The departure of homeland security adviser Fran Townsend has revived the debate over whether the White House needs a separate Homeland Security Council or if it should be merged with the National Security Council.

Townsend tendered her resignation Monday after more than four years in the White House. She had been homeland security adviser since 2004. While the Bush administration is already moving to find her replacement, homeland security experts said the next president might be better served if the position were eliminated.

“I think that will be a major question for the next administration — whether you have a separate Homeland Security Council and separate National Security Council or not,” said P.J. Crowley, a homeland security expert at the Center for American Progress. “I think that the two are essentially integrated and it doesn’t make sense to have an Iraq policy where you are creating terrorists disconnected from a homeland security policy where you are supposed to be able to defend against them. Certainly there will be someone whose day-to-day job it is to focus on these issues, but I would argue that it should be integrated into the National Security Council.”

David Heyman, a homeland security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed.

“There has been much debate as to whether the homeland security council and national security council should be merged, and I am a big proponent and advocate of it,” said Heyman. “We should abolish the HSC and it should be subsumed by the National Security Council because homeland security is one element amongst many national security policies. I suspect whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, we will probably see something across those lines, but probably not until 2009.”

While the academic crowd is fond of reorganizing things, those who would have to come up with legislation to implement such plans were less enamored of the idea.

Peter T. King of New York, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, characterized the president’s homeland security adviser as a critical position for the nation’s safety.

“This is a very important position,” King said. “Just as the president has a secretary of State and needs a national security adviser, he also needs a Homeland Security secretary and a homeland security adviser.”

Democratic staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee echoed King, making the congressional viewpoint bipartisan.

Townsend told the Associated Press on Monday that she believes the White House needs to continue to have a Homeland Security Council despite the existence of a separate Homeland Security Department.

In the meantime, the position still exists and the White House said it is aiming to name Townsend’s replacement before she leaves office in early January.

With little more than six weeks till Townsend’s departure, only one year until the administration ends and a history of internal appointments, all signs point toward a hire from within the administration.

Joel Bagnal, the deputy assistant to the president for homeland security, is an early frontrunner to replace Townsend. Bagnal was a principal author of the latest National Strategy for Homeland Security, released in October 2007, and he would take on the title of acting homeland security adviser if a replacement is not found by the time Townsend leaves office.

Other candidates could come from within the Department of Homeland Security, the armed forces or state homeland security agencies, but those are less likely, analysts said.

Whoever is hired faces the prospect of being out of work on Jan. 20, 2009, when Bush leaves office, reducing the chances of bringing someone in from the outside.

“The challenge for the administration is that there are homeland security leadership positions and openings not only within the White House, but also within DHS, so there is not a deep bench,” Crowley said.

But the timing of Townsend’s departure could lead to a smoother succession.

“Between Thanksgiving and Christmas is usually a difficult time to get things done in Washington, D.C., so it is a good time for transition and it gives somebody who comes on in January exactly one year to start up and shut down,” Heyman said.

Rob Margetta contributed to this story.

Matthew M. Johnson can be reached at mjohnson@cq.com.