Mickey Kaus objects to the term Homeland Security. So do I, for all the same reasons. It's been creeping me out ever since we first created the position (and not just because we put Tom Ridge in charge of it...).

As a solution, he has another suggestion, which is interesting, but has a few loose ends. He wants to call it instead the Department of Defense, and to rename the Department that currently holds that name back to the Department of War.

It would be kind of confusing, especially after all these years, to move a name from one department to another. I'm not sure there's any precedent for it.

But it also begs all kinds of questions. Would missile defense, which is currently being managed by the Department of Defense, which would become the Department of War, move over to the new Department of Defense? If so, what else would? Would it depend on the nature of the hardware, or where it was deployed? For example, would an anti-aircraft battery based in New York be part of the DoD, but one based in Kabul be managed by the DoW?

As I understand it the department of defense actually was the combination of the "department of war" (Army/Army Air Corp) and the "department of navy"(Navy/Marines) after WW2.

I think the division of labor is pretty clear:

Department of Defense: Intelligence and border controls, including immigration. Intelligence section is fed by and feeds CIA, FBI, and military intelligence units. Charged with controlling who gets into US territory and detecting attacks.

Department of War: Military weapons and force.

If the DoD uncovers a plot being run by people inside the US, they feed the information to the FBI. If they uncover a plot being run outside the US, they feed to the DoW.

Getting bureaucrats to actually cooperate that well, however, will require a miracle.

That breakdown still doesn't deal with the missile defense question.

"That breakdown still doesn't deal with the missile defense question."

Of course it does:

"Department of War: Military weapons and force."

So, I go back to my question. Does that apply even if the force is based in the "homeland"? For instance, anti-aircraft batteries in Nebraska? Those clearly aren't for the purpose of making war.

More important than actual reality is the tone created by the title: "Homeland Defense" is atavistic, oddly Germanic, and conjures pictures of men in helmets with horns gurading the coastlines with spears.

Oh, I see Mickey used the German part, hadn't read it yet - swear. But he says it's too new - it's way way too old.

Vaterlandsekuritätsbüro...?

Robert's breakdown works.

Missile defense is inseperable from the space superority mission. The latter is clearly a military mission.

However much the Democrats and the Fighter Pilot Mafia in the USAF wishes it were different.

.