Comments on: Death Announcement: The National Strategy for Homeland Security — 2002 to 2010. http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/03/04/death-announcement-the-national-strategy-for-homeland-security-2003-to-2010/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:07:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/03/04/death-announcement-the-national-strategy-for-homeland-security-2003-to-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-138183 William R. Cumming Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:26:23 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8440#comment-138183 Hey I can't even spell "hypnomogiacally"! Hey I can’t even spell “hypnomogiacally”!

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/03/04/death-announcement-the-national-strategy-for-homeland-security-2003-to-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-138181 William R. Cumming Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:53:11 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8440#comment-138181 Oh and Chris the first Homeland Security Strategy was issued in July 2002 also under a Congressional mandate. So please change the heading to 2002-2010. It certainly would be helpful if NO document impact existing documents or strategy or policy would be issued except with at least a brief discussion of their relationships, to include of course amendment or revision, or rescission or supersedence. What there are not enough bureacrats available to accomplish that? Oh and Chris the first Homeland Security Strategy was issued in July 2002 also under a Congressional mandate. So please change the heading to 2002-2010.

It certainly would be helpful if NO document impact existing documents or strategy or policy would be issued except with at least a brief discussion of their relationships, to include of course amendment or revision, or rescission or supersedence. What there are not enough bureacrats available to accomplish that?

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/03/04/death-announcement-the-national-strategy-for-homeland-security-2003-to-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-138180 William R. Cumming Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:48:10 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8440#comment-138180 Well Chris I think you are correct in your assumptions and analyis. So here goes! DHS should have its missions pared down and the fact that the QHSR failed (see footnotes #1 & #2) to accomplish the bottom up review required by statute [now suggested that will be accomplished by the end of this month but I doubt it] it is fair to state that strategically speaking DHS is in total disarray. Even a crazy budget submission e.g. the reduction in the Coast Guard accounts when the Coasties need immediate doubling in size in personnel and funding. So here is my pare down. Priority for a Homeland Security Strategy and note these do overlap with the National Security apparatus but that sector is so poorly managed and so overfunded and so contractor dominated that the US is now almost powerless as a military force without its contractors. And note that in forced democratization on the Bundewher which replaced the former Wherhmacht i 1950 the US insisted that all logistical support had to be in the private sector. This was to prohibit revanchist revival of the offensive capability. US even dictated uniform styles and shoes and boots. Okay so again, what is the core of the Homeland Security Strategy and mission. First, prevent utilization or threats of utilization of WMD! Second, effective cyber security, computer security, and critical infrastructure protection. The new "resiliency" aphorism is useful in my opinion. Third, strict border control and tracing of foreign nationals and other who might threaten domestic security. Transportation security should be returned to DOT! To show how dominated FEMA is in DHS no mention of FEMA in the National Disaster Recovery Framework (draft February 5, 2010) now criticized in writing by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I think the Obama Administration missed it and the National Security Community is now totally driven by funding issues no longer policy or strategy. It turns out that each Presidential disaster declaration is now being delayed while it is reviewed by NSS (National Security Staff) demonstrating that they either don't know what they are doing and have no other priorities or just worried that somehow they must be in the rangefinder on domestic disasters but of course as always with absolutely no public accountability. So now the declaratio packages slowed down before by FEMA entering into DHS with probably 5 additional rungs of review under the George W. Bush administration now have half a dozen more under Obama. Someone does not get it. And more and more the Armed Services Committees and the related appropriation committees of the Congress covet the President's disaster revolving fund and hope to make inroads on its use for traditional DOD purposes. What is the bottom line? Under President's Clinton and Obama the greatest erosion of civilian dominance of the Armed Forces and National Security apparatus in history. Hey DOD desperately publishes report after report that indicate people are NOT joining the military for economic reasons but simple patriotism. Some may fit that mold but I am betting not the majority. If the Obama statement in the Post is accurate that Homeland Security is National Security then let's give the DHS types, in particular the Coast Guard, a shot at the DOD budget. And the STATE Dept. and USAID and OFDA. If the only power projection in international disaster situations is DOD is it any wonder that the US is feared and not respected. If there was a major failure in designing the culture of DHS it was to allow it to pattern itself on DOD and its contractor relationships. Here's to an honest bottom up review in which each program, function, and activity is reviewed for the following: 1. Date of first authoriztion or authorization by appropriation: 2. An analysis of how it contributes to protection or prevention of terrorism or acts of terrorists; 3. Whether there is any other element of the Executive Branch involved in adminstration of that program, function or activity, and is there duplication or overlap or another organization that can accomplish the goals and missions more effectively; 4. Whether the program, function, or activity is a line item in the budget; 5. Whether the program, function, or activity depends on its success totally on DHS resources or other departments and agencies of the Executive Branch or State or local resources; 6. Whether the program, function, or activity has been reviewed in depth of currency and effectiveness since its establishment and dates and availability of those reviews; 7. Oh unlucky seven--have the other departments and agencies or the interested public been given an opportunity to comment on those reviews. This should be enough for starters. I predict DHS does not have the competence to do a bottom up review but as always could be wrong. Why not just let the GAO do it since with a statutory mandate almost 4 years old not yet accomplished by DHS. Well Chris I think you are correct in your assumptions and analyis. So here goes! DHS should have its missions pared down and the fact that the QHSR failed (see footnotes #1 & #2) to accomplish the bottom up review required by statute [now suggested that will be accomplished by the end of this month but I doubt it] it is fair to state that strategically speaking DHS is in total disarray. Even a crazy budget submission e.g. the reduction in the Coast Guard accounts when the Coasties need immediate doubling in size in personnel and funding.
So here is my pare down. Priority for a Homeland Security Strategy and note these do overlap with the National Security apparatus but that sector is so poorly managed and so overfunded and so contractor dominated that the US is now almost powerless as a military force without its contractors. And note that in forced democratization on the Bundewher which replaced the former Wherhmacht i 1950 the US insisted that all logistical support had to be in the private sector. This was to prohibit revanchist revival of the offensive capability. US even dictated uniform styles and shoes and boots.

