In the Homeland Security Act of 2002 the Department of Homeland Security is required to undertake what is clearly intended as a thoughtful reconsideration and anticipation of reality. According to the law:
Each quadrennial homeland security review shall be a comprehensive examination of the homeland security strategy of the Nation, including recommendations regarding the long- term strategy and priorities of the Nation for homeland security and guidance on the programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the Department.
The entire legislative mandate is provided in the new QHSR.
Congress was inspired by the preexisting Quadrennial Defense Review. You can find the QDR here. Despite a similar purpose, the QHSR and QDR are apples and oranges in terms of resources inputted and product outputted. But precisely because of their differences, comparisons and contrasts between the two documents can point to potential “creative tensions” between Homeland Defense and Homeland Security.
Probably worth at least scanning the first QHSR released in February 2010.
While you’re at it scan the National Security Strategy, also from 2010. Are the Quadrennials coherent with it? Consistent? Where do you perceive one or both of the Quadrennials suggesting something different? Very different or just a nuance? Significant nuance or just a gloss? A new NSS is in draft… will be interesting to compare the new with the current.
Where you agree with the QHSR but perceive a problem with implementation, how would you better ensure effectively advancing the effort?
Where you disagree with the QHSR, please explain what you perceive is wrong in the underlying analysis and/or outline your alternative.
Chris, Arnold and I have exchanged notes and hope to give most of the first week of summer to the QHSR (pending of course personal or planetary explosions). Given the emails I have received from many of you since Thursday there seems to be a lot to say. I hope you will say it here.
Feedback — especially thoughtfully (concisely) argued — can have an impact. Positive or negative and I urge you not to forget the positive. Do not underestimate how difficult the fight may have been to get into the QHSR something that seems to you self-evident.
Full Disclosure: I was involved in preparing the QHSR, at least enough to receive a thank you email. I also received a modest honorarium for a specific engagement with prior drafts. My work focused almost entirely on private-public relationships. I tried to have influence on supply chains and catastrophe preparedness but totally failed. Even on private-public — where I was given considerable time and opportunity — I cannot find where the QHSR reflects any specific recommendation that I made. So no pride-of-authorship.
But I did come to respect — and appreciate — the process and people doing their best to fulfill the mandate and serve the nation. At least some of them are as frustrated as some of you seem to be, so don’t over-do an inclination to question intent or effort. It is much more constructive to focus on the meaning or implications of what is actually in the document. As you will see on Thursday, while they may not have listened to me, I perceive there is much to commend in how the QHSR anticipates the challenges ahead.