Mac Thornberry: Congressional Agent of Cultural Change

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) has carved out a reputation in Congress as an innovator on defense and homeland security issues. Along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), Thornberry is the legislative architect of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an idea he readily says he "stole" from a national commission. Dissatisfied with the department's "too slow and fairly disappointing" progress in merging its various agencies into a cohesive whole, Thornberry now is searching for ways to prod DHS to consolidate more quickly. A champion of cultural change in the federal hierarchy, the conservative Republican favors the creation of a sixth military service--this one specializing in space--and an overhaul of the Department of State, which in his view spends more effort on internecine warfare than foreign policy.

Thornberry views weapon procurement as another means of fostering intrinsic change in the Pentagon. He consults frequently with Vice Adm. Arthur K. Cebrowski (Ret.), the Defense Department's designated futurist, and supports Cebrowski's idea for the "cheap, fast space launch of small satellites." He favored the conversion of four Trident submarines to a cruise-missile configuration because they will provide firepower on the cheap. But Thornberry was not unhappy that the concept seemed to unnerve some in the naval leadership.

Thornberry, 45, the scion of a Texas ranching family, was a lawyer and congressional aide before taking on three-term Democratic Rep. Bill Sarpalius in 1994. Shortly before election day, Sarpalius was investigated by the FBI for creative political financing, according to The Almanac of American Politics, and Thornberry won easily. Today, the genial Texan represents a district that covers 40,000 square miles, much of it in the Texas panhandle. He serves on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and chairs its Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and Development. Thornberry also sits on the Armed Services Committee.

How did you become one of the legislative architects of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?

Thornberry: I stole the idea from the [U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century]. We introduced the bill just after the commission report was released in early 2001. I tried to push it for a while without success. Obviously, we got a lot more interest after September 11th.

A major rationale for the creation of DHS was to bring 22 departments under one roof and gain the advantages of their cohesive work. How is DHS doing with the integration of its various parts?

Thornberry: It is way too slow and fairly disappointing at this stage. A lot of that integration has not occurred. Certain people still have the same uniforms and go to work at the same places and have the same computer databases and, I'm told, continue to have separate rules and regulations for how they conduct their work. Part of our job in Congress is to keep pushing and unless we keep pushing, they're not going to integrate themselves the way we in Congress envisioned.

I don't mean to say that it's easy. There is real cultural pain, but that goes with this integration. That's the purpose of the Department. When you talk to business folks who have had to make mergers work, they say you've got to suck it up and get it done quickly. But the plan is to have [most DHS units] integrated into one research and development budget by 2005. That's frustrating to me. The longer you drag it out the more difficult it is, and we are dragging this out way too long.

When you ask why it takes years, what do they tell you?

Thornberry: They are proud of the progress they're making. What I can't forget, in my impatience, is they also have a job to do everyday. There are folks on the border with guns on their hips, and they guard the border every day. And so you can't completely take them out of their job to work your organizational magic on them.

You want somebody to knock a few heads together.

Thornberry: Absolutely. I think that's what it takes.

Is Secretary Tom Ridge the guy to do it?

Thornberry: I don't know, he's the Secretary and it's largely his job and, again, he's got to worry day to day how you keep the country safe. He has a lot on his plate. But it's partly our responsibility. We pass a law that says this is what we're trying to do and it does not happen. So we have to look for ways to make it happen.

Are the American people any safer today than they were on 9/11?

Thornberry: Yes. The biggest factor in our improved measure of safety is increased awareness. Primarily because of all the discussion that's gone on since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. Everybody's more aware. We are really safer in flying on airplanes and a number of other ways. There are some success stories. I'm more optimistic now about cybersecurity. It was a slow start, but now they're getting good people in place.

You give DHS good marks on flight security and better marks on cybersecurity. How about port security?