Okay so again, what is the core of the Homeland Security Strategy and mission. First, prevent utilization or threats of utilization of WMD! Second, effective cyber security, computer security, and critical infrastructure protection. The new “resiliency” aphorism is useful in my opinion. Third, strict border control and tracing of foreign nationals and other who might threaten domestic security. Transportation security should be returned to DOT!

To show how dominated FEMA is in DHS no mention of FEMA in the National Disaster Recovery Framework (draft February 5, 2010) now criticized in writing by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

I think the Obama Administration missed it and the National Security Community is now totally driven by funding issues no longer policy or strategy. It turns out that each Presidential disaster declaration is now being delayed while it is reviewed by NSS (National Security Staff) demonstrating that they either don’t know what they are doing and have no other priorities or just worried that somehow they must be in the rangefinder on domestic disasters but of course as always with absolutely no public accountability. So now the declaratio packages slowed down before by FEMA entering into DHS with probably 5 additional rungs of review under the George W. Bush administration now have half a dozen more under Obama. Someone does not get it.

And more and more the Armed Services Committees and the related appropriation committees of the Congress covet the President’s disaster revolving fund and hope to make inroads on its use for traditional DOD purposes.

What is the bottom line? Under President’s Clinton and Obama the greatest erosion of civilian dominance of the Armed Forces and National Security apparatus in history. Hey DOD desperately publishes report after report that indicate people are NOT joining the military for economic reasons but simple patriotism. Some may fit that mold but I am betting not the majority.

If the Obama statement in the Post is accurate that Homeland Security is National Security then let’s give the DHS types, in particular the Coast Guard, a shot at the DOD budget. And the STATE Dept. and USAID and OFDA. If the only power projection in international disaster situations is DOD is it any wonder that the US is feared and not respected.

If there was a major failure in designing the culture of DHS it was to allow it to pattern itself on DOD and its contractor relationships.

Here’s to an honest bottom up review in which each program, function, and activity is reviewed for the following:

1. Date of first authoriztion or authorization by appropriation:

2. An analysis of how it contributes to protection or prevention of terrorism or acts of terrorists;
3. Whether there is any other element of the Executive Branch involved in adminstration of that program, function or activity, and is there duplication or overlap or another organization that can accomplish the goals and missions more effectively;
4. Whether the program, function, or activity is a line item in the budget;
5. Whether the program, function, or activity depends on its success totally on DHS resources or other departments and agencies of the Executive Branch or State or local resources;
6. Whether the program, function, or activity has been reviewed in depth of currency and effectiveness since its establishment and dates and availability of those reviews;
7. Oh unlucky seven–have the other departments and agencies or the interested public been given an opportunity to comment on those reviews.

This should be enough for starters. I predict DHS does not have the competence to do a bottom up review but as always could be wrong. Why not just let the GAO do it since with a statutory mandate almost 4 years old not yet accomplished by DHS.

]]>