Of all of the public functions within American governance, the notion of “security” arguably commands the greatest focus. A large part of our identity is military might, and that in no small part is due to the military conflicts that we have been victorious in that have shaped our global landscape. These notably include World Wars I, II and the Cold War, which crowned us as the lone global superpower. But they also include the cloak and dagger operations we’ve conducted in secret to further our agendas, operations that as we saw earlier, are not always in our long-term best interests.
Yet as security and military might are large parts of our identity, they are also large parts of our spending. Today, the fortunes we spend on security, war and defense rank higher than any other single focus of our nation and surpass the military spending of the next 10 nations combined.
Beyond causing other national priorities to fall by the wayside, as we have seen time again this expenditure does not necessarily make us safer – nor is it intended to. Rather, it’s often intended to satisfy political promises so that private industries can continue to make money from war profiteering. (Note: the figures cited in this cartoon are for satire; actual military armaments differ).
As a result of this, we end up spending a tremendous amount of money on security and military equipment – but we don’t necessarily get a good deal for it in the end. We become the world’s policeman. We have hundreds of expensive military bases overseas. We maintain an immense global surveillance dragnet. And we conduct secret foreign operations in less-than-good faith, which ultimately sends more enemies our way that our corrupted leadership can use to then justify us buying more weapons to maintain this cycle of conflict and death.
The Alliance Party is not interested in maintaining this cycle. This cycle needs to end, and thus the Alliance Party seeks to shape our security footing towards actual security, not a security-industrial complex. Security is of course important; we all need to feel safe, and nobody should be made to worry about our nation’s physical or economic security being placed at risk by hostile actors. But a bloated and wasteful military establishment structured in favor of buying expensive war machines does not necessarily derive this end, and this is a perspective we seek to re-establish within the national mindset.
As with the underperforming nature of bureaucratic agency today, a failure in the performance of a system is commonly due to the way the system is structured. Our security establishment, objectively, maintains many of the arbitrary contrivances of federal bureaucracy, and could thus benefit from a structure that is designed to minimize infighting and redundancy while maximizing efficiency.
Mindful of this, the Alliance Party proposes an overhaul of our security establishment through three functions within the Office of Security.
Office of Security
In this model, the Office of Security is the overarching parent for all security, defense and wartime functions of government. Yet its proposed structure is more than just a consolidation and reorganization of bureaucratic agency, as it operates on a significantly different mindset than what we maintain presently.
This shift is based on four components:
- As the root cause of large scale conflict is resource scarcity and the economic damage caused as a result, Universal Energy will dramatically mitigate the occurrence of conflict worldwide.
- Yet with that said, even in a world powered by Universal Energy and spared of the root causes of international conflict, there still will always remain a risk that malevolent actors will seek to further their aims through violence. Even if this doesn’t occur as direct functions of state, it stands to continue through global terrorist networks funded through illicit activity. Therefore, our ability to stop legitimately violent and destructive actors through hard power, and stop them decisively, is of critical importance.
- In an ever-changing world, the lines between national security and law enforcement have been blurred. Moreover, the agencies tasked with ensuring both perform their functions through increasingly militarized approaches, expanding the definition of “terrorism” to include other less-serious crimes.
At the federal level today, the same agency that investigates child pornography is the same that is tasked with preventing terrorists from blowing up buildings – and that might not necessarily be in the best interests of our society. While consolidation of functions to prevent waste is essential in high-performing systems, this model concludes that the importance of stopping violent actors seeking mass carnage warrants a dedicated Service.
- The United States military, by far the most powerful in the world, is primarily a foreign-facing entity that engages enemies on foreign soil. Yet at the same time, it is structured within the Department of Defense, even though little of what it does is strictly defensive, as the United States has not faced the need to defend the mainland from an invading army since 1815 and not from an assault force since 1945.
And while foreign military action arguably translates to the defense of our country in effect (and arguably doesn’t), this model holds that the military should be viewed through the offensive, war-fighting nature of its functions, leaving domestic defense to entities dedicated to that purpose.
With these points in mind, the Office of Security maintains three unique Services to provide national security: the Federal Security Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of War, elaborated as follows:
Federal Security Service
In this model, the Federal Security Service is a dedicated Service tasked with ensuring domestic security, absorbing the Department of Homeland Security, NSA and all other domestic intelligence organizations into a single, consolidated entity. It coordinates with the Foreign Intelligence Service to detect and monitor threats to the interior of the country, including terrorism, foreign espionage, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, etc., and shares jurisdiction alongside the FBI for these crimes.
Additionally, it conducts signals intelligence and cryptanalysis where permitted by law and where warrants for roving surveillance are issued as a result of ongoing federal investigations. That this agency is dedicated exclusively to investigating large scale threats to national security, yet shares jurisdiction with the FBI, is a point warranting special mention. Much of this model is focused on reducing redundancy whenever possible, but maintaining overlap between these two functions is intentional, as ensuring national security by combating large scale threats is of extra-high importance. Having two entities that work simultaneously within this area allows for greater resource sharing, with the Federal Security Service’s signals intelligence functions and FBI’s law enforcement functions being freely coordinated between both Services.
This creates a conceptual triad for national security: dedicated federal law enforcement through the FBI – which also performs an auxiliary security service. A dedicated security function through the Federal Security Service, which also handles cybercrime, cryptanalysis and signals intelligence. And a foreign-facing investigative function through the Foreign Intelligence Service, which directly feeds information to the FBI and FSS.
In this structure, these functions interoperate more fluidly and can sort through information much faster than a disparate network of entities. As with the football analogy in Chapter 16, the quarterback can throw easier to two dedicated receivers that play on the same team than an arbitrary collection of players with overlapping roles that don’t necessarily play well together. This structure works to ensure a higher performing team, that under oversight from both Congress and the Government Accountability Agency, would be a team better refereed that would thus enjoy greater trust and support from the public.