• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Homeland Security View of Readiness

    In the past, readiness simply meant the status of U.S. military might. Today, however, national security readiness requires a much broader definition that includes not only conventional defense but also homeland security. If the U.S. persists in restricting the discussion only to the state of military readiness, it will present a false view of where the nation stands.

    The discussion of readiness certainly includes the military, but it also includes the intelligence community; federal, state, and local law enforcement; and non-law enforcement first responders such as EMTs, firefighters, and private-sector security personnel. Intelligence has made the most progress; law enforcement still requires additional vertical integration; and other responders remain too disjointed.

    • The intelligence community. The intelligence community contributes more to national readiness than ever before. There is an unprecedented level of integration, which is efficient and saves money by lessening redundancy and adding greater depth of analysis. There is no need for multiple agencies to collect the same information, but several organizations analyzing a situation from different angles can give policymakers a broader range of options. Yet a cultural fight lingers between proponents of new ways of thinking and some very old-school turf defenders. Those who long for a return to the primacy and dominance of the CIA need to recognize that this will not happen. The U.S. fields a truly national intelligence structure that includes agencies across the needed disciplines, and it is working.

      The good news is that maturity and progress are prevailing, and intelligence is becoming more of an asset every day. However, the Administration should continue to push for integration and break down all remaining stovepipes. Particularly amid budget reductions, a leaner and more efficient intelligence community can be leveraged to offset cuts elsewhere. The more U.S. leaders know about the hostile world that surrounds us, the better they can protect America from such hostilities. But if the readiness budget is cut too much, the nation suffers.

    • Federal, state, and local law enforcement. The law enforcement community is huge and diverse, and it is a key to homeland security readiness in ways it was not pre-9/11. The line between national security in the international context and homeland security in the domestic context is not just blurred—it has been obliterated. Today, a local cop on the beat is just as likely as a major CIA or FBI operation to find a clue that leads to thwarting a terrorist plot.

      There is, however, unevenness in law enforcement readiness. Big-city police forces such as the NYPD and the LAPD are robust and add greatly to overall readiness. Unfortunately, other municipalities are far less ready. There is a need for more vertical integration among federal, state, and local entities, and there must be better leveraging of the all parts of this crucial community to ensure that state and local law enforcement have a seat at the table. Likewise, more must be done to ensure that information sharing among law enforcement works both ways, so that state and local law enforcement is not only sending information to the federal government but receiving it as well.

    • Non-law enforcement first responders. The capabilities of non-law enforcement responders are much greater than they were pre-9/11. They have improved communications and have established mutual support agreements that allow for sharing assets. They have begun to develop a culture of realistic exercises and detailed planning that never existed before, and they are also major contributors to the readiness of the nation.

      Yet like their law enforcement counterparts, capabilities vary widely. No federal agency needs to try to align all the first responders in the country, however; vertical integration should stay within the individual states. Non-law enforcement first responders should develop routine communication with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s regional leadership so that everyone knows their counterparts before any disaster, man-made or natural, occurs.

    It is unclear to what extent this Administration will use readiness as a bill payer for domestic entitlement programs. Lower discretionary funding levels will almost certainly limit new programs but could lead to more efficiency and cooperation. At the least, a baseline of funding should be maintained.

    National readiness is more complicated today than ever before. It is only by the continued evaluation and integration of all these elements that America’s real level of readiness can be determined. All those who serve are ready to protect America, but maintaining a proper level of readiness is not a foregone conclusion. It must be funded and developed in new, updated ways.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to A Homeland Security View of Readiness

    1. Bobbie says:

      Who knows whose ready for what until whatever happens? What's that saying? " too many kings without enough rules?" I don't know? But areas essential to public: safety, protections and defenses is better "ready" when efficiently, appropriately, intellectually sound. Heritage points out "they have begun to develop a culture of realistic exercises and detailed planning that never existed before?" what could make homeland security that more "ready?" and "never existed before" when? and if it exists now under practical reasons, why would the responsibilities (within the control) of government to all Americans as a whole, be compromised before discretionary spending is immediately cut?

    2. Steve says:

      As a friend of mine recently said about the integration of homeland security from its federal agents all the way down to the lowly beat cop, "All totalitarian countries look like this. There is no distinction between local and federal. They become one and the same."

      Apparently Heritage supports this metamorphosis…which is why I stopped supporting them at the President's Club level (or any other lesser level) a couple years back when it became apparent they were so focused on National Security to the detriment of Individual Security. When faced between choosing between the two, the individual always seems to come out with the short end of the stick if Heritage has a say in the matter.

    3. Steve says:

      Thomas Jefferson warned us of this process when he said that “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground” and the famous Historian Edward Gibbon aptly described the process when he penned the following: “In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all; security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.” – Edward Gibbon
      But what Heritage, those who support it and the citizenry all fail to grasp is that “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” – Frederick Douglass

    4. Steve says:

      In response to all of you I repeat the famous words of Samuel Adams, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

      Heritage, it’s time to stop your adulation of the growing police and security state and start fighting for our Liberty here at home as the founder’s intended. The pendulum has swung way too far to the totalitarian side of the spectrum. I talk to more and more veterans every day who are waking up to this ever metastasizing threat to our freedom here on the home front, always in the name of security. Well I for one would prefer dangerous Liberty to state imposed security. You really need to refocus your efforts and resources on regaining our lost freedoms rather than further condoning and applauding its demise with code words like “integration” and “national readiness.” You can keep the shackles!

    5. Steve says:

      Unfortunately I had to break my comment up into four sections due to its length. Hopefully they will be posted in the proper order.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.