Hoping you can spin dross into gold or whatever? They (whomever they are?) picked the right guy? My altime favorite strategy book was written by Edwin Luttwak “On the Military Strategy of the Roman Empire” [about 1977)! He has been criticized by many but that book is a “gem”!

So good luck and good thinking Phil.

For what it is worth, the assignment I am taking on is to “translate” the existing NSS into a recognizable strategy. Across much of my life this is how I have paid my bills.

Large organizations, even those full of smart, sophisticated, talented, and committed people often have difficulty thinking and acting strategically. A big part of the problem is that they are immersed in the day-to-day problems. Effective strategy requires a stripping away, clarity, honesty and essential simplicity that is very difficult to push out from the inside.

But every effective strategy I have ever encountered is pulled out from the inside. In other words, it is a crystallizing of what internal audiences already know but have not been able to communicate (even to themselves) with clarity. The NSS is the carbon, already under pressure. What might the diamond look like?

Actually for some reason the US produced a large number of execellent strategic thinkers in the 20th Century. Is it remarkable that so many were foreign born or had extensive contacts from family and interests in the European theatre?

My question would be how are Asian-Americans utilizing their past and traditions–Is it only to compile a fortune or is it also to understand their past.

So here goes for my NSS:

First, acknowledge that Europe’s principle desire is to be the world’s leading cafe society and a place where the rest of the world goes to be educated and eat and play. The events of the last 500 years have taught the Europeans that in fact WAR does not really pay off for victors in any economic sense and yes over the next 100 years the integration of European states into the United States of Europe is the big problem. Still some miitary capability is necessary so the US should pull out of NATO and encourage the European Self-defense force.
The US should focus entirely on East Asia and South Asian for its foreign policy and military efforts. Demographics alone dictate this strategy as the US becomes demographically much smaller in a relative sense to these areas of the world and much poor financially. Personally I think China, India, and Japan and some others regard the US primarily as a source of commodities and a trading partner. Otherwise they really would like the US to go away. This will not happen for many reasons including the fact that the US is a Pacific Power and even now it tradeweighted economy and financial sector must have the Pacific rim and India to survive profitably. So the military capability to influence events should abandon any pretense to a N.Atlantic effort.

The western hemisphere is in fact an arena for US national security interests. Almost unmentioned in the NSS it should get its own NSS. Probably should have one for Africa also.

Well just some quick thoughts but you get the drift. Besides if Europe does live up to its past it will become a clossus and then by misrule or civil war drag the US back into its affairs but probably not for the next 100 years. That is as long a period as a NSS should have to worry about.

Part of this, I suspect, is that when one reads “Homeland Security Watch” there is a particular interest in what the title suggests. The NSS integrates HS into NS in a pretty pedestrian way. Our — at least my — professional prejudices and priorities were given short shrift.

Another possibility I have considered, but not considered enough for the front page of the blog: I don’t think this administration is inclined to be “strategic” (ala Mintzberg, Porter, Sun Tzu, etc.) I perceive the President and many of his senior colleagues are principled and pragmatic, but not strategic.

They have principles — a way of behaving and a disciplined problem-solving methodology (see definition of principle) — but where this behavior and method is taking us tends to become vague. Someone (Chris?) might say the White House is open to emergence.

In contrast a strategist conceives specific actions that s/he intends to shape his/her context in a particular way, to advantage the strategist’s ability to achieve a self-defined victory.

Most effective strategists recognize the reality of emergence too, but they are working to influence the interactions of emergence so that what unfolds is pointed in one direction and not others.

I don’t know when I will find the time, but here’s an assignment I am giving myself — and any of you who want to help: Reduce the 52 pages of the NSS to no more than 5 pages that describes “victory” and how we will get there.

We do not need a politican; we need an effective leader and quite frankly he nor many on both sides of the aisle have not proven effective in that light

But, I think he has proven far more competent and politically smart than anyone (Democrat or Republican) anticipated.

Look, this is a guy who came out of the back of the pack, took on 8 other Democrats and won the nomination. More importantly, he knocked off the person who expected the Democratic primary to be her “coronation”. Did y’all really expect him to fold after winning the Democratic primaries?

I said on here over a year ago that I thought Obama had “it”, though I can’t describe what “it” is. Then this spring when he won Super Tuesday I said that I thought he would end up being the nominee.

