Homeland security efforts are better than widely suggested

The task of the Department of Homeland Security is simple: Keep the nation safe, free and prosperous in the face of transnational terrorism threats. But simple doesn’t mean easy. Clausewitz, the famous 19th-century Prussian military philosopher, said, “Everything in war is simple, but in war even the simple is difficult.” That dictum certainly applies to providing domestic security during the Long War.

It’s true that Congress and the administration created the department “on the fly,” mandating an initial organization that proved wholly unworkable. And yes, the department had to organize and reorganize itself while protecting the nation (akin to building a car as it’s racing down the track). Yet, in spite of these problems, the men and women of the department have done a respectable job of making the U.S. a “harder target” for al Qaeda, while safeguarding the principles of freedom and liberty that govern this nation.

It’s difficult for critics to argue that the department has been a cash hog; much of the dramatic increase in spending for homeland security can be attributed to mandatory congressional give-ways for grants to state and local governments. Although the 9/11 Commission warned that these programs were in danger of becoming “pork barrel” programs, Congress kept allocating even higher percentages of the money to state and local governments, regardless of need or national priorities.

Other jumps in spending can be attributed largely to congressional mandates to do all kinds of pet projects.

These include screening containers of Nike sneakers, and looking for suitcase nuclear bombs (which no self-respecting terrorist group — if it even had one — would ever dream of letting out of its positive control).

Congressional mandates aside, homeland security spending isn’t nearly as wasteful as headlines and innumerable GAO reports would suggest. And for the most part, the spending that has taken place has had its intended affect. It’s clear that al Qaeda views the United States as a more difficult target these days. That’s why its leaders have shifted increasingly to killing where the killing is easier — in their own backyard.

They also have increasingly sought to outsource or encourage others already in the United States or allied countries to do their killing for them. The fact that there are still terrorists out there trying to kill Americans is indisputable. Even a survey of unclassified information in newspapers shows that about two dozen conspiracies have been thwarted by Homeland Security and other law enforcement officials in the U.S. and overseas.

The department may be far from perfect (like most other federal agencies), but what’s wrong with it has, in fact, little to do with the department itself. In part, Homeland Security suffers from a plague of unrealistic expectations. The criticism heaped on FEMA in the wake of Katrina is a case in point. Considering the scale of the disaster, the pace of the recovery is fairly remarkable. In fact, it’s hard to believe any other nation could recover from a disaster on that scale so well. The performance of FEMA and Homeland Security certainly was sub par, but the vitriol hurled against them was out of proportion to reasonable expectations of what’s required from the federal government in the wake of disasters. Unfortunately, FEMA has only added to this problematic perception by increasing its deployments, raising unrealistic expectations that, after every “disaster,” Americans should expect Washington to solve all their problems.

The major challenges in Homeland Security aren’t with the department. They begin with a Congress that continues to saddle it with impractical expectations, even as it thwarts reform. The oversight of homeland security is, arguably, almost as fragmented now as it was on 9/11. The Homeland Security committees in both chambers are declining in respect and influence.

Within the administration, the focus of improving homeland security should be on the overall management of the federal enterprise. The first issue that the next president will have to address is whether to have a separate Homeland Security Council staff and Homeland Security adviser. The right answer is probably no. There might have been a good case for organizing the White House this way when homeland security was a new enterprise.

But those days are past.

Also, at times the council staff has, unfortunately, devolved into acting as if its mission is to oversee the department. That’s both wrong and unhelpful. Running the department is the secretary’s job. The council’s job is to coordinate interagency policy, not to manage or supervise the agencies.

The National and Homeland security councils should be combined. This wouldn’t mean that homeland security is being downgraded in importance. It’s just the right thing to do. Bifurcating responsibility for dealing with transnational threats creates gaps that terrorists might exploit.

There’s plenty of room for improvement with Homeland Security. But it doesn’t deserve to shoulder all the blame that is often thrown on it. It’s time for policymakers to quit using it as a punching bag.

James Jay Carafano is senior research fellow for national security and homeland security at The Heritage Foundation .