Well, well, well, lookie at what I dug up (RAND corp and Homeland....)

[The Straight Story]

Here is a thread I posted some time ago about where the term 'homeland' came from:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x743946

Initially, defense officials dubbed the overall program "homeland
defense," then acknowledge this could create a misperception of an
implied military takeover, Berkowsky said. Defense officials recently
changed the program name to "civil support" which "conveys much more of
the role that we legitimately have in this regard," she said.

This was back in the 90's the govt doc referencing this is here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2000/n01132000_20001133.html

Let's look some more:

RAND Corp, 1999:
This report addresses the many conceptual, programmatic, and
practical issues associated with an emergent mission area for the
U.S. Army and Department of Defense (DoD) called “homeland
security” (until recently the mission was known as “homeland
defense”).

At the most basic level, the report seeks to provide Army and other
DoD audiences with an introduction to, and overview of, four of the
five homeland security task areas,1 and the various organizations at
the federal, state, and local level that the Army and DoD may need to
interface with under different circumstances. More ambitiously, it
seeks to define homeland security in a concrete way and to provide
the necessary background and conceptual and analytic constructs
for wrestling with the key issues and choices the Army will face as the
mission area matures.

The research reported here was initiated as homeland security was
emerging as an issue of policy concern and was conducted during
Fiscal Year 1999, a year in which the Army and Department of
Defense considered but had not yet resolved many key homeland
security–related issues. These include a definition of homeland
security, the key task areas that constitute homeland security, and
the programs and capabilities needed to respond to these various
threats. In a similar vein, the broader federal government enacted or

From the Preface of this book:
Preparing the U.S. Army for Homeland Security: Concepts, Issues, and Options
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1251/index.html

From Chapter 2:

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
The fundamental justification and broader context for homeland
security activities can be found in the Preamble; Article I, Section 8;
and Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States.
The Preamble includes the basic “insure domestic tranquility” and
“provide for the common defense” justifications:

Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity.

Article I, Section 8, elaborates on the circumstances in which the
military might be domestically employed:

Congress shall have Power . . . to provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel
Invasions.

And Article IV, Section 4, expands on this authority:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them . . .
against domestic Violence.

Federal laws provide the specific mechanisms for federal (including
military) support to civil authorities, particularly in the context of
“civil emergencies”:

The modern authorization for Federal support to civil authorities is
based on the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288) and the Economy Act. The former
enables the Federal Government to “provide assistance to U.S.
states, territories, and possessions to alleviate suffering and mitigate
damage resulting from major disasters and civil emergencies.” The
latter empowers Federal agencies to provide routine support to
each other under certain conditions if reimbursed. (Grange and
Johnson, 1997.)

Homeland security activities are even more apparent in the warrant
given the Department of Defense (DoD):


Much more in that one book, but for fun, here is a search of their website for homeland:
http://www.google.com/search?hs=NPC&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=homeland+site%3Arand.org&btnG=Search


The book:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1251/index.html


Preface PDF

Figures PDF

Tables PDF

Summary PDF

Acknowledgments PDF

Abbreviations PDF

Chapter One:
Introduction PDF

Chapter Two:
Understanding Homeland Security PDF

Chapter Three:
Analytic Framework PDF

Chapter Four:
Protecting Americans at Home: WMD Domestic Preparedness and Civil Support PDF

Chapter Five:
Ensuring Constitutional Authority: Continuity of Government PDF

Chapter Six:
Ensuring Military Capability: Continuity of Operations PDF

Chapter Seven:
Protecting Sovereignty: Border and Coastal Defense PDF

Chapter Eight:
Illustrative Planning Vignettes PDF

Chapter Nine:
Analysis of Army DOTLMS PDF

Chapter Ten:
Options, Recommendations, and Conclusions PDF

Appendix A:
Considering Threat Campaigns PDF

Appendix B:
A Notional WMD CST Trade-Off Analysis PDF

Appendix C:
Homeland Security DOD Directives PDF

Appendix D:
Overview of the Posse Comitatus Act PDF

Appendix E:
Threat Findings of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act PDF

Appendix F:
State and Local Domestic Preparedness Needs PDF

Appendix G:
The Federal Response Plan and Terrorism Incident Annex PDF

Appendix H:
Army Domestic Preparedness Training Activities PDF

Chapter I:
Army Mission-Critical Facilities and Systems PDF

Appendix J:
Recommendations of the Defense Science Board PDF

Appendix K:
Recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection PDF

Appendix L:
The Federal Program to Combat Terrorism and WMD PDF

Appendix M:
Notional GPRA Measures of Performance PDF

Bibliography PDF



Will add more as able to later as I keep digging....

[The Straight Story]

1. More info:

Since the September 11 attacks, however, the definition of homeland
security has been revised to include “the prevention, preemption,
and deterrence of, and defense against aggression targeted at U.S.
territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure, as
well as the management of the consequences of such aggression; and
other domestic civil support.”3 As Secretary of the Army Thomas
White stated to Congress, this construct of homeland security
“includes two simultaneous and mutually supporting functions”:
homeland defense and civil support.4 Homeland defense includes
the protection of U.S. territory, domestic population, and critical
infrastructure against military or foreign terrorist attacks; civil support
involves all DoD support to civil authorities for natural and
manmade domestic emergencies, civil disturbances, and designated
law enforcement efforts.

It is incorrect to assume that an act of terrorism inside the United
States, for which the FBI and FEMA each has significant responsibilities,
necessarily means that DoD, and hence the Army, will have only
an inconsequential role. Nor does it follow that the military will be
called upon only when civil capabilities are overwhelmed. As it
applies to terrorist attacks inside the United States, any definition
must be broad enough to include all potential military activities to
support civil authorities for either prevention or response, “crisis” or
“consequence” management. The current definition appears robust
enough to encompass all possible missions the Army may be assigned
within the borders of the United States.

Whether the task is labeled “homeland defense” or “civil support,” it
is clear that the military may be the only organization within the U.S.
government that has the capability to provide rapid and large-scale
assistance in the early stages of a major disaster. Therefore, as planners
examine potential future threats, and the realities of asymmetric
warfare, it is useful to thoroughly review existing policies, procedures,
operational concepts, command and control structures, force
structure, force sizing, and doctrine to ensure that the United States
is prepared to meet new and emerging threats.5


www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1490/MR1490.pdf

[tanyev]

2. Good info. Just this afternoon I heard some newscaster off-handedly

refer to the homeland. It still gives me the shivers. I don't understand how that word came to such common usage with barely anyone giving it a second thought.

[The Straight Story]

3. Me either, but seems it was picked up by usage in defense circles

and while rejected under clinton, bush sucked it up like cocaine.

[The Straight Story]

4. kick for the night crowd (nt)

[Jcrowley]

5. Thanks

K&R