Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, And Security, Reaction Paper Example

Abstract

In Chapter Three (“Bureaucracy Problems”), J.R. White discusses the federal bureaucratic entanglements related to homeland security, especially concerning the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center which mandated increased national security measures to protect against terrorist threats and further attacks. White also draws some comparisons between the Progressive Era (1890-1910) and current proposals for homeland security. Some of the areas explored by White includes factors that inhibit change in police roles due to bureaucracy, the logic behind attempts to re-conceptualize the roles of police agencies, and the basic problems associated with bureaucracies in relation to homeland security.

In Chapter Three of Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security, J.R. White notes that the history of law enforcement in the United States could be described as a “haphazard affair” at both federal and state levels (2004, p. 32). Overall, the history of law enforcement in the U.S. over the last one hundred years has migrated through three distinct stages. First, there was the Progressive Era that extended from about 1890 to 1910 when law enforcement agencies began to take form; secondly, the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) following the Allied victory in World War II (1939 to 1945); and third, the creation of new federal bureaucracies during the Bush Presidency in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. White also relates that law enforcement and policing agencies in the U.S. are political processes that occur within the context of bureaucracy, meaning that an agency like the CIA is a “reflection of governmental power” and that all of the individuals within the CIA create “political ramifications” via their decisions related to policing and protecting the American homeland (2004, p. 34).

But what exactly is a bureaucracy? According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, a bureaucracy can refer to the “administration of a government through bureaus staffed with non-elected officials” or a government “marked by a diffusion of authority among numerous offices and adherence to inflexible rules of operation” (Morris, 2005, p. 177). The first definition is a reference to a specific department or a subdivision of a department, such as the Department of Homeland Security, or the office of a large organization, such as the CIA, that performs a specific duty, while the second definition references numerous heads of authority or officeholders who make decisions based on very specific rules and regulations that cannot be altered, similar to a paradigm or a set of rules and regulations that determine boundaries.

White also addresses some of the arguments against bureaucracies, due to the fact that bureaucracies at the federal level are more often than not so complex that most people outside of the government cannot understand how they function and sometimes exactly why they exist. For example, most critics of bureaucracies point out that they “tend to work toward stagnation” and discourage innovation, creativity, and individuality, much like the U.S. military system; that they often make decisions that are safe, rather than correct; that “policies and procedures are more important than outcomes;” and that bureaucracies often come up with complex solutions for simple problems (2004, p. 33).

Therefore, when it comes to policing and homeland security, bureaucracies tend to stagnate progress and new ideas, especially if several powerful bureaucratic officials are involved in making a decision as a team. Also, due to the number of officials that are often involved in coming up with a solution to a particular problem, such as how to effectively safeguard the American homeland without infringing on the rights of average American citizens, the end result is much more complex than it needs to be. In addition, bureaucracies almost always make decisions that favor the majority, rather than the minority, and do so in a way that tends to protect the bureaucratic process.

In relation to the on-going struggle to protect the American homeland from terrorist threats and activities, White mentions two current views concerning the expansion of police bureaucracies in the United States. The first view contends that “consolidating police power is efficient” and that a large bureaucracy, such as the Office of Homeland Security, “with a clear mission will empower the police to perform their mission” (2004, p. 34). The second view contends that “decentralizing police power personalizes services and develops links to communities” and that localized bureaucratic offices, such as those found in major American cities, “are more adept at recognizing and handling problems” that may arise at the local level (2004, p. 34).

However, it appears that the first view, at least based on what has occurred in the past in relation to policing and protecting the American homeland and its citizens, will only increase the problems associated with a bureaucratic system, especially when we consider the fact that bureaucratic officials are not generally known for their effectiveness and efficiency in relation to solving problems in a short period of time. Thus, the second view holds more promise, due to allowing local policing agencies like city and county police departments to actively participate in homeland security as on-site monitors. One other advantage is that local policing agencies can respond much quicker to local threats and incidents as compared to a large bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. that must adhere to the chain of command and its rules and regulations before acting upon a threat or an active situation.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this chapter has to do with the on-going rivalries between federal law enforcement agencies, particularly the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As White points out, numerous federally-based bureaucracies “openly resent the FBI, and this attitude is frequently reciprocated.” Also, the creation of new bureaucracies, such as the Office of Homeland Security, “exacerbates rivalries” between the various law enforcement agencies at the federal level (2004, p. 41). The biggest problem seems to be self-interest, meaning that these law enforcement agencies are only concerned with themselves, rather than accomplishing a certain mission or goal as a team effort. Unfortunately, law enforcement bureaucracies are here to stay and if the past is any indication of what the future holds regarding policing the American homeland, more federal bureaucracies will surely be developed and implemented, thus decreasing their efficiency and effectiveness and creating more rivalry.

References

Morris, W., Ed. Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

White, J.R. (2004). Defending the homeland: Domestic intelligence, law enforcement, and security. Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage.