The Clash of Roles
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense (DoD) clash in roles when conducting their national defense duties. In certain ways, the missions collide, as well as the details surrounding the sharing of the submission. Both departments came up with the following resolutions to avoid the problems facing the two arms of defense in their activities. Working in a dynamic world packed with many obstacles is complex. The enemies and the various actors involved, depending on the range of the attack types and the many properties to defend. It is important to conceptually follow the divisions and the abilities used in homeland security. Therefore, the unit needs to select a holistic approach in dealing with insecurity issues as described.
Policies and Organizational Approaches
Information is a very critical tool within the defense departments. Improvements that are more rigorous need to be undertaken concerning information collection, assurance, and information sharing. More importantly, the agencies need to include incentives to enhance information sharing security. Secondly, the organizations need to develop and implement sufficient information sharing tools and capabilities that will improve assurance. The third policy seeks to enhance the information collection abilities in the areas of human intelligence. The approach proposes the mission of information security among the international intelligence to be more proactive and integrated than domestic ones.
Fulfilling the Mandate
Furthermore, the Department of Defense needs to fulfill its mandate in its missions. It is worth noting that the department has complex infrastructure than other defense forces. Therefore, the organization should adopt a systematic approach that will direct their efforts and focus on the inside and outside the fence.
Operational Methods recommended by National Guard for Homeland Defense
According to the variance in the attacks launched in the country, Stringer suggests that the defense departments need to diversify the way of operations in line with the changes. The organizations require a holistic approach that will outdo the challenges of terrain-oriented and real conceptual focus. Stringer suggests that the defense should adopt an elastic defense that will include the abolishment of the perimeter and its surroundings. On the other hand, the defense will focus on the mobility of threats and offer a quick response. The suggestions, however, does not apply to the homeland security considering the number of illegal people crossing the U.S border. The author suggests defense on depth to supplement the self-contained strongholds and mobile forces. The defense on depth will enjoy the advantage of receiving support from self-contained and mobile troops.
Conclusion
In summary, the Department of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security has faced many challenges in dealing with insecurity within the country. Among the problems are the sharing of information on missions. Sometimes the homeland security blames DoD of underperforming. In devising the solutions, the author suggests improvements in information collection, sharing and assurance methods. Operationally, Stringer recommends flexible and self-contained plans to curb the dynamic threats. He argues that when the departments do so, they will enjoy the economy in sharing facilities from flexible and autonomous methods.
References
Stringer, K. D. (2012). Military organizations for homeland defense and smaller-scale contingencies: a comparative approach. Greenwood Publishing Group.
