Selil,
Some quick thoughts:

Your thesis starts pits the "nation-state" against a non-state actors. If you re-examine your starting point, you'll probably find some new paths. First, I'd suggest looking at Bobbitt's etymology of states (particularly, state-nation, nation-state, market-state). Then, I'd suggest looking at what binds the non-state actors your particularly interested in and I think you'll find an "imagined community" that binds them together. In other words, you'll find a nationalism of a different sort than we are comfortable with thinking of it. Then, what are you left with? Is it Weber's bureacracy-based definition that a state is state if it has a monopoly of force within its territory? Third, define homeland security in modern globalization where a flippant remark by a Chinese finance minister can cause more finanicial damage to the U.S. than a VBIED or even a series of IEDs.

How do the goals of each come into conflict? Don't get buried in the tactical if you want to look at rational (rational to the actor, not yours, which means looking at justification as well, perhaps Jurgensmeyer's Terror in the Mind of God, among other) actors. What does the NSA aspire to? Do the members really know or are following Gramscian leadership for personal gain?

Just some quick thoughts....