Volume 1, Issue 2

Professor Harknett argues that the Bush administration has incorrectly labeled the security threat facing the nation as terrorism. The threat is actually barbarism, which implies an effort to destroy as an end itself rather than as a means to pursue political objectives. Traditional models of deterrence and defense are insufficient for dealing with barbarism. The new threats suggest the use of tactics that are not purely defensive, but preventive and preemptive. As U.S. policymakers pursue such tactics they should recognize that traditional perspectives that separate domestic and international domains are ill-suited to a threat that undermines a world and regional system to which the United States is central.

Professor Demchak criticizes the current Homeland Security Agency proposal as a convenient piling together of overstretched small agencies. After identifying principles appropriate for designing complex systems, she then applies these principles for strategies to strengthen U.S. domestic security. She recommends developing an “Atrium” of information, or a semi-living database that captures, creates and shares knowledge across agencies rapidly. Such a system would also be capable of mitigating "rogue outcomes" that cannot be known beforehand under any circumstances. She closes by providing guidelines to assess progress in implementing these strategies.

Faced by the continued threat of suicide bombers and other acts of terrorism, Professor Masters argues that we need a more robust and cogent policy debate about the two primary security strategies: deterrence and pre-emption. Masters suggests that the Bush administration’s apparent emphasis on a pre-emptive strategy will not work under circumstances that make martyrdom an appealing choice for terrorists. Contemporary theories of animal evolution indicate that self-sacrifice is more likely in relatively poor societies with high birth rates and low life expectancy, as exists in most of the Muslim states.

Professor Louise K. Comfort argues that a focus on creating a large homeland security department may be misplaced. She suggests that policymakers move away from a standard top-down approach to organizational control and instead focus on auto-adaptive processes that incorporate decentralized “learning strategies” in which information is shared across government agencies at every level. In particular, she recommends strengthening the informational infrastructure at the regional level to foster greater knowledge-sharing about security risks and appropriate responses.

Dr. Kamarck describes three models of government available to policy makers who must design strategies for homeland security. She argues that homeland security, like many emerging policy problems, does not lend itself to traditional bureaucratic government. Public leaders must create effective “portfolios of actions” that incorporate different elements of the models she describes. Her article is part of a larger report published by The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government. http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/KamarckReport.pdf