Thornberry: One gets overwhelmed with the enormity of the challenge; the number of containers and the difficulty. We're somewhat better, but it is such a big challenge. It's so easy to hide things in those cargo containers and there are so many of them that it's a very hard, hard problem. But how does the situation now compare with September 10th, 2001? Obviously, there is a lot more work ... going into how we protect the country in our ports and that's a good thing.

You have criticized the Pentagon over the years for insufficient attention to joint training and operations. We've had two major military operations in recent months. Any progress?

Thornberry: Oh, absolutely. The true jointness of our operations in Afghanistan was a tremendous step ahead of any military efforts before then. The performance in Iraq was probably another step up from that. That doesn't mean we're all the way there yet. We still have stove pipe systems of various kinds. But it is becoming clearer and clearer that there has to be one seamless unit. If you need some firepower, it could come from the Air Force, the Navy, or the Army; whatever is quickest and appropriate. And everybody has to be in complete communication. So, yes, we've made a lot of progress.

What are your feelings about the $87 billion for Iraq?

Thornberry: I supported it and I thought it ought to be in grants, not loans. We need to give Iraq every opportunity to succeed and the Iraqis are suspicious about us wanting to come in and take their oil. To require that they have to pay us back makes it harder to get grants from other countries. But part of me remembers studying what happened after World War I. Enormous reparations had to come out of Germany, and it made it more difficult for their economy to get up and running. It increased the economic stress, and helped lead to chaos and the Nazis. And having been [in Iraq] a couple weekends ago, you really get the sense of how enormous the rebuilding is. Not from the war, but just from the deterioration over many years. They are going to need their oil revenues to rebuild that country for a long time to come.

Defense spending has been going up for a few years. Do you think that should continue and, if so, will it?

Thornberry: It should. The world is getting more dangerous. I think it will go up some; how much is hard to know. If we go for another period of time without attack here at home and things improve in Iraq, it becomes harder to get the political support that you need. People here have other ideas for spending money.

You have said that the way defense funds are spent is at least as important as the dollar amount. How should defense funds be spent to get more value for the dollar?

Thornberry: Civilian personnel reforms have been part of the current defense authorization bill. You have a number of civilian employees that you cannot use effectively because of the Civil Service rules and the union rules. So you bring in the military folks to do those jobs. You have unused capacity over here [civilian employees]! You have over-used capacity over here [military members]! And there is more than one cost to that. So, if you have greater flexibility with your civilian people, you can free up some of the military people and maybe that helps your end-strength. You're getting more for your money. Also, you're using your money smarter if you don't force people to retire at arbitrary times, and if you don't force people to rotate every 18 to 24 months. I believe the most important part of transformation is the people part; the civilian reforms that we're trying to do this year.

And I'm particularly interested in weapon systems that make sense but threaten some existing culture.

That's one of the reasons I got so interested in the SSGN conversion this year. [Four Trident submarines are being converted to SSGN cruise-missile subs.] It seemed to make sense. It wasn't a huge expenditure, but it made a lot of people nervous. The destroyer people got worried about it; the carrier people got worried. But could we go ahead even though it threatens that culture? It seemed pretty clear when you look at the capability it gives you versus the cost.

You have proposed another fundamental change: the creation of a separate space force. Why does the nation need it?

Thornberry: We are already very dependent upon space and that dependency is only going to grow. Space is not the same as air or sea; it is different. The services see space as an enabler for them to do their work, which it certainly is. But they see it only as a tool for their purposes and they kind of want to keep it in its place. As long as the Air Force is running space, you've got budget tension between, for example, a short-range fighter program and a space program. It is appropriate to be looking at separating space [from the existing services] just as it was appropriate at one point to separate the Air Force from the Army. One of the things that I'm paying attention to is a program in the office of [Vice Adm. Cebrowski.] for a cheap, fast space launch of small satellites. It seems it holds a lot of promise, but it is somewhat threatening to some long-standing [Air Force] launch programs.

What you are really after is a change of culture?

Thornberry: Exactly. That's what matters the most.