And the Kerik Smote the DHS .:. grubbykid.com

And the Kerik Smote the DHS

Today President Bush officially nominated Bernard Kerik, former jail warden, New York City cop, bodyguard, and NYPD Commissioner to Secretary, Department of Homeland Security. I agree with Benjamin Wallace-Wells that Kerik talks the good talk, but can he really be effective at DHS?

It is important to view Kerik's nomination in context of the last four years, keeping in mind the goals and aspirations of the Bush Administration. After September 11th, there were many calls to consolidate bureaucracies and create the DHS. What did the Bush Administration do? They fought the creation of DHS tooth and nail, only embraced it when the political winds so fully changed that it would have been political suicide to oppose creation of DHS. The Bush Administration had the same reaction to the formation of the September 11th Commission and fought the Commission throughout their proceedings. DHS is either the largest bureaucracy, or second to Department of Defence, who is their most natural competitor. It is no secret that Donald Rumsfeld is very protective of his turf - reports say that he was instrumental in killing the recent intelligence reform bill because it would take the power of the purse away from Defence.

This brings us to the President's Cabinet. At the Cabinet positions most crucial to waging the President's version of the war on terror - DHS, State, Justice, the CIA, and HHS (think bio-weapons) - all but one of the President's nominees are all within 100'-0" of the Oval Office; these nominees are his most trusted advisors and those most willing to tow the Bush line. But what about Homeland Security? Why is this seemingly important position outsourced (so to say) to someone outside the President's inner circle? In other words, why has the President implicitly made it clear that DHS is not as important as CIA, State, Justice, or Defence? My theory is that, the President talks a good talk about DHS, but didn't really want the department in the first place and doesn't want to step on Rumsfeld's (and Cheney's by extension) turf.

Think about it - why nominate the first two Secretaries who have absolutely no experience in managing Washington bureaucracies, inter-agency turf wars, and all without a mandate from the President? Secretary Ridge was Governor of Pennsylvania for six years and Kerik was a cop and NYPD Commissioner - both very honorable position where they excelled at - but both are not the type of administrator who could cut through the crap and get DHS in line.

Just look at the official White House bio on Tom Ridge:

Ridge was twice elected Governor of Pennsylvania, serving from 1995 to 2001. He kept his promise to make Pennsylvania "a leader among states and a competitor among nations." Governor Ridge's aggressive technology strategy helped fuel the state's advances in the priority areas of economic development, education, health and the environment.

Then Governor Ridge cut taxes every year he was in office. To ensure Pennsylvania was home to the jobs of the future, the Governor created industry-led Greenhouse initiatives in advanced computing technologies and the life sciences.

He signed into law the Education Empowerment Act, to help more than a quarter-million children in Pennsylvania's lowest-performing schools. His education technology initiatives brought anytime, anywhere learning to Pennsylvanians from pre-school to adult education.
- Biography of Secretary Tom Ridge

Nowhere does it praise his anti-terrorism experience (he had none or very little) or his law enforcement background (none as I can recall). What exactly, besides color-coding, has Ridge done The new Secretary will have ample law-enforcement background and has an aura around him as a "tough guy" willing to shake things up - which could be useful. But Kerik has a m.o. as a not great administrator and no experience running a bureaucracy this large - which isn't so useful. But he is connected - reports say that Guiliani had made multiple phone calls about Kerik's nomination.

I want to make this very clear: I do not think that the President is looking to harm Americans. What I am saying is that they are indirectly (and sometimes directly) limiting the effectiveness of DHS by nominating ineffectual leadership, not clearly defining DHS' role vis-a-vis the other agencies, and most important, not clearly defining what exactly DHS is. The administration is not explicitly placing structural roadblocks in front of DHS, as far as I can tell, but the administration is not going out of their way to full integrate DHS with State, Defence, the CIA, among others. You also cannot overlook the inter-agency turf battles which have plagued DHS from day one and will continue to plague it unless Kerik can chart a well defined course - because the President has not and will not. The President has not given DHS a clear direction because Cheney and Rumsfeld still hold the President's ear - and Rumsfeld is still on his course to military transformation. How DHS integrates with Defense is still a mystery.

For another view of this matter, read Phil Carter's article, All Homeland Security Is Local. I'm inclined to trust Phil on this matter - if the President or Kerik could explicitly outline the role of DHS. For more negative views of Kerik, Questions for Kerik and Matthew Yglesias' take, titled simply, Kerik and a retort to Yglesias.

And the Kerik Smote the DHS

Comments

Post a comment