Role of DHS to Enhance Special Operations Force Structure - Essay Example

Deconfliction is an important aspect to be careful about especially in areas of overlapping responsibility to prevent law enforcing agencies from mistakably disrupting operations. Components of DHS also included joint operations as a means to integrate federal border security efforts. The 9/11 commission has extensively stressed on the intensive collaboration with international partners, also increasing enforcement though joint efforts in the state, local and federal affairs. DHS components developed joint operations for time related surge operations in air, maritime and land border security.

In order to check vulnerabilities related to insufficient staff, the officials have issued a three year grant to tribal nations/states and also the local governments have also been included to augment Border patrolling personnel and resources to offer security which benefited all sectors. For example, the joint operation outlook for the purpose of border security has resulted in the better understanding of partner capabilities. In 2007, in the Blaine sector with the joint operation, eight illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States were detained.

The partners involved in the operation were DHS components including Border Patroling and ICE, while others included DoD, state and local law enforcement entities (Stana, 2011, p 15-20). Similarities between force structure of Israel, Great Britain and the United States Counter-terrorism has been designated USSCOM’s primary core task which involves the reducing the probable features of a successful terrorist attack (Groover, 2004, p12; SOF Reference Manual, 1999).The influence of the diplomatic efforts of treaties and policies will be evaluated in the light of on how the ability of land forces has defined to fulfill the nation’s global challenges.

Naval and air power have historically played an important role mainly in the defense policies of Great Britain in the past and the United States at present. Research suggests that Great Britain’s experience have been used by the United States to quantify historical significance on this aspect of the study (Sevcik, 2001, p2). Israel Defense Forces (IDF) similarly demonstrates the conventional military capability, coupled with nuclear weapons that are likely to deter any state to launch conventional campaign against them.

Therefore, the most striking similarity in the structural features of the military forces between Israel, Great Britain and the USA is the use of high-intensity war equipments. Predicting the mode of future warfare is incredibly a difficult task but the general themes from the past and the present can definitely contribute to its theoretical content on the aspect of warfare relevance in the future. The future for all the three nations, namely Britain, Israel and the United States encompasses conventional wars of high-intensity.

Predictions for the future war will mean nothing at all if the force structure of the concerned state is not able to deal with the specialized needs of conflict (Martson, n.d. pp.1-4). Unique characteristics of SOF and Counter terror forces as compared to conventional mili