Homeland security Part one. essay




Thispaper presents a discussion of the capabilities and limitations ofintelligence regarding its support to the efforts of homelandsecurity. The analysis involves an examination of the elements of theintelligence community and their contribution to the development ofhomeland security intelligence.

Thecapabilities of intelligence.

Thefunction of the intelligence in the government of the US hasundergone tremendous changes for it to become a crucial component inthe foreign and domestic policy (Rubin, 2005). At the moment, thereexist more than two hundred agencies and organizations in theintelligence community. The National intelligence office directstheir operations. The intelligence has undergone transformations toundertake other roles other than foreign military trackingcapabilities and scrutinizing of the foreign governments’intentions (Rubin 2005). Rubin (2005) highlights these other roles asscrutiny of cyber threats, issues of global warming, the states whichare failing, nuclear proliferation, the plans of terrorists, andglobal economy rationalization. Besides this, the intelligencecommunity undertakes the critical role of offering support to theplans of the homeland security, national security, laws of thecountry implementation, and diplomatic roles (Cumming 2007).

TheFBI has been efficient because it is leading on the issues revolvingaround foreign and domestic intelligence. Additionally, after the9/11 events, the FBI has increased intensification of the focus onintelligence whose result is a strong establishment in the gatheringof intelligence (Cumming 2007). The events also instigated thecreation of organizations and agencies exceeding two hundred andfifty. There has been a reorganization of other organizations forproper alignment with the current trends in terrorism and security(GAO 2014). To top it up, FBI has invested in the consistentdevelopment and addition of informants throughout the country.

Thereis also an increase and development of the intelligence agencies tobe at par with the current trends in security (GAO 2014). Examples ofthe newly developed agencies include bodies such as InteragencyNational Gang Intelligence and the El Paso Intelligence Center (DHS2014). In existence is also the Joint Terrorism Task Force whose roleis to combat the threats of domestic tourism. Alongside theseagencies, there exist interagency task forces whose mandate is tomonitor threats to security in the country. There are alsointelligence networks state fusion and local centers working inliaison with the Department of the Homeland Security by providingthem with reach-back and analytical support (DHS 2014). Despite thelack of popularity of these intelligence networks, it should be notedthat they are very crucial in terrorism threats and insecurityprevention matters and offering assistance in the enforcement of thelaw in criminal comprehension. Again, from estimations, the nationalintelligence is a large enterprise with over eight hundred thousandmembers and a budget exceeding one hundred thousand US Dollars in ayear (GAO 2014). Such a broad membership and budget allocation arecrucial for the efficiency in the implementation of services by theenterprise.

Thelimitations of intelligence.

Itis clearly evident that there are numerous capabilities of theintelligence agencies in the country. Similarly, there existlimitations of these intelligence agencies as they undertake theirroles which have been a great hindrance in the efficiency of thehomeland security in delivering security efforts. There have beencontroversies surrounding the creation of the local and fusioncenters among the opponents of such organizations. For instance,there has been a criticism of the federal government due to theincreased efforts by the government to standardize, formalize, andcreate a local, state, and regional center for intelligence networkby the American Civil Liberties Union (Sylves 2004). The argument ofthe union is that the incorporation of these networks in theintelligence community’s environment of sharing information is thesame as the creation of a new different agency of the nationaldomestic intelligence. The roles of these networks will be similar tothat of the military, the government employees, and the privatesector as they spy on the citizens. There is also the argumentagainst the employment culture of a large number of workers in theintelligence agencies of the local and state (Kiltz 2011). Besides,critics argue that such an environment results in the wastage ofresources which would have otherwise been injected in other crucialprojects.

Moreover,the commission of the 9/11 events stipulates that the results of thedevelopment of many intelligence organization and agencies are thetrading of the security matters for liberty (GAO 2014). It is a falseand wrong choice for the country to choose security at the expense ofliberty. It has been openly and publicly declared that there has beenan infringement on the liberty of the citizens as a consequence ofefforts to combat terror acts. It is also clearly evident that theresult of the creation of a broad structure of the intelligence afterthe 9/11 events is the loss of balance between security and libertyto favor security at the expense of liberty (Sylves 2004). It isunfortunate that the citizens do not have a good understanding ofsuch a phenomenon. These factors have resulted in hampering theHomeland Security from effectively delivery on security matters.


Thisdiscussion presents the capabilities of the homeland security intheir quest to achieve their missions and objectives. The discussionas well presents the contrast between the efforts for the provisionof security by homeland while maintaining the civil liberties.

