Quote:
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
IMO, there are too many cooks in the terrorism soup.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Was the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. a HONEST attempt at putting together a more cohesive and integrated CT/security/intelligence capability in place or just a political slight of hand designed to show the POTUS did "something" after 9-11?
|
Both are related. In a bureaucracy, the first reaction to a crisis is to reorganize. It's easy, cheap, and looks like you're doing something. Which is exactly how we got all the stuff out of 9/11... the demand of the people for their leaders to 'do something', whether it's actually wise or not.
As for the number of agencies and consolidation, good luck. I think it's a good idea, you think it's a good idea... we all do. But right now, if you want cash from the government? Make a fuss about terrorists. It's the biggest boat in town. Check out:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...nhomeland.html. Article's about how, just like everything else, terror money's turned into just another porkbarrel boondoggle. For example: "In early 2003, Congress announced a plan that sounded as if it might rectify the distortions in federal outlays—a new $100 million grant for "high threat" urban areas only. In April, Secretary Ridge said seven cities had made the "high threat" list because of population density, the presence of important infrastructure and credible threats—which is to say, because of risk. The roster of cities—New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco and Houston—matched up perfectly with AIR's list of most at-risk cities. // Soon, however, the list of qualifying cities started mysteriously growing. Ridge's office and Congress had received calls from irate city officials who had been left out. In May the roster grew to 30 cities. But the pool of money also expanded by $700 million, so it didn't seem like a problem. "We're thinking, O.K., we're getting 18% of the pot. That's reasonable," remembers an aide for a New York member of Congress. Then, for 2004 money, the Department of Homeland Security announced an even longer list of 50 cities, including Columbus, Ohio, and Fresno, Calif."
This is the main problem, I'd think. Consolidation would solve both problems: it would streamline and increase efficiency, while at the same time eliminating the 'turf war' intelligence problem between agencies. But will it happen? No, if for no other reason than that all these agencies are headed by politicians.
--Dan