Call to Action

Nothing is more pressing than the need to rationalize the counter-terrorism bureaucracy.

Members of Congress and Bush administration officials did what they least wanted to do this long, hot summer: return to Washington. And they did so for one of their least favorite reasons: to try to figure out how to restructure the federal bureaucracy. Blame it on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, whose July report put Democrats and Republicans on notice this election year. They must do something to address the confusing tangle of intelligence operations, or risk facing the wrath of voters if there's another major attack before the elections.

The commission devoted much of its report to exhaustively detailing federal attempts to thwart and respond to terrorist attacks before, during and after Sept. 11. The report culminated in a description of shortfalls in imagination, policy, capabilities and management. But it's the last category that demands the immediate attention of politicians, because it's the one where they need to step in and show leadership.

The 9/11 commission's analysis of the counterterrorism bureaucracy is damning. While various agencies have devoted more time and attention to coordinating their work to counter the threat of Islamist extremism, they have been far from fully successful. "In some ways, joint work has gotten better, and in some ways worse," the report notes dryly-and chillingly.

The anti-terrorism effort is arguably more diffuse than ever. The CIA still plays a central role, but the FBI's position is much more prominent, the commission noted. The Defense Department now has three commands primarily devoted to counterterrorism: Special Operations Command, Central Command and the new Northern Command. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security was created to reorganize domestic protection, the State Department maintains a critical role overseas, and the National Security Council at the White House has been joined with a parallel organization, the Homeland Security Council.

In the area of analyzing intelligence, the new interagency Terrorist Threat Integration Center is supposed to play the leading role. But its home agency, the CIA, still has its own Counterterrorist Center. The Defense Intelligence Agency and Homeland Security have separate analysis units. And the FBI has its Terrorist Screening Center.

"The U.S. government cannot afford so much duplication of effort," the commission declared. Its report included recommendations to address the situation, the two most prominent of which were creating a National Counterterrorism Center and replacing the current position of director of central intelligence with a national intelligence director.

Given the urgency of the situation, it's tempting to simply accept the commission's proposals in their entirety and get moving. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry couldn't resist that temptation. But his lock-stock-and-barrel reaction indicates a lack of seriousness about addressing management issues and an inability to resist trying to score some quick political points. President Bush also struck quickly to respond to the report. But his proposal for his own kind of national intelligence director raised more questions than it answered about who exactly would control budgets and staffing.

It was left to members of Congress to hold their noses and step into the morass. Committee chairmen quickly lined up more than a dozen hearings during the summer recess on various aspects of the commission's report.

It's easy to dismiss this approach as mere grandstanding-as some of it doubtless is. But it's also the first serious effort to get down to business on rationalizing the system for battling the terrorist threat. This is the hardest kind of work the government's legislative and executive apparatus undertakes. It involves overcoming turf fights, entrenched interests and bureaucratic inertia. Most of the time it's better just to avoid the whole process and develop workarounds.

Not now. The stakes are too high. And the fact that we're in the middle of a war on terror is no reason not to move forward. After all, as the commission noted, the last attempt to overhaul the bureaucracy to deal with a threat to the nation's safety was begun in the 1940s, when we were still at war. So it's time for presidential candidates, administration officials and agency executives to follow Congress' lead-and give legislators the information they need to do their job properly.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

    In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

  • Toward A More Innovative Government

    This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

  • From Volume to Value: UK’s NHS Digital Provides U.S. Healthcare Agencies A Roadmap For Value-Based Payment Models

    The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.

  • GBC Flash Poll: Is Your Agency Safe?

    Federal leaders weigh in on the state of information security


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.