Does the DHS Need Terrorism to Justify Its Existence?
This paper examines whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in the aftermath of 9/11, requires a persistent terrorism threat to justify its continued existence. Drawing on the concept of "inverted totalitarianism," the paper argues that the DHS — much like the military-industrial complex — depends on an existential threat narrative to sustain itself and direct billions in taxpayer funds toward defense contractors and government programs. The paper analyzes the DHS's National Threat Advisory System, documented cases of grant money waste, and the rise of domestic violence and homegrown terrorism as new justifications for the agency's mandate. It evaluates counter-arguments regarding the DHS's legitimate functions before concluding that meaningful accountability and transparency reforms are necessary regardless of whether the terrorism threat diminishes.
- Introduction: Hypothesis and thesis on DHS and terrorism
- Background: The Post-9/11 Security Landscape: DHS origins and intelligence community role post-9/11
- Analysis: The Counterterrorism Industry and DHS: DHS funding, threat advisory system, and fear culture
- Counter-Arguments and Rebuttals: DHS merits challenged by evidence of grant waste
- The DHS, Domestic Terrorism, and Accountability: Domestic attacks and DHS mandate justification failures
- Conclusion: Reform needs and unanswered security questions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a clearly stated hypothesis and thesis, giving the reader a precise roadmap for the argument before analysis begins.
- It structures the argument dialectically — presenting a counter-argument, rebutting it, then presenting a second counter-argument and rebutting that — which demonstrates engagement with opposing viewpoints rather than ignoring them.
- Concrete, specific examples of DHS grant waste (with dollar amounts, locations, and years) lend empirical credibility to an otherwise theoretical critique.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses the structured counter-argument/rebuttal format to build a persuasive policy argument. By anticipating and directly engaging objections — such as DHS's role in FEMA and border security — the author demonstrates intellectual honesty while systematically narrowing the space for disagreement, a technique well suited to policy analysis essays.
Structure breakdown
The paper moves from introduction (thesis statement) → historical background (post-9/11 context) → primary analysis (counterterrorism industry critique) → two rounds of counter-argument and rebuttal → conclusion (reform recommendations and open questions). This is a six-section dialectical structure common in undergraduate policy and political science writing.
Introduction
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arose from the ashes of the Twin Towers on 9/11 as the federal government's response to the threat of terror. That threat has been represented in a number of incarnations: the Saudi hijackers, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, ISIS, and so on. Today, with ISIS being acknowledged as largely defeated in the Middle East, the new security threat that the U.S. faces is unclear (Cronin, 2015), and the old security threats — the specter of terrorism that continues to rear its head both abroad and domestically — appear to have shifted into new forms. In an ironic twist, Americans themselves appear to be more like homegrown terrorists in their attacks on fellow citizens, whether these attacks are conducted at schools or at social venues where crowds gather for enjoyment. Terrorism and mass killing appears to be the new chosen method of expressing one's own personal jihad on a culture, a group of people, or on a time and place.
The hypothesis of this paper is: If the threat of terrorism goes away, does the need for the Department of Homeland Security also go away, or is the DHS now to be viewed as a permanent feature of the American government? The thesis is: In a nation where "inverted totalitarianism" has been used to describe the governmental system (Atkinson, 2005), Homeland Security needs a foil like terrorism to justify its own existence, and therefore the threat of terrorism must always be acknowledged. This has ramifications for the nature of security management both in the U.S. and abroad, as well as for the culture of today.
Background: The Post-9/11 Security Landscape
A generation raised in the shadow of terrorism is now reaching adulthood, with nearly two decades having passed since 9/11 reshaped the geopolitical orientation of the world. As Bush (2001) declared, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." America's response to 9/11 divided the world into black and white, with leaders having to choose whether they would support America in its war against terrorism or withhold support and be labeled an enemy. Americans were told that the attack had been perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, supported by Hussein in Iraq, and ultimately aided by other leaders of the Arab world — from Gaddafi in Libya to Assad in Syria, Iran, and now Russia — though the intelligence has invariably been wrongfooted in almost every case (Coletta, 2018).
In the midst of this was the DHS, with its own intelligence enterprise "largely 'on the outside of the Intelligence Community with its nose pressed against the glass'" looking in (Murray, 2008). What did it bring to the table that the roughly two dozen other U.S. intelligence agencies lacked? What role could it play in the new war against terrorism? If the CIA, FBI, and various other apparatuses had failed to secure the U.S. on 9/11, how would the DHS — which was essentially cut from the same cloth as the others, just made up of newer members — respond to the challenges when it barely had an invitation to the big table? In order to justify its existence, it would have to demonstrate something in the way of contributing to the war.
References
Atkinson, J. (2005). Towards an understanding about complexities of alternative media: Portrayals of power in alternative media. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6(1), 77–84.
Brittain, V. (2016). The counterterrorism industry. The Political Quarterly, 87(4), 609–611.
Bush, G. (2001). Address to joint session of Congress. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
Coletta, G. (2018). Politicising intelligence: What went wrong with the UK and US assessments on Iraqi WMD in 2002. Journal of Intelligence History, 17(1), 65–78.
Cronin, A. K. (2015). ISIS is not a terrorist group: Why counterterrorism won't stop the latest jihadist threat. Foreign Affairs, 94, 87–98.
Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-homeland-security?detailsDepartmentID=571
Ganderton, P. T., Brookshire, D. S., & Bernknopf, R. L. (2004). Improving the Homeland Security Advisory System: An experimental analysis of threat communication for national security. In The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks, ed. James Elliott Moore.
Gunlock, J. (2009). IWF Policy Brief. Retrieved from
Mantri, G. (2011). Homegrown terrorism. Harvard International Review, 33(1), 88.
Murray, J. (2008). Of note: Is there room in the Intelligence Community for HSINT? SAIS Review of International Affairs, 28(1), 141–143.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.