House Intelligence Chief Systemically Confused

Recent statements U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), the 26-year veteran of the Border Patrol who has served as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence since January 2007, epitomize why the Democrats now rightly be said to fully own the country’s intelligence and homeland security mess. In the wake of the failed attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound international flight on Dec. 25, Rep. Reyes isn’t taking any responsibility. Asked by the El Paso Times about what President Obama called the "systemic failure" of the intelligence and homeland security apparatus, Reyes obfuscated, hemmed and hawed:

“When the president talks about a systemic failure, I'm assuming he's referring from a holistic point of view, to the whole system of checks that are in place for any airline that is coming to the U.S., or any U.S.-flag aircraft. We've got some work to do to fully understand exactly what happened, how it happened, and how we can correct it.”

What about the problems of sharing and communication among the intelligence agencies he oversees:

“Well, that's really the genesis of what we need to fully understand, how systematically everything works, how it dovetails together so we can get to a point where there's just one system that everyone relies on, one system that everybody feeds information into, one system that everybody depends on and checks for any kind of information….We have to get to a point where there's one central database. We've been working to get those issues resolved. I need to tell you that we're doing much better today than we've ever done, but clearly there still are these glitches. What we don't know is: is the system in place and somebody dropped the ball, or do we need to continue to work on the system.”

Nine years after the catastrophic intelligence failures of Sept.11, the House intelligence committee chairman seems lost in words and little-understood systems. And when asked, “Why haven't we already been screening for the chemical explosive PETN, given that it's been used in the past by terrorists in attempts to blow up airplanes, including by Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber?" Reyes avoided the question:

“First and foremost, there is technology out there that facilitates that screening. I don't know worldwide where we stand, I don't know if we are screening 40 percent or 50 percent, or what it is. That's another thing we have to look at.”

Asked about U.S. counterterrorism priorities, Reyes said:

“Bottom line is, we're engaged in a war in Afghanistan that we can't abandon, and we can't downsize. We're doing some stuff in Yemen. Is it enough? I mean, we have to evaluate…I think if we've learned something out of this case on Christmas Day, it's that we better re-evaluate the Guantanamo Bay issue. That's going to be one of my recommendations.”

Finally, Reyes assures that the Select Intelligence Committee is going to have an investigative hearing about the most recent example of systemic intelligence failure.

“We're going to do a hearing,” he said, “Our hearings are done in a classified setting so that we can get all the information without having to worry about it getting out into the public domain.”

Karen DeYoung in the Washington Post (Jan. 1) summarizes what’s known thus far about the intelligence failure:

“Administration officials faulted the National Security Agency for not calling attention to intercepted communications from Yemen during the late summer and fall referring to a "Nigerian" being readied for an al-Qaeda attack, as well as what some intelligence officials said were direct conversations there between Abdulmutallab, whose name was unknown at the time, and radical American Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi. “On Nov. 20, the CIA and the State Department learned from Abdulmutallab's worried father in Nigeria that his son was dealing with apparent radicals in Yemen and had severed all communication with his family. Although their reports put Abdulmutallab's name in the counterterrorism system for the first time, neither agency pursued the matter, checked whether he had a valid U.S. visa, or linked the information to the earlier intelligence about the unidentified Nigerian. “There is general agreement within the administration that the preponderance of information, put together, would have resulted in Abdulmutallab being added to a watch list and prohibited from boarding Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Dec. 25.”

Despite its history of systemic failure, the U.S. intelligence apparatus remains secure behind closed doors, with an ever-escalating budget (rising from an estimated $30 billion at the turn of the century to an estimated $66.5 billion today), and overseen by intelligence/national security sycophants like Reyes.

Ignorance Foretold

It’s little wonder that Reyes wants to keep his committee’s oversight activities out of the public domain, given his own ignorance about fundamental national security issues and his cozy relations with the intelligence agencies.

Shortly after he was appointed to be the new intelligence chairman, Reyes was interviewed by CQ.com and revealed his lack of familiarity with such Middle East groups as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Reyes couldn’t say whether Sunnis or Shiites composed al-Qaeda, wrongly guessing Shiites and thus apparently unaware of the origins of al-Qeada in Saudi Arabia.

When asked what Hezbollah (the Iran-supported group in Lebanon) was, Reyes was unable to say and joked that perhaps they could conduct the interview in Spanish.

Reyes has a history of acquiescing to (and rigorously supporting) the leadership of the intelligence community. Rather than seeing Obama’s election as a chance to exercise better oversight over the intelligence community and to install new leadership, Reyes made the surprising recommendation that president-elect Obama retain President Bush’s directors of the CIA and the National Security Agency.

In December 2008 Reyes told CongressDaily (Dec. 10) that he recommended to the Obama transition team that then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and then-CIA Director Michael Hayden should be kept in their posts at least six months. Despite a widespread conviction about Democrats that it was time to turn the page on the intelligence and domestic surveillance practices of the Bush administration, Reyes said, "There's got to be some continuity, and the leadership of both the CIA and the DNI is going to be pivotal to keeping us safe and secure."

See also from Border Lines:

Border Congressman’s Record on Intelligence Former Border Patrol Chief Now A Major Player

Bush DOD Official Returns to Business

Gordon England, the former deputy secretary of defense who replaced the controversial Paul Wolfowitz in 2005, has returned from whence he came. England came to the Bush administration from the defense industry, and at the end of the administration he passed back through the revolving door joining government and industry.

But the military-industrial complex is not what is used to be. Over the last eight years a new complex has emerged. It’s no longer simply a realm occupied by just Pentagon and defense contractors.

During the Bush administration the intelligence and security businesses have exploded with federal contracts, spurring the creation and evolution of corporations that depend on three income streams: defense, homeland security, and intelligence contracts.

Upon leaving government, England became president of E6 Partners, which is an international business company that has a “special emphasis in the defense and security sectors.” England’s two partners in this startup consulting firm also passed back through the revolving door to the private sector after leaving high positions at the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, where they specialized in technology and procurement.

England recently made the news when he was appointed to the board of CACI International. CACI is a major homeland security, intelligence, and military contractor, which has been reaping in hundreds of millions of new contracts in the last year.

Not only does England bring his experience and contacts as deputy defense secretary to the private sector. He is also an attractive addition to the emerging defense/homeland security/intelligence complex because of his former position as secretary of Navy during the first George W. Bush administration.

England came to government from industry. His industry experience before being tapped by President Bush to be Navy secretary included being vice president at General Dynamic, president of Lockheed Ft. Worth, and space engineer at Honeywell.Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) awarded Secretary of Navy England its Henry M. Jackson Service Award.

JINSA is a Washington, DC policy institute that represents the interests of Israel’s right-wing Likud party and the Israeli military, and it is closely associated with the U.S. neoconservative camp and U.S. military contractors.

Next: Intelligence Contracting Extends Far Beyond Blackwater

Chertoff Pumps Up Homeland Security Business

Not relying solely on its industry contracts, the Chertoff Group is also benefiting from a trail of media interviews and media events that bring the firm’s principals to the attention of prospective clients.

The September release of Michael Chertoff’s new book, Homeland Security: Assessing First Five Years, will also likely help promote the Chertoff Group within the homeland security industry. In his book, Chertoff makes the case the Bush administration effectively secured the country because there haven’t been any terrorist attacks on the homeland since Sept. 11 – an assessment that the Chertoff Group regularly uses to sell itself. But in the new book Chertoff occasionally ventures far outside his area of expertise and into neoconservative ideological territory. He predicts, for example, that the anti-Israeli Lebanese opposition group Hezbollah could surpass Al-Qaeda as the most serious terrorist threat to the United States. Chertoff alleges Hezbollah is better equipped, better trained and better politically positioned than Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda.

“Having operated for more than a quarter-century, (Hezbollah) has developed capabilities that Al-Qaeda can only dream of, including large quantities of missiles and highly sophisticated explosives,” writes Chertoff.

Alarmism about Hezbollah, whose principal grievance is with Israel, is a common denominator of neoconservative ideology. Although not closely identified with the neoconservatives, Chertoff is firmly rooted in right-wing thinking, particularly with respect to terrorism and the role of the judiciary. Chertoff is closely associated with the right-wing Federalist Society. Chertoff is also speaking publicly about the government’s cybersecurity programs and intelligence gathering systems. During an August 7 presentation at the Potomac Officers Club in Washington, Chertoff weighed in on the deployment of Einstein 3, the latest phase of a web-traffic monitoring system sponsored by DHS to detect and deter cyber attacks. The Obama administration has authorized the deployment of the latest phase of the program, which will screen government traffic on private networks and will be managed by the NSA. The first two phases of the Einstein monitoring program didn't measure up to government expectations. Nonetheless, the Obama administration is set to launch the latest version of the cybersecurity system -- amid widespread privacy concerns resulting in large part because of NSA’s unauthorized monitoring of private communications during the Bush administration. Explaining the third iteration of the system, Chertoff told the Washington Post:

“Intrusion detection is like a cop with a radar gun on a highway who catches you speeding or drunk and phones ahead to somebody at the other end … Einstein 3 is a cop who actually arrests you and pulls you off the road when he sees you driving drunk.”

Cybersecurity is perhaps the most lucrative source of homeland security business, which may explain the Chertoff Group's interest in the Einstein project. Among the reported private partners awarded contracts for the Einstein system (which was allocated $600 million in 2007-2008) are AT&T, which is the lead partner with NSA, L3 Communications, General Dynamics, Sprint, Qwest, MCI, and Verizon. The homeland security business not only involves protecting communications and information systems from intrusions and attacks, it also entails extracting intelligence from monitored electronic communications. The Chertoff Group will likely serve these two sides of the intelligence/security business.

On August 20 Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden are set to lead a discussion panel at the National Press Club on the privatization of intelligence. Tim Shorrock, author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing, says that “private contractors are operating in the most sensitive areas of intelligence.” According to Shorrock, “With the post-Sept. 11 hikes in intelligence spending, spying for hire has become an industry worth nearly $50 billion a year.” With the Chertoff Group's close ties to the CIA and NSA, this huge intelligence outsourcing budget will likely form an important part of the firm's revenue stream.

The homeland security industry is emerging as the country's fastest growing government-industry complex. It’s an industry where Chertoff and an array of ex-Bush administration officials are playing leading roles.

While the full extent of the influence and power of the new homeland security complex has yet to be determined, it is worrisome to consider that the complex’s leading architects are former government officials responsible for the USA Patriot Act, the border wall boondoggle, massive unauthorized domestic surveillance, and disastrous intelligence scandals of the Bush years.

Chertoff's Strategic Partnership with "PR Firm from Hell"

(Part of a BorderLines' seried on Border Security Industrial Complex)

Chertoff Group, founded by former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, has formed a “strategic partnership” with the controversial public-relations firm Burson-Marsteller to carry out the crisis-management part of its homeland security business.

“No one knows crisis communications better than the team at Burson-Marsteller,” states the Chertoff Group, and the partnership will “combine our extensive crisis management expertise with their broad crisis communications skills.”

No doubt that Burson-Marsteller has extensive experience in what the industry calls “crisis communications” – or spinning a business, government, or product failure so as to minimize damage to a company's bottom line or a government’s global reputation. Burson-Marsteller, now headed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s pollster and strategist Mark Penn, has been called “the PR firm from Hell” by MSNBC’s Rachel Madow, because of the firm’s long track record in representing companies involved in major disasters. Says Madow (March 5, 2009) ,“When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed-dial.”

According to the Guardian in London, “The world’s biggest PR company was employed by the Nigerian government to discredit reports of genocide during the Biafran war, the Argentinian junta after the disappearance of 35,000 civilians, and the Indonesian government after the massacres in East Timor. It also worked to improve the image of the late Romanian president Nicolae Ceausescu and the Saudi royal family.”

A recent corporate client of this “communications crisis” firm is AIG, the investment firm bailed out by the U.S. government with $163 billion of taxpayer revenues.

In the past Burson-Marsteller has provided communications remedies after the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown, for Union Carbide after the Bhopal gas leak that killed up to 15,000 people in India, and for British Petroleum after the sinking of the Torrey Canyon oil tanker. More recently, it has represented with tobacco firms, European biotech industries that produce genetically modified food, and, according to Madow, for the Blackwater security services firm after reports of murders of civilians by its government-paid mercenaries in Iraq.

