Sunday, October 9, 2016




THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. WHERE DID IT COME FROM AND WHAT IS IT UP TO NOW?


I was reviewing a few of the stories posted on one of my favorite websites, one that covers events in Mexico; Borderland Beat.
When I came across this story, one that centers on perspective many in Mexico and the perceptions the US Department of Homeland Security has with the people of Mexico. Before I get started, I fully accept the argument that many in Mexico are not near as negative as those who deal with the Drug War on a daily bases when it comes to the actions of the US and the agencies from the US that interact with Mexico. But, I would be willing to bet the perception of the US Department of Homeland Security in Mexico is not a positive conversation.
Back in 2001, when the concept of the Department of Homeland Security was being developed, I was one of those who openly argued it was an ineffective idea at best. It was and still is my opinion the concept of The Department of Homeland Security / DHS / was and is redundant. I was not in the minority at the time, but the events of 2001 were such that arguing against doing something that would combine multiple US federal agencies, who at the time were truly stovepipe operations, well, it simply wasn’t worth the effort. It wasn’t going to impact the organization I was working within and frankly, I had other issues that were far more pressing then worrying about yet another US federal government program.
Countless stories, research papers, documentaries have been placed in front of the American people on just how DHS came into existence and what roles does the agency  really play in the day to day lives of the typical US citizen. But, if I had to summarize in one sentence what took place, this is what I would write down. The US Department of Homeland Security was initially designed to give the American people reassurance the nation was looking internally for newly understood threats to the overall safety of the county. Twitter version…. It was about perception management.
In the early stages of its conceptual development, a process that for the most part took place in Congress, it seemed the political energy was being spent on finding a way to explain to the public  why such an event as the attack on September 11th  could have happened. Was there a sound, strategic review of what changes might need to take place? No. Sorry, but the answer is no, at least, not in the normal sense of program development. Yes, there was little time to reset the American public’s confidence and yes, part of the explanation for why 9-11 took place was going to involve the word “failure” at a colossal level on several key federal agencies. So in the end, the foundation for the second largest federal agency in the US government was poorly planned and the repercussions of this poorly designed program is continuing to have an impact on the US with each passing day. But, that was not the most critical failure!
After months of wrangling and political backroom discussions the Department of Homeland Security was ready to be briefed to the American Public. The picture was going to be that of unity and synergy and yes, even cost effectiveness. That last concept is the one that gets me the most!  The goal was clear, the process of developing the pathway to this goal was fatally flawed.
What went wrong? Why was the concept of the Department of Homeland Security destined for ineffective action? Politics. Imagine that. Politics guaranteed a bloated, bureaucratic money pit that was only going to grow in size and cost given that is all the US political leadership understands. If you spend more, it must get better!  Let me give you just one example of the bureaucracy this new super agency was going to execute under. I had a conversation with a FBI agent, who was a neighbor of mine, soon after DHS was actually operational. I hadn’t had a great deal of time to realize this concept was underway and it wasn’t until I had returned from the Middle East that I had the opportunity to even think about what in the world “DHS” was and how it worked. When I asked my neighbor how the relationship between his agency and this new agency was going to work and how it would impact his agency’s efforts to figure what threats were out there, his answer was more than stunning. I cannot remember his exact words, but the meaning was clear. They, the FBI was going to continue to do what they do, just the way they do it and DHS just needed to stay out of their way.! Now, mind you the official response from DC as to how the attack of 911 happened was based on “lack of coordinated” information / intelligence. That federal agencies didn’t work together, didn’t share!  Was this true? Yes. Was it the reason 9-11 took place? No, but that is a conversation for another day.  I must admit, knowing the FBI the way I did, I was not surprised by the answer my neighbor gave, but his explanation, now that amazed me.
The Department of Homeland Security was concept based on consolidation and at its face value, to the typical US citizen, that was a logical concept. To consolidate the actions of agencies to insure the unity of effort is achievable, that just made sense. But, go back to my comment about backroom, political dealings and the flaw again shows itself. My neighbors explanation was this, most of the supervisory positions in the newly formed Department of Homeland Security were structured around interagency .transfers. A large proportion of the line supervisors came from the other collapsed federal agencies. To put it in the simplest terms, political leadership agreed that rank structures inside of the collapsing federal agencies would have a minimum impact on the people in those agencies. If a GS15 in the Department of Transpiration was going to fill a newly formed GS 15 slot in the Department of Homeland Security, then the person filling that part would not take a reduction in pay. So, what did that mean? How did that impact the effectiveness of this newly formed agency?
Armature hour! In the world of identifying, tracking and countering threats to the US, threats other than bad food or spiders riding on bundles of bananas shipped to the US, the new “leadership” of DHS was laughable; laughable in the eyes of the agencies who had been in this business for decades. Now, is this a fair assessment? Was DHS really a conglomeration of federal employees that had little experience in the world they were now thrust into? Remember the purpose of this politically driven agency. Perception management! Make the American people believe they are safer now than before the events of 9-11. Here is what the political leaders had not realized. Those who were already deeply involved in the process of keeping the US safe from hostile acts, the same ones the political leaders blamed for 9-11, they were now being forced to work with yet another agency, but this one was run by people who were………well………armatures! Yep, perception management goes both ways. Somehow, the political leadership of the US truly believed they could blame those who truly do defend the nation and then force them to work side by side with a brand new group of “experts” who for the most part knew little to nothing about human threats. In 2002, an FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge of a regional office was on a peer level with a DHS supervisor who had less experience than a rookie Police Officer. Was this true across the country? Again….that word….perception. Had political leadership comprehended what was the ramifications would be if the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA and DoD was told to work hand in hand with people who didn’t understand the job in front of them? No. Did they care? No! The presentation to the American public on what DHS was and what it was tasked to do was far more important than putting into place process that would make the department functional. It was the US postal service on steroids or so the FBI and others thought! They still do, they just won’t say it in public
It’s been over fifteen years since this bureaucratic, kneejerk reaction took place and guess what? It’s grown in size and cost with each passing year! Imagine that, the US federal government spending money faster than the printing presses can make it and all in the name of keeping the country safe! You’re not against keep the US safe are you? Yep, that is the explanation the US public hears year after year!
Okay, I started this by referencing the Mexican viewpoint of DHS. Now that I’ve given my version of the history of DHS, let me address the real issue and it’s not just about Mexico’s perception of the US Department of Homeland Security.
Somewhere around 2010 the US public perception of DHS began to change. At first it was just the fringe elements that perceived DHS as too powerful, too intrusive and too arrogant. Soon it became much more mainstream to read or hear stories of how DHS was “intrusive”. I can’t remember what movie I was watching, but there was a moment when a city Police Detective said, “Okay, let’s leave this guy up to ‘Homeland’, they will want to talk to him’! I sat there for a moment and thought to myself,” who is ‘Homeland’ and why would a Detective deliberately turn an active case over to them and not the FBI”? In the movie, a Homeland Security Investigator takes charge of interviewing a suspect. Now, I knew Hollywood has a long history of screwing up how real Police work takes place, so I just let this part of the movie go. A few days later, I was talking with a retired FBI Agent. I was telling him about this movie and I asked him if DHS really had investigators. To my shock his answer was yes! “So, you mean DHS has people who were a badge and gun out in public? I thought they just watched the borders and inspected vehicles. I thought they worked at airports making sure little old ladies didn’t have liquids in their purse. You mean to tell me DHS has a Law Enforcement branch”? I know I was behind the times on the actions of DHS, but I was stunned the US government had taken, in my mind, such a huge leap! By the time my FBI friend finished explain to me what changes had taken place in DHS, I officially join the ranks of the concerned!  What was going on? Why was the federal government expanding the authority of this agency? Soon after that, my work brought me back into daily contact with a few other federal law enforcement agencies along with a state level agency. It seemed that DHS had quietly executed the classic “Mission Creep”.
It’s 2016 and the US Department of Homeland Security is charged with what? If you stopped the average American citizen on the streets and asked them, “What is the mission of Homeland Security”, what would they tell you? Does anyone really know? In the past several years, there is an unquestionable growing fear of the federal government in the United States. It’s not held by everyone and the percentage is still below a majority, but fear and mistrust are poison to sound governance and that fear is growing. What examples are being touted as the proof of a federal government becoming too intrusive? Is DHS one of the key examples? Remember the key word in this post, “Perception”!  
Final analysis:
The US Department of Homeland Security was a kneejerk reaction of political leadership, on both sides of the US political arena, based upon not having sound answers for the US public as to why the attacks of 9-11 took place. It was not a strategically developed concept, regardless of what any political leader might argue.
In 2016, the American public must ask itself a series of very important questions.
1.      Has the agency expanded its initial charter? If so, by who’s approval / authority? Did the US citizenship get a vote?
2.      Could the country survive without it? Would the ability to keep the US safe be degraded? If so, quantify the defense.
3.      Is the agency redundant in any area? If so, why?
It’s sad to say the Department of Homeland Security has been a political tool from its inception, but then again, almost all federal agencies have become political tools! The most recent example of the Department of Justice and Hillary Clinton’s actions is a frightening example.
Finally as you sit and ponder this growing federal agency, remember this.
There is a very fine line between security and tyranny!


No comments:

Post a Comment