Homeland Security: Under Organized and Over Involved
Abstract
Homeland Defense is the latest hot topic making the rounds within the Beltway. Articles are being written, committees formed, and think tanks are being engaged to express thoughts, commentary, and perhaps just to make noise about homeland defense. The buzz is all around town. The central thesis of this paper is that the federal involvement is not organized for success in homeland defense. The second and subordinate thesis is that the DoD is overly involved in domestic homeland defense, and has wandered deeply into the area of responsibility of civil authorities. This paper will seek to redefine homeland defense into a broader concept of homeland security, review key points of the current discussion, and make recommendations regarding next steps. Words matter. The definition of homeland defense is not commonly acknowledged or understood, which contributes to the fog surrounding the subject. Joint Publication 1-02, always a good starting point, does not contain a definition. No standard dictionary has a definition. The NWC elective course struggled for hours to define it. Most of the commissions, reports, articles and seminars simply avoid defining homeland defense. The 1997 National Defense Panel (NDP97) and 2001 Commission on National Security in the 21st Century (Hart-Rudman) didn't tackle the definition. The NDU 2001 QDR Working Group Report (QDRWG) both broadened and limited their definition by using the broader concept of homeland security while limiting their definition to military aspects alone.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jan 01, 2001
- Accession Number
- ADA445155
Entities
People
- Douglas J. Wisniewski
Organizations
- National War College