Myposition on the capabilities of homeland security.

Theestablishment of the Department of the Homeland Security was aresponse to the events of 9/11 and its mandate is the protection ofthe United States against security threats and terrorism (DHS 2014).The department has put efforts in the implementation of the primaryoperations of the homeland security since it began operations.Additionally, the department boasts of achievements in the majorityof the crucial goals outlined by its mandates. The achievements areof significance since the major works of the department have been thetransformation of the crucial areas for effectiveness in the deliveryof its mandate (Rubin 2005). Recently, there has been enhancements ofthe roles of the management of DHS. There has also been thedevelopment of plans of the department for an upgrade of the aspectsof the management to improve the outcome of its operations.

TheDHS has made a notable progress through the development of theNational Preparedness Guidelines. These guidelines offer adescription of the framework of the nation for preparedness based oncapabilities as well as a list of capabilities’ target in theprovision of a model for the state level with the aspects ofall-hazard preparedness (DHS 2014). The DHS has also helped in thecreation of the National Disaster Recovery framework whose role isthe evaluation of the risks resulting from Chemical, Biological,Radiological, and Nuclear threats (DHS 2014). The entity has been ina position to employ the capabilities that identify such threats.

Therehas been an implementation of the United States Immigrant and visitorstatus technological program by the DHS (Cumming 2007). This programhas the capability of the verification of the identity of peopleleaving and entering the US territories through the processing oftheir biometric and biographic information. However, there has beenchallenges with the system such as delays, jeopardizing the program.However, DHS has been successful in other aspects such as theinitiation and implementation of secure flights, screening of theairline passengers, and checking of luggage and cargo. However, thereis a lack of an efficient plan screening programs and techniques inthe deployment of checked luggage. Equally, there is no technologythat can be useful for the screening of cargo after loading into acontainer.

Critiqueof the capability of homeland security.

Asat the moment, DHS has not been successful in the implementation of abiometric program for people exiting the State. The department hasalso failed to address overstay issues in the country. The DHS hasbeen effective in the deployment of crucial infrastructure to enhanceborder security especially between the entry points coupled by theextensive fencing of more than five hundred miles (DHS 201). However,there is need of improvement in the efforts of the evaluation ofpreparedness and recovery when hazards strike. There is also a needfor the improvement of the efficiency of the agencies through themitigation of redundancy. The department also needs to undertake moresteps to come up with effective partnerships and thus a strongplatform for utilizing and sharing of information (Cumming 2007).

Thereare bureaucracies and lack of transparency between DHS and theorganizations they work closely with because of the composition,structure, and way of operations of the department resulting insignificant waste of resources. The waste of resources also stemsfrom the salaries large number of employees most of which performduplicate roles. The department experiences other challenges such asrising costs and inappropriateness of some of its programs such asthe technology program. There is a challenge of schedule delaysresulting from the failure of the technology programs to workeffectively. This infringes the liberty of people though itsintention is to promote homeland security thus contrasting theefforts of the provision of homeland security while promoting civilliberty.

TheDHS needs to strengthen the evaluations, mitigation, and proceduraldetection of the risks arising from Chemical, Biological,Radiological, and Nuclear threats. This could be achieved throughnecessary partnerships with relevant bodies in the evaluations of therisks due to CBRN threats.

Inconclusion, the DHS remains labeled as among the most crucialtransformation of the government of America through changes of theactivities of the state to come up with an entity whose goal is theprotection of the homeland security.


Cumming,W. (2007). Review of Disaster Response and Homeland Security.&nbspJournalof Homeland Security and Emergency Management,&nbsp4(3).

&nbspDHS.(2014).&nbspQuadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: Astrategic Framework for a secure Homeland,&nbspWashingtonD.C.

GAO.(2014) Progress Made and Work Remaining in Implementing HomelandSecurity Missions 10 Years after 9/11.

Kiltz,L. (2011). The Challenges of Developing a Homeland SecurityDiscipline to Meet Future Threats to the Homeland.&nbspJournalof Homeland Security and Emergency Management,&nbsp8(2).

Rubin,C. (2005). Homeland Security: A Documentary History.&nbspJournalof Homeland Security and Emergency Management,&nbsp2(1).

Sylves,R. (2004). System under Stress: Homeland Security and AmericanPolitics.&nbspJournalof Homeland Security and Emergency Management,&nbsp1(4).