Immediately after pearl harbor the CIA was created to shore up a problem -- US intelligence wasn't up to snuff, at least not enough to predict the attack on pearl harbor.

Immediately after 9/11 the department of homeland security was created to shore up a problem --the inability to predict terrorist attacks, basically, US intelligence wasn't up to snuff again.


Question:
Is the additional creation (or reorganization) of a new department, homeland security, redundant?

Homeland security is more of an "umbrella" department. It didn't really create anything new, it simply re-organized what was already there.

The problem was communication, more than anything else. Now that all of the agencies have one big boss, the theory goes that communication will be quicker and more efficient.

So, no, the DHS is not redundant since it does not create additional agencies with the same objectives as existing ones.

No I don't think it is a redundant agency. The duties of the DHS differ from the CIA's and FBI's. It can almost be viewed as an Agency Integration Department, and that integration was desperately needed, as we all found out how vulnerable we were/are.

Side note. I talked to the Head of IT and Physical security for the NYC Port authority yesterday. He lives 2.5 hours from the city, and does not plan on being anywhere near NYC during the month of August. FYI east coasters.

The CIA wasn't established until 1947, under the National Security Act. This act also established the National Security Council and merged the War Department and Navy Department into the single Department of Defense.

As others have said, the DHS is meant to be an "umbrella" organization, the staff of which is supposed to ensure efficient integration and cooperation of its various operational elements. In some ways, this reduces bureaucracy by bringing a number of existing agencies under a single directorate. As all of this is still in the nascent stage, it remains to be seen how much this truly trims bureaucratic flab and improves efficiency.

What I am seeing is a real improvement in the handling of intelligence by domestic agencies. An institutional problem was that intelligence in law enforcement is generally reactive in nature - not predictive, as good military intel is supposed to be, or strategic intel for national level consumers. The FBI, as well as state and local LE in the past focused intel on catching criminals - meaning they begin their collection activities after a crime was committed, and focused collection on what was needed to successfully prosecute the case.

Now I am seeing a major structural shift to developing a predictive intelligence capability within the LE community - with the FBI leading the way. And this time, as a welcome change from past patterns of insitutional behavior, they are building into this capability intelligence integration in depth with other federal agencies as well as with state and local law enforcement.

The Agency is also undergoing internal reform, both in the way it conducts operations and analyzes information, and in the way it trains and mentors its personnel. There have been vested interests fighting serious change at both FBI and CIA, but it looks as though they will ultimately lose the fight. The FBI, though, has won in the sense that it fought off the creation of a separate domestic intelligence agency - but only by signficant internal restructuring and focusing on building a serious predictive intelligence capability that I've already discussed.

All in all, from the perspective of our national intelligence capabilities, I feel we are still in the early phases of the greatest changes in the community since 1947. And most of the changes I've seen thus far are definitely positive.

Is the additional creation (or reorganization) of a new department, homeland security, redundant?

No, I don't believe that it is redundant. As Amlord mentioned, it was created in order to foster communications between the intelligence agencies as well as protect us from terrorism. The goals of the Department of Homeland Security are wholly different from other agencies such as the FBI and the CIA.

Mission of the DHS:


(Homeland Security Act of 2002 can be found here.)

Mission of the CIA:


(Mission of the CIA can be found here.)

Mission of the FBI:


(Mission of the FBI can be found here.)

As we can see, the missions of each of these organizations are mutually exclusive. The DHS exists for the sole purpose of protecting us from terrorism and helping us recover in the event of a terrorist attack; the DHS is concerned entirely with terrorism. The CIA exists to gather and analyze information and to act on behalf of the President to achieve the objectives of the United States. The FBI is sort of an amalgamation of the other two. They help protect us from terrorism, gather information, and enforce the laws of the United States.

Their missions are mutually exclusive? In the simplest terms, the security of our nation is the primary goal of each agency.




Looks like a little bit of mission integration there....

Now, the CIA mission statement is extremely broad and vague; purposefully so. Although terms like relevant and timely are extremely important - and hopefully all the intelligence collected, analyzed and disseminated to national policy makers will truly meet that seemingly simple criteria.

DHS was created to focus on the terrorism threat, and the FBI/CIA have refocused their attention on the threat after a massive failure. The major operational difference between The Agency and FBI/DHS in carrying out their part in the GWOT is that the CIA operates primarily outside the borders of the United States, while the other agencies primarily operate within the US.


Almost, but not quite true. The primary mission of the DHS is as you described. However, there are many and varied other missions carried out on a daily basis by several of the subordinate agencies that, although they may indirectly contribute to the security of this nation against the terrorist threat, that is certainly not their primary focus. Which is recognized in the final caveat of the mission statement you posted:

The operational objective with national level reform of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies is coordination, cooperation and integration. All the bickering, ego-trips and turf wars are supposed to come to a screeching halt in the interest of effectively carrying out the mission of not only protecting the nation from terrorists, but seeking them out and capturing or killing them.

Nothing is supposed to be "mutually exclusive" any more. Bureaucratic excess is supposed to be trimmed, but a degree of operational overlap will continue to exist. But the overlap is intended to facilitate the needed integration of operational elements from the various agencies in order to prevent critical information being lost, overlooked, or ignored - a lesson was learned, to our cost, and a remedy is being attempted.

I must agree with AMLORD on this issue. DHS is an "umbrella" or a hub to tie all the other investigative and/or intelligence organizations together and also to inform the citizens of the homeland when danger may be afoot.

This agency is in its infancy and has a lot of "tweaking" to done to its workings but so far almost 3 years after 9-11 they haven't hit us again...yet

Tom Ridge should be commended for a job well done in a new and unique responsibility.

Lets hope they don't ever again!

Correct. The Homeland Security Department is what we need to keep communications straight with all necessary agencies without the bureacratic bull that plagued them before 9/11.