Introduction
Homeland security in the United States still faces numerous gaps in terms of assessment, gathering, analysis, interpretation and application of intelligence information. Although the national strategy team charged with strengthening homeland security has been articulating ideas aimed at protecting the public, there are still a lot of underlying issues that demand urgent attention.
For instance, the implementation phase lacks a concise plan owing to its vagueness. In addition, several agencies adopted under the Department of Homeland Security have apparently failed to define and harmonize their missions towards effective delivery of core goals and objectives. Worse still, the relationship between the department and individual agencies is still not clear.
Most of the agencies that are supposed to be absorbed by the Department of Homeland Security are still operational. As a result, roles are being duplicated throughout the hierarchy of the security intelligence system. The department can only be effective if roles are classified from the local, state and federal government authorities.
The partnership between the public and private sectors is also instrumental in enhancing the capability of the department (Hymans 2006, 460). This research topic is of great interest because it highlights the success parameters and failure paradigms that may continue to bedevil homeland security in the future.
Research question
Which national intelligence challenges that the Department of Homeland Security will continue to face in the future?
Purpose statement
This paper aims to establish both the current and future intelligence challenges that the Department of Homeland Security is anticipating to face. As it stands now, it appears that the contribution of local, state and federal government authorities as well as individuals security agencies cannot be ignored if the security of this nation is to be improved (Omand 2012, 154).
While the focus of all these organs is to enhance security at all levels of governance, this paper intends to offer a succinct discussion of factors that have either promoted or hindered their performance. It will also investigate how the independent factors have been either retrogressive or progressive in the management of security affairs throughout the nation.
On the same note, this paper will be keen to investigate why the Department of Homeland Security has jeopardized the operations and effectiveness of certain independent agencies and whether this trend is bound to persist in the future (Puyvelde 2013, 140).
In any case, do local authorities require any assistance from FEMA especially when handling emergencies? What is the performance of First Responders in regards to national security and intelligence affairs? These are some of the questions that this paper seeks to answer.
Moreover, the Customs Service and its working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security has been a major area of contention in the past (Honig 2007, 710). The process of gathering intelligence data may be bewildering especially if the Customs Service cannot access intelligence system of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Owing to the crucial intelligence role played by the service, this essay explores myriads of possibilities through which the organ can either duplicate or impede the roles of DHS.
It might still be cumbersome to point out whether the Customs Service should assume extra responsibilities under the confines of the Department of Homeland Security. The essay also investigates the intelligence capability and downfalls of the Customs Service when it comes to defending and propping the key functions of DHS (Champion 2005, 1675).
The input of time is also considered in this essay as a major concern and challenging factor for the intelligence role of DHS (Warner 2012, 135). The paper offers a thorough discussion on the element of time and its effects in the efficiency of the Department. The impacts of time constraints have been explored from the present to future time.
In order to bring the readers in the same level of understanding, past intelligence constraints associated with time have also been examined in this paper. It is obvious that time factor is a priority area in the processes of gathering, analyzing, interpreting and utilizing intelligence information.
The paper equally suggests the period within which the department can be revamped completely before positive changes are felt throughout the nation (Moran 2011, 698).
Some segments of pressure groups and members of the public often argue that the Department of Homeland Security has largely led to a misleading sense that the nation is secure.
As this delves deeper into the current and future challenges facing the department, it also inquires and looks into the public perception of the national intelligence system and whether their opinions are anything to go by. For instance, can the rising acts of terrorism be stopped at bay the department?
Privacy and civil liberties
On a final note, the paper also proposes and outlines the various evolution phases that the DHS intelligence system must pass through. It is vital to mention that a major transformation of the DHS intelligence might not be an option especially in the wake of sophisticated terror schemes of the 21st century (Agrell 2012, 119).
Towards the end of the essay, the paper recaps the main ideas discussed and equally elaborates the effects of the aforementioned revolutions in the sanctity of privacy and civil liberties
References
Agrell, Wilhelm. 2012. “The Next 100 Years? Reflections on the Future of Intelligence.” Intelligence and National Security 27, no. 1 (June): 118-132.
Champion, Christopher. 2005. “The Revamped FISA: Striking a Better Balance between the Government’s Need to protect itself and the fourth amendment.” Vanderbilt Law Review 58, no. 5 (October):1671-1703.
Honig, Or Arthur. 2007. “A new direction for theory-building in intelligence studies.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence 20, no. 4 (August): 699-716.
Hymans, Jacques. 2006. “Theories of nuclear proliferation: The state of the field.” Nonproliferation Review 13, no. 3 (May): 455-465.
Moran, Christopher, 2011. “Intelligence and the Media: The press, government secrecy and the ‘Buster’ Crabb Affair.” Intelligence and National Security 26, no. 5 (October): 676-700.
Omand, David. 2012. “Into the Future: A Comment on Agrell and Warner.” Intelligence and National Security 27, no. 1(November): 154-156.
Puyvelde, Damien. 2013. “Intelligence Accountability and the role of public interest groups in the United States.” Intelligence and National Security 28, no. 2 (May): 139-158.
Warner, Michael. 2012. “Reflections on Technology and Intelligence Systems.” Intelligence and National Security 27, no. 1 (July): 133-153.