Chertoff Group is also going directly to the heart of the industry with its M&A (mergers & acquisitions) division. “For deals in the security industry,” the Chertoff Group says it “offers unparalleled subject matter expertise and contacts to give you the competitive advantage.”

“We have overseen billions of dollars of technology development and acquisition for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, and the CIA. We have keen insight into which new technologies are likely to transform the landscape, and our experience allows us to predict which ones may be headed for obsolescence.”

The firm sees a bounty of opportunities for consolidation in the new but “highly fragmented” homeland security industry. It promises clients to “help leverage economies of scale” and to “monitor and manage target companies during periods of transition,” reminding security companies that “it pays to know what we know before you decide on a merger or acquisition.”

The New Business of Homeland Security

(Sixth in the BorderLines' series on the Border Security Industrial Complex.)

DHS’ private contracting provides one look at the new homeland security business. In large part, it’s an offshoot of the military contracting industry. DHS’s top ten contractors, for example, include Boeing (ranking first), General Dynamics, SAIC, L-3 Communications, and Lockheed-Martin.

Also prominent among DHS contractors are information systems and computer technology firms, such as IBM, Accenture, Unisys, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Siemens. Also figuring prominently among the top DHS contractors is Wackenhut, a more traditional security industry, which provides custodial services for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Another leading element in the new homeland security industry is represented by intelligence contractors. According to an estimate by the Defense Intelligence Agency, as much as 70% of new intelligence operations by the federal government’s intelligence apparatus, including NSA, are contracted out to private businesses.

The booming homeland security industry also includes biotech, electronic surveillance, and cybersecurity firms – all of which are likely prospective clients of the Chertoff Group.

Fresh from DHS, Chertoff says that the Chertoff Group provides an especially well-informed perspective of the character and direction of the new homeland security industry.

HSToday, a new homeland security industry magazine, interviewed Chertoff shortly after he founded the new firm and observed that part of Chertoff's “new mission is to better define homeland security for the private sector and thereby increase investment opportunities.”

Chertoff concurred with the HSToday editor's description of the firm's mission and went on to expound on the emerging definition and dimensions of the homeland security industry. Chertoff noted that there exists much confusion about what homeland security really is.

Having emerged directly from government the Chertoff Group has, says Chertoff, “a clear vision of what homeland security is.” According to Chertoff, “It’s not the same as defense, it’s not the same as law enforcement, although it partakes of elements of those as well as things that are neither.”

Homeland security, Chertoff explained, is a blend of the military and the police/first responder sectors, observing that there is a great need in the private sector “to fill the gap and cover a system of homeland security in a way that is end to end that is not covered by the defense community or the law enforcement community.”

Chertoff asserted that there are “many great opportunities” for investment and “many great technologies” to apply to homeland security needs. Chertoff Group, he said, can fill the gap, define the opportunities, and pick the best technologies. Furthermore:

“As many of the principal architects of homeland security and the doctrine we [Chertoff Group] have a pretty good feel for how to look at problems end to end and then to anticipate problems where there may be technologies that fit into that problem solution…. So, working with investors, defense contractors and others who either want to organically grow into homeland security or want to make acquisitions, I think we’ve got a really unique value and perspective that we can add in terms of how things fit in terms of an overarching strategy.”

“What sets the Chertoff Group apart,” says Chertoff Group, “is the breadth of our industry knowledge, the depth of our experience and the extent of our close contacts with industry leaders worldwide.”

Chertoff Group Gets Down to Business

Chertoff Group describes itself as “a security and risk management advisory firm that counsels corporate and government clients addressing threats related to terrorism, fraud, cyber security, border protection and supply chain security.” In a nod to the key role of Bush administration figures in the new security company, Chertoff Group states that it “provides business leaders and local government officials with the same kind of high-level, strategic thinking and diligent execution that have kept the American homeland and its people safe since 9/11.”

Comprising “many of the principal architects” of homeland security, Chertoff Group is, according to its website, approaching the business from three angles: risk-management and security services, crisis management, and mergers & acquisitions (M&A).

The group’s risk-management and security services division aims to cover everything from global strategy, border protection, infrastructure protection, biometrics, global commerce, disaster preparedness, information assurance, intelligence, counterterrorism, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear security. The firm promises to “guide you to the best sources for trained personnel and security technology.”

One of the firm’s first contracts involves a cybersecurity client, according to a Wall Street Journal article. Chertoff Group has also secured a contract with BioNeutral Group, which hopes to commercialize a chemical-based technology that will neutralize toxins.

"We are excited to engage former Secretary Chertoff and his firm to assist us in our endeavors; presenting our proprietary technology to the various markets including health, defense and bio security," commented Stephen J. Browand, president and CEO of BioNeutral. "It is a privilege to have such an elite group represent our Company and we are confident that they will play a significant role in the successful strategic introduction of our life saving technology.”

Photo: National Security Agency headquarters

Chertoff Group Covers Homeland Security

(Fifth in a BorderLines' series on the Border Security Industrial Complex.)

Michael Chertoff, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has taken his portfolio over to the private sector. Homeland security is business – an estimated $200 billion in annual revenues – and the newly formed Chertoff Group wants a major stake in this booming industry.

As the latest homeland security consulting firm, Chertoff Group will be competing with two other security companies formed by top Republican Party figures: Ashcroft Group founded by former Attorney General John Ashcroft; and Guiliani Group, formed by former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolf Guiliani. Although not specially focused on homeland security, Ridge Global, formed by the first DHS secretary Tom Ridge, also has a piece of the expanding global security industry.

The Chertoff Group has a leg up on its competitors. The revolving door between government and industry has brought a half-dozen former high government officials of the Bush administration into the Chertoff Group.

Not only does it count on the political and business connections of Chertoff, the new firm has a roster of five other former government officials that can translate government experience into lucrative industry contracts.

Chertoff boasts, “Among the six of us we pretty much have all of those things in DHS, in DoD, and the Department of Justice, law enforcement and finally, in the intelligence community. So we have pretty much every element of homeland security covered.”

The Faces of the New Homeland Security Complex

The Chertoff’s associates who will be covering all the elements of homeland security business include figures with long experience in intelligence, industry contracting, and international banking.

Chad Sweet, Chertoff’s chief-of-staff at DHS, cofounded the Chertoff Group and will direct the firm’s operations. Another principal in the Chertoff Group is Chad Sweet, who served as Secretary Chertoff’s chief-of-staff and is cofounder of this new security group. According to his company profile, Sweet worked at DHS “to restructure and optimize the flow of information between the CIA, FBI and other members of the national security community and DHS. Mr. Sweet also supported the Secretary during numerous operations to detect, disrupt and respond to terrorist plots both in the United States and oversea.” Before joining DHS Sweet was a vice-president at Morgan Stanley and then at Goldman Sachs, with a special focus on international investments. Sweet came to Wall Street after “having helped to fight the threat of Communism” at the CIA, where he was in the agency's Directorate of Operations.

In his new position, Sweet “utilizes his unique background in intelligence, homeland security and investment banking to provide M&A advice to companies wishing to expand within the defense, aerospace and security industries, and to help private capital groups evaluate investment opportunities within the sector."

Other principals at Chertoff Group are also former government heavies, including former CIA director (2005-2009) Michael Hayden, who also directed the National Security Agency (1999-2005); DHS deputy Paul Schneider (who prior to his position at DHS was head of acquisitions for NSA and the U.S. Navy); Ret. Admiral Jay Cohen, who was DHS director of science and technology and previously the Navy’s technology chief, and Charlie Allen, who was the intelligence chief at DHS and, according to Michael Chertoff, “pretty much head of everything you could be for the CIA and head of national collections.”

Photo: Michael Chertoff

Homeland Security's Revolving Door

(Third in the BorderLines' series on the Border Security Industrial Complex.)

Contracts with the Department of Homeland Security are spewing billions of dollars into private industry, largely to companies that also rely on Pentagon military contracts. In this new variation of the military-industrial complex a new revolving door is now in full swing.

Tom Ridge Leverages DHS Experience and Contacts The first DHS chief Tom Ridge recently got a new gig as senior adviser to the San Francisco-based Building Protection Systems Inc, where he will have the responsibility of advising the corporation on the marketing of its Building Sentry One product line. BPSI’s Sentry One products are among the thousands of newly manufactured systems and technologies developed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, forming a major part of a new DHS/DOD industry complex underwritten by government contracts and grants. Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor who was appointed by President Bush to direct the newly created DHS, has parlayed his government service into a lucrative career in business since he stepped down as DHS chief in 2005. Soon after leaving DHS he became president and CEO of Ridge Global, a global strategic consulting firm. Ridge also is president of Thomas Ridge LLC. In 2006 Ridge Global entered into a $480,000 contract with Albania to help the country “develop an overall homeland defense strategy. According an AP report, Ridge's "main priority" was "to help Albania meet its goal of joining NATO in 2008." It wasn’t until after the media outed Ridge’s relationship with Albania that the former DHS chief filed the required foreign lobbyist report with the Justice Department in 2008 – two years after the one-year contract with Albania had ended. He also joined the corporate boards of Vonage, Hershey, HomeDepot, and Exelon (the country’s largest nuclear plant operator, including Threee Mile Island). In April 2005 Ridge also joined the board of Savi Technology, described as the primary technology provider for wireless cargo-monitoring for DOD. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed-Martin. Homeland Safety Against Counterterrorism Liability BPSI, now advised by Ridge, recently announced that its Sentry One toxin detection technology has recently received the DHS stamp of approval. According to BPSI, Sentry One is the “first complete building protection system which has also received full SAFETY Act designation from the Department of Homeland Security for protecting buildings and public gathering places from an airborne chemical or radiological targeted terrorist attack or accidental release.” What does this Safety Act designation signify? Fundamentally, it means that Sentry One is protected by the Safety Act of 2002, which was rushed through Congress after the Sept. 11 events to spur industry investment in counterterrorism and security technology. It fosters this development not through government contracts but through government guarantees – guarantees against liability if the technology fails. The Safety Act also spurred the creation of a firm whose sole purpose is to provide liability advice to homeland security industries. That’s Safety Act Consultants, whose motto is: “We help organizations protect themselves from catastrophic liability following a terrorist event.” Safety Act Consultants explains the Safety Act this way:

“The SAFETY Act is a little known and often misunderstood Federal Law enacted in 2002 as a part of the Homeland Security Act. This law grants unprecedented statutory immunities, liability caps, affirmative defenses for things used to identify, protect against, stop, mitigate, respond to or recover from, a terrorist event. These can include products, technologies, services, facilities, designs, advice, actions, software, hardware or other methods, procedures or strategies used in helping prevent, respond to or recover from. a physical terrorism or e-terrorism act.”

BPSI’s Mike Welden, referring to the Safety Act approval, said: “This elevated designation is another example of the expert validation that BPSI’s systems keep earning. We are absolutely pleased that the DHS has issued BPSI technology full designation. It is a clear indication of the trust in our technology that lives will be saved during certain acts of terrorism and as a result our customers will truly benefit from the extended SAFETY Act liability protections.” said Mike Welden of BPSI. Revolving doors swing both ways.

In late July the White House announced that it was nominating Rafael Borras as the new undersecretary for management at DHS. Borras comes to DHS from URS Corp, which is a major DOD, DHS, NASA, and DOE contractor.

Among other things, “URS modernizes weapons systems, refurbishes military vehicles and aircraft, trains pilots and manages military and government facilities. We also plan, design and construct hangars and government buildings, provide logistics support for military operations and help decommission former bases for redevelopment.”

Photo: Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge

El Paso: Booming Military/Security Center

(Fourth in BorderLines' series of Border Industrial Security Complex)

At the recent Border Security Conference at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), the city’s Regional Economic Development Corporation (REDCO) had an exhibition table along with an array of companies specializing in security and defense. REDCO lists Military/Defense/Homeland Security as its top target industry. That’s understandable given the tremendous growth of military and homeland security contracts experienced in the last eight years. REDCO boasts that El Paso already hosts such major military/security industries as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin, and it says that El Paso is now “Taking the lead in America’s Border Security” through new “homeland security research and development.” The new blend of military and homeland security industries was evident at UTEP’s conference, whose fiscal sponsors, with the exception of REDCO, all represented this emerging military/security industry: SAIC, Raytheon, ManTech, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and CSC. In addition to these sponsors, more than a dozen other industries exhibited their homeland security wares to conference attendees. Since 2000 government military and homeland security contracts have been raining down on El Paso. Military and border-security industries are sprouting up all over the sprawling city, contributing mightily to El Paso’s booming economy amid the national recession. In 2000 DOD awarded area-based industries 254 contracts – worth $304.7 million. Last year the city benefited from more than four times as many contracts – 1,156 contracts – amounting to $575.6 million. An especially good year for area military contracting was 2006, when DOD signed 1,237 contracts amounting to $863 million. Over the last eight years the number and dollar amount of DOD contracts have risen steadily, helping to put El Paso on the national map as a center for weapons and security development. In the military sector alone, El Paso industries have been awarded more than $4 billion in contracts. Going into 2009, more than 830 military contractors were doing business in the area. From 2000 to 2008 city military contractors were awarded 8,313 military contracts worth $4.6 billion. While $4.6 billion is not small change and places El Paso among the major military development centers in Texas – the nation’s second largest recipient of defense contracts (closely following Virginia) – it pales in comparison with the amount of military business in the Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Houston metropolitan areas. From 2000 to 008, Texas garnered $256 billion in military contracts, with the annual value of contracts rising from $5.7 billion in 2000 to $36.6 billion in 2008.

Border Security and the Academy

Even before the March 2003 opening of the Department of Homeland Security plans were underway to involve universities in the new effort for homeland security. Congress, as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, authorized the new department to “designate a university-based system for several university-based centers for homeland security.” Today, there is a network of universities that receives DHS funding to collaborate with the government to, as the act stipulated, “enhance the Nation’s homeland security.” It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement, with universities benefiting from large grants from a rapidly expanding part of the federal government and with the government benefiting from the sponsored research of hundreds of university scholars. But there has yet been no overall evaluation of how this DHS-academy cooperative venture – now six years old – has contributed to improving homeland security. Since the creation of DHS there have been rising questions and concerns about departmental operations, including issues of waste, over-reliance on private contractors, and widespread abuses and excesses in immigration enforcement and border control. Given the failures and controversies surrounding the department’s Secure Border Initiative – including the border fence and high-tech surveillance systems (“virtual fence”) – there is good cause to question the involvement of universities in the support and development of DHS border security infrastructure and strategies. The huge sums of DHS funds flowing to private contractors such as Boeing also raise questions about the degree to which research and education about border issues is shaped by monetary incentives. Within a historical context, the new relationships among government, industry, and the academy that have emerged after Sept. 11 as part of the Bush administration’s “global war against terrorism” are not dissimilar to the complex of government-business-military-university relationship that emerged as part of the cold war, what President Dwight Eisenhower termed the “military-industrial complex.” Centers of Excellence The new DHS-academy condominium includes “centers of excellence.” Today, there are 13 DHS university-based centers of excellence. Through DHS’s Science & Technology Directorate and the department’s Office of University Programs, DHS aims “to leverage the independent thinking and ground-breaking capabilities of the Nation's colleges and universities” with its centers of excellence. The newest DHS university research is the Center of Excellence in Command, Control and Interoperability (C2I), which is led by Purdue University and Rutgers University. According to DHS, this center will “create the scientific basis and enduring technologies needed to analyze massive amounts of information from multiple sources to more reliably detect threats to the security of the nation and its infrastructures, and to the health and welfare of its populace.” The August 10 visit of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to El Paso to meet with the and to speak at the 2009 Border Security Conference will likely highlight the role of one of these centers of excellence, namely the National Center for Border Security and Immigration. The leading university partners in NCBSI are the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and the University of Arizona. According to UTEP’s border security center, it aims to “stimulate, coordinate, leverage, and utilize the unique intellectual capital in the academic community to address current and future homeland security challenges, and educate and inspire the next generation homeland security workforce.” What is more, the DHS-sponsored and financed center will “foster a homeland security culture within the academic community through research and educational programs.” DHS says that NCBSI is “developing technologies, tools, and advanced methods to balance immigration and commerce with effective border security, as well as assess threats and vulnerabilities, improve surveillance and screening, analyze immigration trends, and enhance policy and law enforcement efforts.” NCBSI was launched at the 2008 Border Security Conference at UTEP, a conference officially sponsored by Cong. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and UTEP and financially sponsored by major military and security contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics. Last year DHS provided UTEP a six-year $6 million grant to open the border security center. Also in 2008 UTEP landed a $1 million start-up grant from the Department of Defense to open its Center for Defense Systems Research. Although a DOD-financed center, CDSR also has a border security focus. Among the center’s partners are Customs and Border Protection, Electronic Warfare Solutions, and the major military contractor SAIC. Both NCBSI and CDSR were until recently headed by founding director Ret. Brig. Gen. Jose Riojas, who was named by the Obama administration for a position in Veteran Affairs. Both centers fall under UTEP’s Office for Strategic Initiatives. Before joining UTEP as vice-president for strategic initiatives, Riojas was commander of Joint Task Force North, headquartered at Ft. Bliss in El Paso. Also located at UTEP is another government-funded center of excellence – focusing on intelligence. It’s the Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence, which is one of a network of university centers funded by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Backed by a multimillion dollar grant from the Director of National Intelligence, this center of academic excellence aims to “build a workforce prepared for 21st Century challenges.” Next: DHS Feeds Booming Security/Defense Industry

