There was little I disagreed with in President Bush's speech to the nation Thursday night.
He was every bit as forceful, understanding, firm and committed as he needed to be, and it showed. As speeches go, it was a great one. As presidents go, Mr. Bush is – I believe – on his way to greatness. It's just a shame that – as has happened so often in the past – another president's greatness will be measured against his action and reaction to a national tragedy.
About the only thing I found bothersome was his creation of a new federal agency – this one formed to address homeland security.
This bothers me because, you see, there are already a number of federal agencies that were supposed to be doing this. The FBI primarily, but also the U.S. Border Patrol, Coast Guard and Immigration and Naturalization Service have all been tasked with enhancing sometimes different, sometimes overlapping, areas of domestic security.
So, what makes us think this new Homeland Security Agency will prove more successful?
Will liberal politicians and politically correct policies hamper homeland security, as they have hampered the abilities of these other agencies? That depends on the American people.
For instance, we are responsible for electing politicians who refuse to let the INS weed out unwanted immigrants, including those with criminal backgrounds and the inability even to read or speak English.
We are responsible for electing politicians who refuse to put the U.S. military on our borders and instead pretend that a few thousand dedicated but overwhelmed Border Patrol officers can effectively protect our borders.
We are responsible for electing politicians who allow the FBI to commit serial mistakes and investigative lapses without holding its own agents and directors to account.
We are responsible for electing politicians who cut Coast Guard funding so badly that it cannot afford to put fuel in its rescue helicopters, surveillance aircraft and patrol boats. We are also responsible for electing leaders who are ignorant enough to believe we even need a "Coast Guard" when we have a vast navy far better equipped and much more capable of defending our nautical borders.
So you see, I'm just a little bit skeptical about the creation of yet another Cabinet-level federal agency that is supposed to be responsible for domestic security. While Gov. Tom Ridge and his subordinates may make a good show of things right off the bat, what is to become of this agency in the years ahead, when the urgency of last week's attacks has long passed? Will this agency simply become just another taxpayer burden, a political football for our leaders, or another paper tiger?
If history is any guide, the answer is yes.
The plan is to have existing federal agencies report directly to the homeland security agency, which will then "coordinate" security efforts, responses to attacks, and – ostensibly – domestic intelligence efforts. But this is a stereotypical, textbook bureaucratic response to a crisis.
Has the president solved our domestic security problem, or made it worse by making the process of enhancing security more cumbersome, expensive, time-consuming and, well, bureaucratic?
We'll have to see what the future has in store for us. However, if we make the process of homeland security bureaucratic then, by definition, it won't be efficient. I applaud and share the president's resolve following last week's attacks, but I'm not sure another federal agency is the solution.