages, and controls the ongoing mission of the department. Do you even know what the department's mission is? Here is a direct quote: it is tasked with preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing Americas's vulnerability to terrorism and minimizing the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters. This from their own site (http://www.dhs.gov) but you have to dig to find it. What amazes me more than anything is that the department has not, as yet, spun apart or collapsed under its own weight. One only has to talk to an employee of the department (not a tough task given that is is approaching the Dept. Of Veteran's Affairs as the second largest, in terms of employees, department in the federal bureaucracy) to find that morale is down, the mission is confused (at least) and as one person told me - they really don't understand the ground level response that is required.
A large number of people in the department are law enforcement, or former law enforcement. Now, I am all for security, but if that is their job, should the FBI be part of the department? Or should it be the mission of the FBI? Of course, the FBI has many other missions to do (and doesn't seem to be doing any of them well while it is focusing on the issue of terrorism, which is the job of the DHS...am I the only one who sees a pattern here?). What concerns me is that there was very little thought put into what the DHS should do and who should be part of the department. It almost seems like they took the most disfunction al parts of the federal bureaucracy and smashed them all together and expected them to work. As any person with a single conscious thought can tell you, it was a mistake, but then this administration doesn't make mistakes. Doesn't seem to do anything right either.
So what is the solution? If I had the magic bullet, I would be a very rich man, but let's look at some of the issues. The department is charged with preventing a terroristic event and the tasked with the clean up after the fact (as well as the clean up of natural disasters). These are dichotomies. The prevention of an event means you need planners, analysts and big thinkers. Clean up, means you need people with ground experience, planners, organizers and do-ers. There is not a lot of analysis in a clean up effort. There is just a lot of work, and very few people in the federal bureaucracy do work. Sure there are a lot of people on the payroll, but the people that are actually doing work and not worrying about their job, or striving to improve the actual functioning are few and far between. At the best, the department needs to be split. It is too big and unwieldy to react to events and be ready for the aftermath. You almost need a department of police actions and a department of clean up and recovery. But that is not going to happen. There is too much money at stake...and you knew money was involved in this somewhere, didn't you?
7:13:37 PM 
|
|
