Slate's Bizbox
hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked.

Homeland InsecuritiesSix years after 9/11, we're still not thinking strategically.

By Daniel Byman
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007, at 7:20 AM ET

Once again, the Department of Homeland Security is in the cross hairs. A just-released Government Accountability Office report bashed DHS for making limited progress on emergency-response capabilities and the management of human capital. DHS's progress was rated as "substantial" in only one of the 14 areas surveyed: maritime security. Although the GAO's criticisms are valid, it measures homeland security by bureaucratic-efficiency standards rather than by whether our country is safer from a terrorist attack. The report and other critiques of DHS miss the broader problem: The U.S. government has not taken a strategic approach toward homeland security.

The lack of a strategic approach has led to several real risks and vulnerabilities that go beyond the scope of the GAO report. Perhaps most important, DHS does not focus on ensuring the support of American Muslims. If terrorists can hide among a sympathetic local community, the job of police and intelligence officials is daunting. On the other hand, if locals oppose terrorism, the radicals must constantly be on the run. As the recent arrests in Germany suggest, homegrown terrorists, particularly those aided by skilled foreigners, can pose a grave danger. Fortunately, in contrast to Europe, American Muslims are well-integrated, well-educated, and prosperous, and many local law-enforcement officials are having more success reaching out to this community. Many breaks in much-trumpeted FBI successes against supposed jihadists at home, such as the case of the "Lackawanna Six," have come from local community members calling in tips.

Still, this goodwill should not be taken for granted. A 2005 survey of Muslim youth activists found that 70 percent felt that the American public had "significant hostility" toward Muslims. This is not paranoia on the part of young Muslims. Racist comments directed at Muslims have become more frequent since 9/11, as have acts of intimidation, such as the vandalism of mosques.

A second strategic problem is that no government agency focuses on perception management (though DHS technically has a mandate for part of this mission). In Israel, after a terror attack, special crews rapidly clean up the scene in order to signal that terrorism will not disrupt daily activity. In the United States, in contrast, government officials inadvertently send the opposite message. Then-Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson's 2004 declaration that "I cannot understand why the terrorists have not, you know, attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do" is perhaps a particularly low point in public rhetoric, but in general our leaders seem to delight in emphasizing potential vulnerabilities, often showing an imagination far beyond that of actual terrorist groups. Terrorist use of a radiological "dirty bomb"—a real possibility—illustrates this problem. An attack and the ensuing radiation poisoning would likely kill only a few people, but many more casualties would result if frightened people were to race out of town because the government was unable to reassure them that they would be safe if they remained.

Domestic intelligence is another strategic challenge. The FBI is outside the Department of Homeland Security's purview, yet it remains perhaps the most important agency with regard to domestic security. Historically, the FBI's strength has been law enforcement, not intelligence. While the FBI has made many strides since 9/11, a report by the National Academy of Public Administration found that the bureau still has significant problems in how it recruits, hires, and develops its leaders. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 commission, reported Sunday that analysts are still second-class citizens in the bureau. Because the FBI does not regularly produce a domestic threat assessment, U.S. policy-makers still do not have a comprehensive view of the current threat (or lack thereof) and how it is evolving. The "first responders"—state and local officials—often lack access to intelligence and are out of the loop.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Daniel Byman is the author of The Five Front War: The Better Way To Fight Global Jihad. He is also the director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
Photograph of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

This is true only if you're speaking of the "terrists" in the president's fantasies, a centralized al Qaida who are leading the Iraq insurgency, etc.

The real terrorists are countless factions of Islamic extremists, plus a number of religious and racial "identity groups" here at home, plus an odd assortment of cults, plus plenty of individual nutcases of all stripes, plus a whole bunch of wannabees. These people don't set priorities and think strategically. They rent Ryder trucks in their own names and charge three tons of fertilizer on the wives' credit cards. They hoard weapons. They subscribe to jihadist papers or anarchist publications or mercenary newletters. They publish hate letters or warnings of impending doom in the local paper. They start bogus mosques and churches to hide behind religious freedom.

It's easy for these people to fly under the radar because the attention is on Iraq, which had little to do with terrorism. We blew off four years and countless opportunities to figure out international and domestic terrorism because our government was run by a man who knows only one song and that song has only one note.

By the way, why do you think we rated well in marine security? Because we had an agency called the Coast Guard who has lots and lots of experience guarding the coast. As clever as DHS is at fouling things up, even they couldn't ruin the Coast Guard in four years. Of course, half the Coasties are deployed to support the Iraq boondoggle, so they're stretched pretty thin here at home.

--Arlington

(To reply, click here.)

In short, the terrorists won. They have us overreacting, underreacting, and misreacting. They have us misdirecting efforts, scaring ourselves legitimately and cynicaly, wasting money as we bankrupt ourselves on futile wars and crony profiteering, and largely hassling ourselves day in and day out with pointless exercises in bureaocracy. And so on...

Historians will have a lot of fun in the next few centuries arguing wha might have happened had only America been blessed with a competent, non-corrupt, mature and level headed administration at its time of greatest need.

In short, the Bush administration's instincts on this issue have been nearly perfectly exactly wrong on every action -- from day one.

--Sarvis

(To reply, click here.)

How many years did it take for them to stop distributing the money based on the highway model rather than assess potential risks and targets? I still remember the stories that circulated about how those funds were spent on all manner of things that couldn't even be said to have a loose connection to anything resembling security while high value targets went begging. I won't get started on the absurdity of the color codes and the recommendation we arm ourselves with duct tape.

Frankly, I have seen no evidence that the DHS is remotely interested in 'strategic approaches' or issues of 'perception management'. The only thing the DHS seems to do well is to whip the American public into a frenzy of hand wringing hysteria at regular intervals. Therefore, I can't help but feel that the author of this piece might get closer to the truth if he looked at the function of the DHS as a piece of agitprop rather than a department actually looking to provide security to US citizens.

--adav11

(To reply, click here.)

(9/14)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton