By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A U.S. military laser mistakenly shot down a Customs and Border Protection drone near the U.S.-Mexico border, prompting additional airspace closures. This incident follows a similar event two weeks prior where CBP used an anti-drone laser without coordinating with the FAA. Lawmakers criticized the administration’s alleged incompetence and failure to improve inter-agency communication regarding drone threats, leading to calls for an investigation into the growing drone dangers.
Read the original article here
The news of the US military employing a laser weapon to take down a drone belonging to another US government agency is, to put it mildly, bewildering and frankly, a bit hilarious. It paints a picture of inter-agency relations that seems less like coordinated efforts and more like a scene from a particularly absurd political satire. The idea of the Department of War, the FAA, and Customs and Border Patrol working together in such a “fashion” is enough to make one question what exactly constitutes collaboration in their playbook.
This incident raises profound questions about the competence and coordination within governmental bodies, particularly when dealing with sophisticated technologies. It’s hard not to imagine that some of the most advanced military systems, built with incredible precision and operated by dedicated personnel, are being directed by individuals who perhaps lack the foresight or understanding to prevent such unfortunate mishaps. The concern is palpable: how do we ensure that these powerful tools, designed for external threats, aren’t accidentally turned inward, leading to “blue on blue” incidents that are not just embarrassing but potentially dangerous?
One can only speculate about the internal discussions and decision-making processes that led to this point. Is this a sign of agencies testing new, experimental weaponry without adequate oversight or communication channels? The notion that such a significant event, involving the deployment of advanced laser technology against a friendly drone, could occur suggests a fundamental breakdown in established protocols. It’s the kind of scenario that would make even the most seasoned satirists pause, wondering if reality had finally outstripped their wildest imaginings.
The underlying theme here is a deep-seated concern about the quality of leadership and decision-making within various US government agencies. When the effectiveness of critical departments is called into question, and when incidents like this occur, it breeds a sense of unease. The worry isn’t just about wasted resources or operational blunders, but about the broader implications for national security and public trust. The thought that such an event might not even be covered up, but rather revealed, adds another layer of absurdity to an already convoluted situation.
From a purely technological standpoint, the event is noteworthy. It demonstrates the potential, and perhaps the early deployment, of directed energy weapons in operational environments. However, the context in which this technology was used – against a friendly asset – overshadows any supposed technological triumph. It raises the unsettling question of whether these advanced capabilities are being wielded with the necessary wisdom and control, or if they are simply being deployed because the toys are available and there’s a perceived need to use them, regardless of the consequences.
This incident, especially when viewed alongside other recent events, contributes to a growing perception of governmental inefficiency and a lack of clear direction. The narrative of agencies working at cross-purposes, or even against each other, erodes confidence in their ability to effectively serve the public and protect national interests. It’s a narrative that suggests a “clown show” atmosphere, where critical decisions are made without the requisite expertise or coordination, leading to outcomes that are not only counterproductive but also deeply concerning for the future.
The effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration has long been a stated goal, particularly with the establishment of bodies designed to foster such communication. When a situation arises where one agency’s drone is targeted by another, it directly contradicts the very purpose of these organizational structures. It begs the question: are these agencies truly talking to each other, or are they operating in silos, leading to potentially catastrophic miscommunications and misapplications of force?
The implications for national security are significant. If internal coordination is so poor that friendly assets are mistaken for threats, it raises serious doubts about the ability to effectively counter actual foreign adversaries. It suggests a level of operational confusion that could be exploited by those seeking to undermine US interests. The waste of taxpayer money on such incidents, coupled with the potential for damage to vital assets, is a stark indicator of systemic issues that demand immediate attention and reform.
Ultimately, this incident serves as a potent, albeit concerning, illustration of the challenges faced when governance and technological deployment are not guided by robust oversight, clear communication, and a profound sense of responsibility. The deployment of advanced weaponry, even in a demonstrative or experimental capacity, requires a level of precision and control that appears to have been sorely lacking in this instance. It’s a situation that prompts a weary sigh and a genuine hope for a return to more competent and coordinated governance.