By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The temporary closure of El Paso airspace was reportedly due to the Pentagon’s planned testing of a laser intended to counter drones utilized by Mexican drug cartels. This initiative caused friction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which prioritized commercial air safety and sought coordination with the Department of Defense. Despite scheduled discussions, the Pentagon proceeded with its plans, leading the FAA to shut down the airspace, causing significant disruption and confusion for travelers and local officials alike. Mexican officials have stated they have no information regarding the drone use and are seeking clarification on the incident.
Read the original article here
It appears that a plan spearheaded by Pete Hegseth to test anti-cartel lasers resulted in a complete shutdown of the El Paso airport for a full day, according to reports. This significant disruption, affecting thousands of travelers, seems to have stemmed from a decision to test sensitive new technology in a highly unconventional and impactful location. The situation has raised numerous questions about the judgment and planning involved, particularly concerning the choice of testing site and the potential consequences for civilian air traffic.
The initial understanding was that the airport closure was to address a serious national security threat, specifically the potential incursion of cartel drones. However, the narrative has reportedly shifted, with subsequent information suggesting that the perceived threat might have been something as innocuous as a rogue party balloon. This evolution of the explanation has fueled confusion and skepticism regarding the true nature of the event and the rationale behind such an extreme measure as an airport closure.
The idea of using anti-cartel lasers, while seemingly aimed at a pressing issue at the border, has also drawn considerable commentary. There’s a prevailing sentiment that such advanced weaponry should be tested in designated, remote military facilities rather than near a major civilian airport. The notion of developing and deploying such technology outside of established testing grounds raises concerns about oversight, safety, and operational security, especially when it directly impacts public infrastructure and travel.
Furthermore, the effectiveness and actual purpose behind such a dramatic demonstration are being questioned. The concern is that by publicly testing these anti-cartel lasers, even for a perceived threat, the operation inadvertently reveals sensitive technological capabilities to potential adversaries like drug cartels. This could allow them to adapt their tactics, potentially rendering the very technology being tested less effective in the future, undermining the intended security benefit.
The logistical and financial implications of shutting down an international airport for an entire day are substantial. Reports indicate that thousands of people had their travel plans disrupted, leading to significant inconvenience and potential economic losses. The decision to proceed with such a disruptive test, especially when alternatives like remote military bases exist, appears to be a point of major contention and criticism.
The juxtaposition of a supposed high-stakes national security test with the possibility that the target was merely a party balloon has led to widespread incredulity. This discrepancy has fueled perceptions of incompetence and a lack of proper vetting or judgment in the execution of the plan. The suggestion that the event was perhaps conceived in a less-than-serious environment, like a casual discussion among influencers, further amplifies the critique of how such critical decisions are being made.
There’s also a broader commentary on the overall approach to border security and the drug trade. Some argue that focusing solely on technological solutions like lasers, without addressing the underlying demand for drugs and the socio-economic factors that contribute to cartel operations, is a flawed strategy. The resilience of drug supply chains, even in the face of government disruption, is highlighted as evidence that more comprehensive solutions are needed.
The notion of employing what’s described as “sharks with friggin laser beams” also points to a more whimsical, almost cartoonish, perception of the technology being discussed. This imagery, however bizarre, underscores the public’s confusion and concern about the seriousness and practicality of the proposed anti-cartel measures being tested in such a public and disruptive manner.
Ultimately, the incident surrounding Pete Hegseth’s alleged plan to test anti-cartel lasers at the El Paso airport paints a picture of a decision-making process that has raised serious concerns about judgment, coordination, and the responsible use of public resources and infrastructure. The disruption to thousands of travelers and the questions surrounding the actual threat and the choice of testing location suggest a need for greater transparency and a more strategic approach to national security testing.