Today is the last day for the president's top homeland security advisor, and the White House has not announced any replacement, raising questions about the future of the position.
There is speculation that the office headed by Frances F. Townsend, the Homeland Security Council, might be brought under the National Security Council, the White House office created in 1947.
Mrs. Townsend is receiving a sendoff from her White House colleagues today as she departs after four years presiding over the HSC, which was created following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The rumored reorganization would expand the NSC's role somewhat to include disaster preparedness and counterterrorism. But it would also move some domestic issues, such as infrastructure protection, back to where they originally were.
The national security advisor would then be given a second deputy to essentially handle what has been Mrs. Townsend's assignment: to manage HSC staff and meetings — which the president presides over — and coordinate homeland security actions among federal agencies.
David Heyman, director of the homeland security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that many outside experts as well as presidential campaigns favor moving HSC under NSC.
"The question is whether the Bush administration wants to do that now and get credit for it," Mr. Heyman said.
Mr. Heyman said that the HSC and NSC staffs are "working in fairly integrated way right now."
"Their staffs are more or less sharing resources," he said.
Following Mrs. Townsend's departure for the private sector, the lack of a replacement so far is grounds for speculation that a reshuffling might be afoot, one source said.
Joel Banal Bagnal, Mrs. Townsend's deputy, is considered a leading candidate to replace his former boss.
-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times
UPDATE: Frank J. Cilluffo, who worked for the HSC early in President Bush's administration, said he favors bringing the homeland security office under the NSC.
"Conceptually, I do believe that would be a wise course of action, something any incoming administration will likely examine very carefully," said Mr. Cilluffo, who now directs the homeland security policy institute at George Washington University.
He said he does not know if the White House is currently considering such a plan.
But he said that "the bifurcation between national security and homeland security is artificial and not helpful."
"The two are inextricably intertwined and ought to be fully integrated into a more coherent whole, as one must inform the other and vice versa," Mr. Cilluffo said.
JW
Comments (5)
Why not get a retired US Coast Guard Admiral to fill this position? Because they are used to dealing with disasters and are also used to bringing order to complex situations. Admiral Thad Allen took over the Katrina disaster relief operations when FEMA fell flat on its face. Once Allen took over the situation improved dramatically. I'm sure there is a retired Coast Guard admiral out there with intelligence or counterterrorism experience who would do a fine job combining Townsend's old position along with disaster preparedness. If there is any branch of the armed services that is used to dealing with both manmade disasters (such as huge oil spills) and natural disasters (like hurricane Katrina), it's the Coast Guard. A Coast Guard veteran may be what the White House is looking for.
Posted by Libertyship46 | January 3, 2008 5:14 PM
The position Townsend occupied, to be polite, was duplicative. It is my belief she accomplished her real function of being DOJ’s rep and marginalizing the new DHS in favor of the prior failed paradigm of a DOJ managed process of protecting the US. (I think neither is working well and we would be better served either having a DHS that is actually in charge of the issue of homeland security or having NSC or DNI manage it.) This role of hers had the salutary effect for DOJ of reinforcing the White House's original position to not create DHS at all. Always good to tell the boss he is right and yes, I am saying the President’s Homeland Security Advisor appeared to be the bureaucratic opponent of the Department of Homeland Security. Regrettably, DHS is being built on a DOJ model and subordinated to the same failed and now reinforced DOJ processes. Nota bene, the tendency to over promote DOJ attorneys to the executive positions in DHS. At these things Townsend, intentional or not, was most successful.
In the future, the failure to take advantage of a chance, afforded us by the horror of 9-11, to restructure the government for the better may get fixed, but at what price then?
Posted by formerDHSmanager | January 3, 2008 9:08 PM
Sorry, Admiral, but there are too many of you guys already. And you're not doing such a great job, either. From running the HSOC to handling financial affairs at TSA, USCG cronyism is rampant throughout DHS. Straighten out the Deepwater mess and get your own ship in order.
Posted by Real Military | January 3, 2008 9:10 PM
To summarize the above arguments: (1) Define Homeland Security, what are its responsibilities and accountabilities. (2) Define its organization and infrastructure. (3) Define its roles. (4) Assign resources qualified for the roles. Political appointments may be the way of doing business, but the wrong person can put you out of business.
Posted by Larry Stone | January 4, 2008 7:35 AM
Why not try keeping it "Real," Real Military. The HSOC must be doing something right if we have not had another attack on American soil for over six years now. As for the problems with Deepwater, you may as well say "get rid of the Pentagon" just because one of their programs didn't go as planned. Sure there are problems with Deepwater, but at least the Coast Guard identified those problems and is in the process of fixing them. Not too many other government agencies or branches of the military do that. The basic fact of the matter is that the Coast Guard is constantly pulled into dangerous and complicated situations and has a very good track record of dealing with them successfully. And it certainly has a better track record than FEMA ever had. So before you dismiss the Coast Guard, take a harder look at what they actually do and how well they do it given the limited resources they have.
Posted by Libertyship46 | January 4, 2008 10:24 AM