Today's Article
Why does
Homeland Security
seem to be ignoring
the very intelligence
community it needs
most?
Homeland Security
seem to be ignoring
the very intelligence
community it needs
most?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Advisers Say Homeland Security Lacks Intel Community Support
By Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 6th, 2007
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should push for greater integration with the intelligence community in the
face of increasing threats against the United States, said members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council during a
Jan. 11th session open to the public.
Though it wasn't mentioned much in the corporate press, the members flatly advised DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to
create an "Office of Net Assessment", to better evaluate what experts called a growing sophistication by terrorist
organizations. If created, the office would conduct periodic reviews of homeland security threats and work together with the
intelligence community to generate a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
The advisory council is made up of leaders from state and local government, first responder units, the private sector and
academia.
Frank Cilluffo, associate vice president for homeland security at George Washington University, said at the meeting that
national security agencies and DHS are "inextricably intertwined" and that the DHS chief would be wise to "remove the
artificial bifurcation" among them.
During another part of the session, Herb Kelleher, executive chairman of Southwest Airlines Co., delivered a report
offering suggestions on how operations and culture at DHS could be improved. Kelleher advised DHS to seek "the
equivalent" of a chief operating officer. He also emphasized the importance of good leadership, and advocated a better
collaboration with "outside-the-Beltway" partners, including state and local government officials and private sector officials.
But it appears Kelleher's advise is going unheeded by the DHS chief. Former Massachusetts governor and possible 2008
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also attended the meeting, and expressed views of Boston's transit
security that were much less optimistic than Chertoff's. The exchange came just two days after DHS announced it has cut
funding available to Massachusetts for its transit security.
"We haven't made, I'm embarrassed to say, enormous progress [in transit]...the way we have [in airports]," Romney told
Chertoff during a question-and-answer period of the meeting.
Romney went on to state his belief that DHS should compare security at American train stations to the precautions taken in
Europe, which has seen multiple terrorist bombings of transit in recent years. Such comparisons, he added, would create a
"benchmark" for train security in the United States.
"We may lag behind," Romney said.
"You're giving your state too little credit," Chertoff responded.
But Chertoff is merely engaging in the Bush Administration's most beloved political tactic: denial of the obvious.
Any other time, neo-conservatives like Mr. Chertoff are quick to say that local groups and leaders better know what's
needed in their own neighborhoods than anyone tucked away high up on Capitol Hill. But the moment the locals--such as
a former governor speaking on behalf of a local transit authority in his state--says something they don't wish to hear, these
same neo-cons suddenly claim to know more than those silly little local leaders, who now must be saved from their far
better knowledge of the people's actual needs.
Chertoff also claimed that the "architecture" of transit systems differs from that of airports, "so the solution has to be
different."
"I doubt anyone would get on the [Boston transit system] and remove their articles of clothing" the way airline passengers
willingly do at security checkpoints, Chertoff added.
But if this is so, it is only because Mr. Chertoff has not done his job of telling the American people that transit security is
every bit as important as airline security. Airline passengers do not put up with the extra airport searches because they
are about to board something big and shiny, but because they've come to understand the danger of terrorists hijacking or
bombing a plane.
Explain to them that the same things may occur on a train, describe the numerous examples of these horrors Europe has
already endured, and then let's see if the average American still refuses to have similar precautions in place for public
transit, Mr. Chertoff...
The dangers for transit are the same; the basic response must therefore be the same. Any differences are negligible, as
the similarities in terror precautions--and terror attacks--on European transit and plane attest. Anything else is wishful
thinking, and a stubborn refusal by the man in charge of homeland security to properly do the job we pay him to do.
By Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 6th, 2007
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should push for greater integration with the intelligence community in the
face of increasing threats against the United States, said members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council during a
Jan. 11th session open to the public.
Though it wasn't mentioned much in the corporate press, the members flatly advised DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to
create an "Office of Net Assessment", to better evaluate what experts called a growing sophistication by terrorist
organizations. If created, the office would conduct periodic reviews of homeland security threats and work together with the
intelligence community to generate a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
The advisory council is made up of leaders from state and local government, first responder units, the private sector and
academia.
Frank Cilluffo, associate vice president for homeland security at George Washington University, said at the meeting that
national security agencies and DHS are "inextricably intertwined" and that the DHS chief would be wise to "remove the
artificial bifurcation" among them.
During another part of the session, Herb Kelleher, executive chairman of Southwest Airlines Co., delivered a report
offering suggestions on how operations and culture at DHS could be improved. Kelleher advised DHS to seek "the
equivalent" of a chief operating officer. He also emphasized the importance of good leadership, and advocated a better
collaboration with "outside-the-Beltway" partners, including state and local government officials and private sector officials.
But it appears Kelleher's advise is going unheeded by the DHS chief. Former Massachusetts governor and possible 2008
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also attended the meeting, and expressed views of Boston's transit
security that were much less optimistic than Chertoff's. The exchange came just two days after DHS announced it has cut
funding available to Massachusetts for its transit security.
"We haven't made, I'm embarrassed to say, enormous progress [in transit]...the way we have [in airports]," Romney told
Chertoff during a question-and-answer period of the meeting.
Romney went on to state his belief that DHS should compare security at American train stations to the precautions taken in
Europe, which has seen multiple terrorist bombings of transit in recent years. Such comparisons, he added, would create a
"benchmark" for train security in the United States.
"We may lag behind," Romney said.
"You're giving your state too little credit," Chertoff responded.
But Chertoff is merely engaging in the Bush Administration's most beloved political tactic: denial of the obvious.
Any other time, neo-conservatives like Mr. Chertoff are quick to say that local groups and leaders better know what's
needed in their own neighborhoods than anyone tucked away high up on Capitol Hill. But the moment the locals--such as
a former governor speaking on behalf of a local transit authority in his state--says something they don't wish to hear, these
same neo-cons suddenly claim to know more than those silly little local leaders, who now must be saved from their far
better knowledge of the people's actual needs.
Chertoff also claimed that the "architecture" of transit systems differs from that of airports, "so the solution has to be
different."
"I doubt anyone would get on the [Boston transit system] and remove their articles of clothing" the way airline passengers
willingly do at security checkpoints, Chertoff added.
But if this is so, it is only because Mr. Chertoff has not done his job of telling the American people that transit security is
every bit as important as airline security. Airline passengers do not put up with the extra airport searches because they
are about to board something big and shiny, but because they've come to understand the danger of terrorists hijacking or
bombing a plane.
Explain to them that the same things may occur on a train, describe the numerous examples of these horrors Europe has
already endured, and then let's see if the average American still refuses to have similar precautions in place for public
transit, Mr. Chertoff...
The dangers for transit are the same; the basic response must therefore be the same. Any differences are negligible, as
the similarities in terror precautions--and terror attacks--on European transit and plane attest. Anything else is wishful
thinking, and a stubborn refusal by the man in charge of homeland security to properly do the job we pay him to do.