The surest way to guarantee immortality is to create a bureaucracy. Under the new cabinet-level department proposed by President George Bush, the 170,000 employees from over 100 agencies committed to homeland security would be united under a single government agency. This is a proposal that is both necessary and fraught with possible danger.

Democrats and Republicans alike are in agreement that something must be done to streamline the cumbersome approach to national security. The previous nine months have been rife with revelations of grossly mismanaged and inefficient government agencies hampering efforts to use intelligence and thwart terrorism. However, the answer is not in a speedy and superficial shell game, but in a deliberative and purposive overhaul of all facets of national security.

Simply collecting the agencies and bureaus that are responsible for some aspect of homeland security without scrutinizing their efficacy or worth won’t necessarily provide any substantial change in how security and intelligence are delivered. Without such analysis, the nation will remain vulnerable to the emerging threats made by terrorists around the globe.

Few disagree that our national security approach is still couched in the bipolar world of the Cold War. Certainly a new world order with new threats and new players renders our previous strategy for protection obsolete, leaving our citizens at heightened risk for suffering the unimaginable.

However, the Bush proposal should not be considered the sole route for overhauling the way we keep our nation and citizens safe. Hatched in clandestine inner-circle meetings, the current proposal for a new department has neither been exhaustively researched nor subject to analysis by the many directors, civil servants and congressional committee members who will ultimately legislate and carry out the charge to protect our country.

That President Bush has asked Congress to hastily pass the required legislation before the mid-term elections indicates an unwillingness to carry out sufficient fact-gathering and a despicable belief that the changes must also have a political benefit.

In the years before the new department is running at full speed, the same agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Coast Guard, will be operating per their traditional methods. Their roles in protecting America will not be suspended, but their future roles must be carefully planned.

The terrorist threat to our nation is the most salient issue facing the United States. Equally important, however, is methodically designing a department capable of meeting the challenge of homeland security without merely aggregating existing bureaucracies and perpetuating the mediocrity that endangers our nation.

Editorial Board: Dave Roepke, Erin Randolph, Charlie Weaver, Megan Hinds, Rachel Faber Machacha