Homeland security skepticism

In response to the Bush administration’s attempt to reorganize the federal government by establishing a new Cabinet department for homeland security, there must be a better and safer way to accomplish the administration’s goals for homeland security without creating more problems. It is unfortunate that the trio of Ridge, Rice and Card – the architects of the idea – were not aware of a publication titled “Federal Records of World War II, Washington” General Services Administration, 1950 (reprinted in facsimile by Book Tower of Detroit in 1982).

A perusal of the World War II federal restructuring as outlined in that volume would have informed them that the framework for which they strove had once been in place. Within the Executive Branch, an Office of Emergency Management and the Council of National Defense was established during 1942. In that same year there was established within the Justice Department a subagency named the War Division, which closely tied in the Immigration Service to Justice Department action. Wartime subagencies were also created within the Treasury Department, which coordinated U.S. Customs with overall wartime intelligence and enforcement implementation. Other liaison and coordinating divisions were put in place throughout the Federal system with the aim (and apparent success) of providing a flow of intelligence between the civilian agencies and the then War and Navy Departments. All such divisions and agencies were structured within the then existing framework.

A major point for today’s planners to consider is that the temporary wartime measures of the 1940s were just that – “temporary” – set in place to meet the challenges of that day. Following the war, most were rescinded as being no longer applicable. In contrast, President Bush’s scheme for his new department is anything but temporary, and one fears it will not be appropriate for a free society once the present danger from terrorism subsides.

Worse yet, it promises to disrupt many of the vital programs being presently administered by the agencies, which would be removed under the Bush plan from where they have been operating over time. If we become saddled with the mechanism Bush proposes, namely a totally new cabinet department, the result can only be a lengthy period of organizational upheaval during which our vulnerability to attack can only be made worse.

To date, the Bush administration has shot from the hip in its development of policy. Let us hope that a more thought-out and studied approach will be inaugurated before changes are made to the government which we may all live to regret.

Charles Dana Gibson lives in Camden.