An $850 Million Mistake

In 2006, when the Bush administration authorized the project, it was a $4.4 billion effort to create a "virtual" wall – technologically at the cutting edge – across substantial portions of the two thousand plus mile section of our border with Mexico. 600 miles of this length is covered by a physical fence, but the legislation that gave rise to the funding – the Secure Border Initiative – was based significantly on the assumption that detection technology (labeled, appropriately, SBInet) would be a vastly more effective solution to illegal border crossing. The SBInet efforts started with a 53 mile stretch, and Boeing was the main contractor engaged to build this "invisible fence" with all of its tracking and targeting systems, intrusion identification and location software and sophisticated electronics and optics that no smuggler or trafficking coyote could penetrate.

So far, Boeing has invoiced Homeland Security $850 million for a system that not only has missed almost every production and deployment deadline… by miles… but simply doesn't work. Somehow, in this rugged terrain, the brains forgot to factor in such obvious factors as high winds and tumbleweeds. The super-expensive cameras, motion/vibration detectors and radar simply failed to discern between these natural phenomena and people. On September 31, Homeland Security elected not to extend Boeing's contract to the next phase. Insert: pictures of frowning Border Patrol officers. "Some of the technology, such as remote cameras, night-vision video and mobile surveillance, is being used by agents in the Arizona test areas, which see a high level of cross-border traffic. But the effectiveness is far from what was requested by Homeland Security officials and promised by Boeing when the project began… Daytime cameras are able to monitor only half of the distance expected. Ground sensors can identify off-road vehicles, but not humans, as initially envisioned by the government." Los Angeles Times, October 22^nd. Oh, and the incredible computer interface between agents in the field and detection technology didn't take into consideration the transmission "dead zones" where contact was difficult or impossible to maintain.

What's the official reaction? "Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler would only say that a new way forward for the program 'is expected shortly.' [Du'oh!]… But given that the virtual fence has yet to pass muster even in the 53-mile test area — two sections in Arizona that officials acknowledge won't be fully operational until 2013 — and the government's lack of interest in extending Boeing's contract, most do not expect the department to invest billions more in a project that has continually disappointed… Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he hoped Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would act soon. 'The program is headed in the wrong direction,' Thompson said… 'It would be a great shame to scrap SBInet,' said Rep. Michael McCaul (R- Texas), who has encouraged the department to bring to the Southwest the technology the U.S. military is using on the Afghanistan- Pakistan border. 'Technology is key to solving these border issues.'" Los Angeles Times. Yup, I'm sure it is, but why in hell do we have to spend so much money to fail?

We seem to have a bad habit of not taking the obvious into consideration when we greenlight expensive new technologies. Back when the crudely built AK-47 assault rifle was decimating our "superior firepower" in Vietnam, the Army rushed the AR-15 assault rifle into service (under the M-16 moniker), spending millions, to be deployed in muddy and rainy jungle, without adjusting to these conditions; while they saved a ton on chrome and higher level finishes, the soldiers who died because their guns rusted or jammed paid the price for this military folly. And yes, the later versions of the M-16 were adjusted for this combat reality. And also yes, technology is the solution to our border issues, but why do sophisticated scientists have to spend so much money to discover such simple truths? There really has to be a better way, and it is clear that the U.S. is no longer able to afford such expensive failed experiments.

I'm Peter Dekom, and I am thinking of so many better uses for that $850 million.