Counterterrorism Disorganization: More problems

By Michael Kraft

Nearly five years after 9/11 and eight years after the devastating attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S. Government is still struggling to develop an organizational structure that will counter terrorism as effectively as possible.

Many of the problems were outlined in front page article in Wednesday’s Washington Post today headlined “A Fight against Terrorism—and Disorganization." Although lengthy and well researched the Washington Post story could only scratch the surface. It could not and did not include many interesting “additional the devil is in the details,” including a scathing Senate Appropriations Committee Report that I will describe to illustrate some of the problems.

The pity is, some of problems could be corrected relatively easily by better coordination, firm leadership and head bashing to prevent duplication and turf battles. Other problems involving proper funding for specific on-going programs could be resolved by Congress and OMB supporting the counterterrorism rhetoric with proper funding. The problem areas include the federal government’s counterterrorism research and development programs, a subject that Bill Roggio discussed in his post Wednesday.

For more than two decades, there has been a very intensive U.S Government counterterrorism program to develop better equipment to prevent terrorist attacks, cope with those that take place, and help identify and apprehend the terrorists.

The three categories of federal research are: (1) Projects coordinated through the interagency Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), which is headed by the Departments of State and Defense, (2) those funded and coordinated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and (3) projects conducted by individual agencies primarily for their specialized needs. The private sector and universities also initiative research on their own and sometimes seek additional funding from the government for further development.

The TSWG began operations in 1987 and is an experienced mechanism for coordinating interagency R&D efforts. It has 11 specialized sub groups, for example on explosives detection and countering biological/chemical/nuclear weapons. Representatives of about 100 federal agencies and their component offices are represented within the TSWG and many of the officials have worked together for years. TSWG began operations with a $10 million dollar appropriation in the State Department budget and current funding is about $207 million. Although other agencies contribute, the bulk of the funding began coming from the Defense Department after Congressional Appropriators slashed the State Department contributions during the 1990’s.

The R&D effort became more complicated with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in January 2003. The Bush Administration designed the new mega Department to include a wide range of agencies. The Administration included agencies such as the Coast Guard which have many duties (assuring navigation safety for example) that have little to do with fighting terrorism. Many observers familiar with DHS predict that it will take another five years for the agency to get its act together.

As with other aspects of the major reorganization involved in the creation of DHS the evolution of R&D coordination has had its teething problems. Organizations that were used to setting their own priorities and working with TSWG are now part of a huge bureaucracy. Problems also arose in potential overlapping and duplication with TSWG.

The DHS Directorate for Science and Technology (S&T Directorate) is that Department’s primary research and development arm although research is also conducted by other parts of DHS. The S&T Directorate’s mandate is to provide federal, state and local officials with the technology and capabilities to protect the homeland. It also funds projects that can be used for coping with non-terrorist incidents, such as a spill of toxic chemicals The TSWG also funds projects that cane be uses in the U.S. and many products are also useful overseas.

Although the bulk of the DHS counterterrorism R&D activities are conducted under the Directorate for Science and Technology, other components, such as the Coast Guard, kept their separate budget lines as a result of Congressional action.

Other R&D components, such as those in the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) were being integrated into the Directorate in 2006. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however said in June that the Explosives Countermeasure portfolio should be moved back to the Transportation Security Administration. Meanwhile as another example of shuffling the internal organization, the radiological and nuclear portfolio is being moved to the newly formed separate Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. That office was established to serve as the lead DHS component for all efforts to prevent nuclear or radiological terrorism. The organizational chopping and changing appears to be another reflection of the way a few White House staffers quickly cobbled together the Department of Homeland Security structure with little consultation.

The DHS involvement in counterterrorism R&D programs started with the transfer of less than $300 million in programs from other agencies in FY 2002 to $1.281 billion in FY 2006. The fast growth has stopped and actually is declining, The Administration’s FY 2007 request to Congress cut the budget by 10.3 per cent, down to $1.149 billion, according to a detailed analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In June, 2006. the House Appropriations Committee made further cuts in the FY 2007 DHS appropriation, reducing the figure to $974 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee later that month provided only slightly more, approving $1.045 billion. The two chambers have to work out a final compromise appropriations bill for FY 2007.

The initial cuts made by White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before the bill went to Congress and the additional cuts by the Senate and House Appropriators, however, indicate that five years after 9/11, the concerns about the terrorism threat appear to have subsided – at least among the budget officials and appropriators..

Counterterrorism R&D is not alone in suffering from this short-sighted attitude.

The OMB and the House Appropriations Committee also cut FY 2006 and FY 2007 funds for the State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance (ATA) program and several much smaller programs that help strengthen the counterterrorism capabilities of friendly foreign government law enforcement officials. The House approved $122.5 million for ATA and the Senate Appropriations Committee version approved the full $135.6 million ATA request plus full funding for several smaller programs aimed at terrorism funding and travel. But if past history is any indication, the House probably will prevail in the joint-senate conference unless the counterterrorism community weighs in. The final figures probably will be decided in a gigantic omnibus appropriations bill, probably after the November elections.

But the Senate appropriators, while good to the State Department training programs, had harsh words for the DHS R&D program. In unusually strong language, the Senate Appropriations Committee report (Report 101-223) accompanying the Senate Bill criticized the DHS S&T Directorate, which is under an acting head, as a “rudderless ship without a clear way of getting back on course.” The Senate Committee directed the DHS to develop a detailed five-year research plan.

Both the Senate and House withheld funds until DHS provides more detailed budget accounting. The House Bill provided $668 million for the DHS S&T Directorate in FY 2007 and the Senate $712 million, a little more than half of what the Directorate received for FY 2006.

In another example of disorganization and lack of coordination problems, a high-ranking DHS official testified to Congress in February that DHS is the lead agency for coordinating U.S. government research and development programs with other countries. This was news to those already running such programs. In doing research recently for a book chapter on the U.S government’s R&D program, I discovered that State Department and Defense Department officials who run the interagency Technical Support Working Group were not aware of the assertion. They said the testimony had not been cleared with them, even though they have been successfully conducting useful joint research development projects for years with Britain. Canada and Israel and recently signed agreements with Australia and Singapore.

It makes one wonder how we can coordinate with other governments while our own government agencies strain to reinvent the wheel.

TrackBack