9/11 Pathologies

Throughout the rigmarole of political history of the United States of America, the growth of the “fourth branch of government”, the Bureaucracy, has been a prominent, controversial topic. Peter Woll, in his article “Constitutional Democracy and Bureaucratic Power”, and James Q. Wilson, in his article “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, discuss this developing administrative branch. The Constitution has no written mention of an “administrative branch”, and today’s Bureaucracy is often tedious, corrupt, and even undemocratic. But such a branch’s development and expansion is necessary in order to keep par with an evolving and changing society.

The Federal bureaucracy before 9/11 was nonexistent. The Federal bureaucracy was dealing with foreign rather than domestic threats. The federal bureaucracy was very limited at the, because DHS don’t exist at that time. Since 2001 until now the DHS has improvement a lot from interdepartmental transitioning in find the threat. The federal bureaucracy get all other countries involve in the betterment and transformation to stop any form terroristic threats.

September 11, 2001 forever impacted America and gave a new challenge to our government that went far beyond any challenges that a natural disaster had presented in decades. The terrorist attacks were definitely a wake up call to being more prepared for natural disasters and reevaluating our intelligence agency jobs and communication levels. In chapter 2, one of the key points that Kettl discuss is connecting the dots. We can see that in the midst of 9/11, America focused on the nation’s intelligence services for answers. As the American people we wanted to know, who were the hijackers, where was security and most importantly, and who do we hold accountable? Furthermore, that the intelligence agencies failed to piece together information that already had about terrorism speculations. In chapter 1, Kettl talks about the warnings and signs that the government has before catastrophes (such as September 11, Hurricane

The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were the direct result of the failure of US agencies, ranging from the White House to airport security, to recognize vulnerabilities present in the various symptoms. The reason why these vulnerabilities were not acknowledged and repaired is that these various agencies were trapped in a cognitive dissonance cycle of thinking. After the Cold War, terrorism was seen as a regional problem (9/11 Commission, 92). The majority of terrorist groups were either groups sponsored by governments or militants trying to create governments (i.e. Palestine Liberation Organization). As a result, the tactics used for fighting terrorism were centralized mostly in the Middle East and were restricted to

The history of the bureaucracy dates back to when our country was first founded. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson set the bar for civil service. Washington knew that the people he appointed would be in important governmental positions, so he had to choose wisely. As time passed the system became more corrupted. Andrew Jackson gave government jobs to those who supported his campaign. After Andrew Jackson, the civil war was fought, therefore

As a result, these first two reasons fully reflect the first myth of bureaucracy by Douglas Amy, which seen it as “Immensely Wasteful”.

Prior to September 11, 2001, the government intelligence agencies truly failed. Both the FBI and CIA are to blame because they failed to share the “information that appears relevant to the events of 9/11” (Theoharis and Immerman). Neither agency thought that the information about terrorists that may be in the U.S. is important to act upon or tell the other organization. This led to nothing happening to try

Now that we have reviewed the development of the FBI and the DEA, I will like to finish off with talking about the Department of Homeland Security. In the September 2012 issue of Homeland Security, titled “Past, Present and Future”, author Roger L. Kemp, explains that after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the President, who at the time was George W. Bush, named the head director of Homeland Security eleven days after the attacks. He was not confirmed until January 22, 2003. The main focus of this agency is to protect the country against terrorism and to respond to any future attacks. Then, George W. Bush signed the “Homeland Security Act of 2002” on November 25, 2002.

In accordance with the National Commission which was concerned about inadequate information sharing following 9/11. (Cordner, Scarborough 2010) I believe it's worth noting that across the board the internalized intelligence and lack of transfer of information has led to a lot of pointed fingers from agencies as to whom could have had a better potential of preventing the attacks of 9/11.

The current system in place not allowing the military and intelligence communities to operate together because each are working from different authorities is another fine example of government inefficiency. It is crazy to think two agencies working for the same government cannot operate jointly to fight the same enemy because of micromanagement and bureaucratic roadblocks. It is troubling that in all this time our government has failed to adapt and change since 9/11 and continue to hinder the fight by outdated structure.

We see this with the Department of Homeland Security taking lead on drug reduction and illegal border crossing. Vast amounts of intelligence and manpower are required for an effective homeland security program. Additionally, the crossflow of communication is key in-between the various agencies and departments within the government.

According to George Ritzer, bureaucracy completely dehumanized the social institutions in America. He sees the bureaucracy as having four components: efficiency, predictability, control and quantification. He terms this dehumanization of an institution as "McDonaldization". One of the most prevalent examples in modern society is the health care institution. In the past, health care was more simplistic in nature. House calls were not unheard of, and doctors knew all of their patients and their families on a personal level. The doctor who delivered your parents would deliver you as well as your future children. Follow-ups were quite normal; doctors were concerned with your progress for their own peace of mind. It is only recently that the

The word “bureaucracy” has a negative connotation to many people. The fact is that our current system of government would not be able to survive without bureaucracies. The bureaucracy has become the “fourth branch” of the government, it has quasi-legislative and judicial powers and in it’s own field its authority is rarely challenged. The presence of these large, inefficient structures is necessary if the American people want to continue receiving the benefits that they expect.

Americans depend on government bureaucracies to accomplish most of what we expect from government, and we are oftentimes critical of a bureaucracy’s handling of its responsibilities. Bureaucracy is essential for carrying out the tasks of government. As government bureaucracies grew in the twentieth century, new management techniques sought to promote greater efficiency. The reorganization of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration’s simultaneous push to contract out jobs to private employers raises the question as to whether the government or the private sector can best manage our national security. Ironically, the criticism of the bureaucracy may be a product

Bureaucracy was one of the most popular theories developed and is used in some modern organisations such as the NHS and the Police. Through the years bureaucracy has developed a bad reputation for de-humanizing jobs (Grey, 30) “In the ideal-type, people are no more than parts in a well-oiled machine –devoid of passion, prejudice and personality”, although some people prefer this structure (Handy, 22) “No one, it seems, approves of bureaucracy except, interestingly, lots of people in organisations who like to know where they stand.”