He was not my first choice (Kucinich was). He wasn’t my second choice (Clinton) or even my third (Richardson). So I’m not head over heels in love with him. But I do think he’s a smart politician.

Well I agree with that comment but also would argue that community is not what it used to be.

In response to your vision, my own vision for DHS and homeland security more broadly is not dramatically different. Neither of our visions, however, will come anywhere close to being achieved until our community (I referenced “tribes”) stands up and makes a credible commitment to the level of education, professional development, accountability, good practice, political engagement, and strategic thinking that characterizes many of our colleagues in foreign policy, defense, and intelligence.

Criticizing leadership is always fair game. There is certainly a yin and yang, a push and pull to such things. But we are more likely to make practical progress with some self-critical commitments.

First! It is not the word “security” in Homeland Security that is the problem! IT is still the word “Homeland” that creates such a problem. So why keep it. Just rename DHS the Department of Civil Security and much confusion will go by the way side.

Second! it is not lack of funds but lack of talent that has made DHS such a problemattic effort. Why? Too many political appointees very junior and not very thoughtful. I think DHS has all the money its needs but it is definitely a second tier, second career organization with most worn out civil servants and former military that struggle to overcome the constant reorganizations mandated by the DHS leadership or Congress. The Quadrennial Homeland Security was supposed to do a “bottom up” eval of all DHS programs, functions, and activities yet that still is nowhere in sight at this time. Maybe by Labor Day? OKay since DHS prides itself on openess, how about an alphabetical list with current levels of funding attached, of all DHS programs, functions, and activities, and whether authorized by statute or Executive Order or just self initiated.

Third! The too much money theme is really sung by the efforts in the IT arena with almost $50B now spent since the department’s formation and not sure what has been accomplished. What has not been accomplished is Cyber Security and Computer Security. That is documented by OIG/FEMA and GAO and outside think tanks to the extent they have information.

Fourth! The lack of priorities is amazing in DHS but rather who can garner the most staff and funding and be the least accountable for the goals being met. No real accountability. Who exactly has been fired in DHS in last 8 years and for what? That might be an interesting list.

FIFTH: Trying to be a mini-DOD and using the same culture as DOD and many of the same contractors.

Okay now let’s turn the wheel a bit. I absolutely agree with Civil Security is related to National Security and in fact that is indicated by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended [and that statute badly needs updating NOW]! The Civil Security Department should take the lead for all civil agencies on following missions: 1) personnnel and document security and classification; 2) the role of the STATE and locals in civil security: 3) Whether all those wearing guns and badges in DHS should be under a single leadership/management! 4) Whether the Coast Guard civil security mission has adequate staffing and funding! 5) How should the Civil Security Department relate to DOJ and DOD and other agencies that have civil security roles–this should be determined by statute and I highly recommend that Congress in the 112th sessions create a joint committee on Civil Security and do away with the Homeland Security Committees. 6. The non-civil security missions of DHS should be identified and determined to be appropriate or transferred out to other departments or agencies. The mitigation function for natural hazards seem to be one favorite of mine for that determination. Also the National Flood Insurance Program.

Well this as always is just a starter list. I would include the AG and Secretary of Civil Security on a revised NSC as statutory members.

And while I am at it why not look at DOD and DOJ for futher transfers of civil security funtions to the renamed Department of Civil Security.

Just out of curiousity Phil how did you like the emphasis given in the NSS to WMD issues and nuclear proliferation?

Oh and while the National Security community drools over the revolving fund that is the President’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) how about deciding for real Obama Adminstration if this is the source for LAW ENFORCEMENT EMERGENCY funding or domestic deployments of the military for civil support? Fish or cut bait! In or out and stop playing around with NO line drawing by the new Civil Security Department and its twin rivals–DOD and DOJ! And by the way did you notice the DOJ OIG says DOJ has no clue as to what to do in the event of a WMD attack? I wonder if anyone from FEMA has briefed top-level personnel in DOJ on DOJ emergency authorities or roles since I retired in October 1999 from FEMA. I used to average about 10 phone calls a month from DOJ on just those issues my 20 years in FEMA. Hey Brad Kieserman, new Chief Counsel of FEMA, do you read this blog?