Absolutely. The gist of my post was that there is no need for a new executive department. We are a nation at war, and as such, the DoD should have primacy. The mistake we have made, especially under clintler, is to treat terrorist acts in the same manner we treat graffiti...basically as an act of vandalism on a large scale. Treat it as an act of war, and respond in kind! The DoD and subordinate agencies can, IMHO, act both Constitutionally, and on American soil (ergo my references to 1812, etc.) at the same time, despite what others may say. Treat the whole thing as a military op, which it rightly is...civil LE, (FBI, INS, etc.) will have their role to play, but in this case it needs to be in a subordinate, and supporting role to the DoD; much was it was in WWII (at that time the Department of War), despite the seemingly overwhelming power held by J.E. Hoover in that era.
I would also, as a corrolary, revive and revitalize a CD (Civil Defense) component, not the, "rat on your neighbor," program suggested in past months, but an honest effort to involve civilians in the effort to thwart enemy activities against the U.S. populace and property.
BTW, good job!
To fine-tune your idea just a bit: redesignate the DoD as the War Department, as it once was, with warfighting and military responsibilities abroad as its brief...and designate those portions of the executive branch responsible for military security and defence here at home as the *Defense Department,* to include Civil Defense and Border Security operational activities outside the scope of law enforcement activity.
Congress and the White House wanted to improve communication and coordination of some 22 separate security programs and agencies by combining them into one. Whether these 22 programs and agencies should have existed in the first place is no longer a question since we are at war.