Although the rationale behind the formation of the department of Homeland security was a noble one: to protect the United States and its citizens from terrorist attack, and the report brings to light some significant factors and justification for the establishment of the department, it failed in one respect: provision of specific, concrete examples. The picture painted of the department is a very positive one, which fails to incorporate the recent developments in terms of corruption and waste the department has been dogged by.
According to a report, as of September 2008, the Department of Homeland Security oversaw no less than $15 Billion in failed contracts – showing a huge lag in its management. Contracts ranging from the provision of airport baggage screening equipment to trailers for effected of the victims of hurricane Katrina are included – with the citizens of the nation having to foot the enormous bill as taxes.The truth of the matter is that behind the noble facade of the rationale of the formation of the department, ugly utilitarian motives lurk; most that make permissible otherwise illegal persecution. Consider the War on Iraq and the Afghanistan conflict. The U. S.
callously entered the so-called Wars in attempt to protect “U. S. interests and those of the nations of the two countries” in question. But has it done so? No! The wars have brought about destruction on a massive scale, wide-spread dislocation, distrust, given birth to a host of new problems.
As have the myriad of “defence” policies that have been put in place. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon – mankind has had to counter its effects since time immemorial. Policies, no matter how stringent, will not be successful in countering that – crime will still continue – that is just human nature. As for regarding the Department of Homeland Security: if the U. S.
had the interest of the people of the nation in mind, something positive should have come from their meddling by now.It has been eight years since the previous President Bush declared his attack on terrorists, and all that has come about since then has been a phenomenally high rate of collateral damage, billions of dollars spent in tax payer money, which could have better been utilized in other areas that could have contributed directly to the well-being of the society, and the deaths of soldiers, who have been exploited too and their patriotism is put to the test during the war.Many veterans have mental problems, and others still have deep, psychological scars as a direct result of the utilitarian principles of the U. S.
government. It is a well known fact that the true reason behind many of the policies and the illegal detention and wars encouraged by the department and the U. S. government in general was to gain an advantage by having an easier access to the rich oil and mineral resources of Iraq and Afghanistan.Tax payer dollars that have been spent to fund the wars and the policies are thought to be one of the main contributors to the current bleak state of the U. S.
economy. The selfish motives of a few individuals brought wide-spread havoc to the world in general. The wars have been nothing but complete failures on all angles – ethically, politically and socially, and the precedent set by the U. S. by continuing with their utilitarian approach is going to breed a world where other nations, like the next superpowers India and China, will disregard the laws set by global governing bodies, such as the UN, and take matters in their own hands.
What is the difference between such governmental policies and anarchy? Nothing. If nations, and individuals begin to take the law in their own hands, it won’t be long before we take up arms against each other, and man kills man – breaking into a global war, with no ends in sight, nor an arbitrator.Its about time the government sit up and pay attention and weigh the pros and cons of their decisions, and reach a step that will promote the betterment of humanity as a whole, and not only that of a single group of people. The bigger picture should be kept in mind – what is the point of fighting for oil for our future if we will not have a future to look forward to in the first place? The article, although enlightening, fails to address whether or not the Department has been successful – that is my main critique of it.