Is There A Border Security Industrial Complex?

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 set in motion a security-focused approach to border and immigration issues. As part of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the post-Sept. 11 homeland security also gave birth to what some scholars and border observers are calling the “Border Security Industrial Complex.” The term, now used by border scholar Timothy Dunn and others, may at first seem overheated, a facile take-off on the concern that President Dwight Eisenhower expressed about the “military-industrial complex.” How, after all, does the expansion of the Border Patrol and border control infrastructure relate to the pervasive links between DOD and major military contractors like General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Boeing? And how is the Pentagon remotely comparable to the much smaller and less powerful DHS? Does this complex exercise a similar degree of influence in public life? As it turns out, the Border Security Industrial Complex, while not a term that slips off the tongue, has much in common with its older brother and is equally deserving of attention, concern and perhaps alarm. Eisenhower, upon concluding his presidency in 1961, warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.” While the term was original, the concept of a newly powerful complex of industrialists, politicians, and military leaders gaining control over foreign policy and economic priorities came from the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills, author of the influential 1956 book Power Elite. Along the southwestern U.S. border, the post-9/11 commitment to increased border security has spurred a major flow of federal dollars for newly fortified ports-of-entry, a tripling of Border Patrol agents, construction of border fences, deployment of high-tech surveillance infrastructure, and support of local law enforcement. Most of the funding influx comes from DHS, but Department of Justice and Pentagon programs have also contributed to the border security boom over the past eight years. In the borderlands, you cannot miss the border security build-up – which some observers note has served as a multibillion dollar economic stimulus to the poor region and others deprecate as militarization or a police state. Whatever one’s perspective, there is certainly a new border security complex that is changing life in the borderlands. But why the term “border security industrial complex”? That’s due to increasing concern that this complex is provides little real security, is skewed by corporate interests, and is exercising undue and unwarranted influence – much like the military-industrial complex. In the spirit of not taking anything for granted and not letting the weight of dollars “endanger our liberties and democratic process,” as Eisenhower so wisely cautioned, the possible rise of a border security industrial complex deserves examination. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will be delivering an address at the 2009 Border Security Conference on August 11 at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). The conference will bring together politicians, high government officials, industry executives, and the academy – the same type of configuration that constituted the military-industrial complex. The conference’s financial sponsors are all high-tech defense and security industries, including Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and SAIC. Aside from organizing the annual border security conference, UTEP is also deeply involved in border security issues through its National Center for Border Security and Immigration and its Center for Defense Systems Analysis, the former funded by DHS and the latter by DOD. Next: Homeland Security and the Academy