Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

remember that we are in a veritable war where the threat of attack has all too tragically

been demonstrated to be very real.

It is obvious that even the best domestic defense efforts cannot guarantee that we will not be subject to further terrorist attacks. Understanding of this reality does not mean, however, that we can allow cries of inevitability to either dull our efforts or deter us from insisting that those with responsibility do what can be done. For only if we do all that we can legitimately do to prevent such attacks can we preserve the confidence of the public, and maintain what is integral to our ability to remain secure as a democracy - providing for the security of our people.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard J. Davis
Partner

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10153

(212) 310-8860

Testimony of Ivan Eland,
Director of Defense Policy Studies-
Cato Institute

Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information Senate Judiciary Committee

June 25, 2002

The attacks of September 11, 2001 illustrated dramatically that the U.S.

governmental security apparatus has paid too much attention to the defense of other nations and too little to the security of the U.S. homeland. But in the wake of this horrible event, Washington policymakers in the Executive Branch and Congress may feel so much pressure to act that they will make hasty decisions on policies that actually might reduce U.S. homeland security further.

Specifically, I believe that the Bush administration's plan to merge disparate agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to enhance homeland security and may actually reduced it. The threat we face from al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is one of agile, non-bureaucratic adversaries who have the great advantage of being on the offense--knowing where, when and how they will attack. Terrorists take advantage of the sluggishness and poor coordination among military, intelligence, law enforcement, and domestic response bureaucracies to attack gaps in the defenses. Yet the Bush administration has rushed, before the congressional intelligence panels have completed their work to determine the exact nature of the problem prior to September 11, to propose a solution that does not seem to deal with preliminary

indications of what the major problem seems to have been-lack of coordination between

and inside the intelligence agencies making up the vast U.S. intelligence bureaucracy. Instead, the president has proposed reorganizing other agencies into a new super bureaucracy, while leaving out the CIA and FBI. Furthermore, although seeming to consolidate federal efforts at homeland defense, the new department may actually reduce U.S. security by adding bureaucracy rather than subtracting it. More bureaucracy means more coordination problems of the kind that seem to have been prevalent in the

intelligence community prior to September 11.

The United States Now Faces a Non-Traditional Strategic Threat

The intelligence community and other agencies involved in security have traditionally battled nation-states. Fortunately, those states have governments with bureaucracies that are often more sluggish than our own government's agencies. In contrast, terrorist groups have always been nimble opponents that were difficult to stop, but they were not a strategic threat to the U.S. homeland. As dramatically illustrated by the attack on September 11, terrorists willing to engage in mass slaughter (with conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction) and commit suicide now pose a strategic threat to the U.S. territory and population.

No security threat to the United States matches this one. To fight this nontraditional threat, we must think outside box and try to be as nimble as the opponent (a difficult task). The Bush administration is correct that the current U.S. government structure-with more than 100 federal entities involved in homeland security-is not optimal for defending the nation against the new strategic threat. Although consolidating

federal efforts is not a bad idea in itself, it does not ensure that the bureaucracy will be more streamlined, experience fewer coordination problems, or be more effective in the fight against terrorism.

Bush's Proposal May Make the Government Less Agile When Fighting Terrorists

The Bush administration's merging of parts of other agencies into a Department of Homeland Security will add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the fight against terrorism. In his message to Congress urging the passage of his proposal to create the new department, the President made a favorable reference to the National Security Act of 1947, which merged the departments of War and the Navy to create the Department of Defense (DoD) and created an Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to oversee the military services. But today, 55 years after the act's passage, OSD is a bloated bureaucracy that exercises comparatively weak oversight of military services whose failure to coordinate and cooperate even during wartime is legion. Even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has compared the efficiency and responsiveness of the DoD bureaucracy to Soviet central planning.

Fifty-five years from today, I hope we will not have created another organization like today's Department of Defense. Yet the new proposed department is similar to DoD because it will bring together agencies with very different missions and methods of operation and create a large new departmental bureaucracy to try to rein them all in. As was the case when DoD was created, consolidation of the government's efforts is not a

bad idea, but it may be unhelpful or even counterproductive to establish another layer of bureaucracy without cutting out layers of management from the agencies being merged or removing some agencies entirely from the homeland security arena and giving their

functions to existing agencies. Interagency coordination problems may just become intra-agency coordination problems-agencies with each other and with the secretary's

office.

A good analogy to use may be the creation of the European Union. Creating a consolidated market for goods, services and financial transactions was a good idea. But a bloated EU bureaucracy has now been superimposed over the already intrusive national governments in Europe. It is yet another layer of bureaucracy for people living in Europe

to deal with.

In short, consolidation is fine as long as we cut before pasting rather than paste before cutting. In other words, agencies should be trimmed and reformed (and some totally eliminated) before consolidating them. If the agencies are consolidated with the pledge of cuts or savings to come later, that promise is not likely to be fulfilled. Once the new, large consolidated department is created—it will be one of the largest departments in the government-the new department head will be a powerful advocate for more money and people rather than the opposite. Yet the Bush administration proposes pasting agencies together first, but does not even promise savings. At best, policymakers in the administration have promised that a consolidated department will not increase costs. But it is telling that the president's plan had no cost estimates accompanying it. Historically,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »