Jeff Rosen's article reads like a classy judicial review: His opinion (of the DHS) and argument (that DHS's existence be reconsidered) are forthright and sensible. Rosen's logical analysis (including back room antecedents of the DHS), help us to understand the subtle psychology involved in the public's perceptions of whether the agency is effective or not — which, of course, begs the main question. Unless Rosen's choice of Chertoff quotes was restricted (to those only which bolstered his argument), it appears that even the man in charge is tepid about DHS's raison d'étre. Good point using the Tet Offensive as well as citing cost benefit analysis of the agency's efficacy vis-a-vis auto safety — the ol' perception problem often weighs more than undeniable facts. This is journalism (and writing) of the highest quality.