Would you argue that the current alphabet soup and its excessive redundancy across departments, functions and budgets was in any way at all "forming into teams?" Not even close. I know very little about what Bush said at this point and I am extremely suspicious of large governemnt, but if this actually allows us to cut some fat, remove some bureacracy, eliminate redundancy and creat more efficiency, than it would seem that this plan just MIGHT actually have a prayer's chance of taking the current mess and "forming a team." I do not see where your analogy can even be remotely close to a realistic assessment, given the current size, scope and complexity of the Federal Govt., which was becoming more complex daily as opposed to beginning to "form a team."
a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress...
For example, it is probably a good thing humans have two kidneys.
In the case of government, redundancy frequently results in rivalry. Admittedly, rivalry can get in the way of competing agencies performing their duties. That is a good thing, when their duties injure liberty. When their duties are beneficial to liberty, rivalry helps them stay true to their duty. Each rival helps keeps the others honest.
As is usual in most things, it is a trade-off, and the optimal amount of redundancy should be carefully sought.