Drone Mission Creep - Doubly Creepy, both from DHS & DOD

[Tom Barry]

Most of you are probably tired hearing about homeland security drones.  Me too, and I am finally coming to the end of my research and writing about what is likely the most wasteful expenditure of border control funding over the past ten years. But there is reason to be concerned, besides the usual concerns about DHS mismanagement, its misplaced faith in high-tech solutions, and the utter waste of resources.  

It's the problem of mission creep, and it is creepy in two different ways and directions. DHS is creeping away from the border with its drones to national security, local law enforcement "contingency missions," and joint drug-interdiction in the Caribbean and Central America with the U.S. military and DEA. At the same time, the Pentagon is creeping home with its drone fleets, eager to open national airspace to its killer drones and put them to use in the homeland.  I have a new article in the print edition of CounterPunch (March 2013) titled "Mission Creep: Blind Faith in Drones" that may incluldes alarming, I believe, mission creep tendencies on the part of DHS and DOD. 

 -- Tom

What follows are a few paragraphs that set the context followed by excerpts from the CounterPunch magaine essay.

Established with a counterterrorism mission, the Department of Homeland Security has become disoriented, having lost its policy compass and strategic focus – currently hovering over the homeland without pilots or purpose, launching high-tech programs with military contractors without oversight, and placing “eyes in the sky” in its hunt for immigrants and marijuana.

Shortly after the hurried creation of this monstrously large security apparatus, Customs and Border Protection, the largest of the DHS agencies, followed the example of the military and the CIA in their “Global War on Terror” by buying Predator drones to “secure the border.” After nearly a decade, these Predator drones -- purchased through sole-source contracts from General Atomics -- have proved nearly useless in seizing marijuana and arresting immigrants illegally crossing U.S. borders.

What about counterterrorism? DHS and CBP don’t even have a strategy or operational plan to secure the border against terrorists.  That shouldn’t be surprising since DHS hasn’t yet managed to define what it means by “homeland security,” and CBP has neither a definition of border security nor a set of performance measures to evaluate the more than $100 billion it has spent on the ambiguous concept of border security.

The CBP UAV program is doing more than hunting down immigrants and marijuana on our borders, more than being on the “leading edge of homeland security.” The homeland security drones, according to an OAM presentation, constitute:

·      The “leading edge deployment of UAS in national airspace;”

·      “Shaping the UAS debate” in the nation; and

·      “Strengthen[ing] the National Security Response Capability.”

Mission Creep: Blind Faith in Drones

CounterPunch, March 2013

Tom Barry

(Excerpts from a new investigative report published by CounterPunch magazine, March 2013).

Drones are proliferating—in overseas military operations, CIA clandestine missions, border security surveillance, domestic law enforcement, natural emergency responses, and overseas drug-interdiction. As drones proliferate, the lines that once constitutionally and legally separated national security, drug control, and domestic law enforcement are fading.

Technological advances require change and adaptations. As a type of new technological species that has suddenly appeared in our midst, it’s no surprise that society and government are playing catch up. Different drone breeds and hybrids are spreading around the globe and at home.

Meanwhile, citizen advocates, rights groups, and political leaders hurry behind, frantically calling for new regularly frameworks to gain a measure of control over drone proliferation.

Drones are proliferating so rapidly that there is still no commonly accepted formal name for the new species—which are formally classified, variously, as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Unmanned Aerial Systems (US, Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs), or simply Unmanned Systems.

Whether they are aerial, ground, or aquatic robotic systems, drones mark the latest species in a continuum in development of weapons and spying systems.

The model names given by their military contractors reflect their threat to other species, notably humans. Looking down on us and sometimes striking are Predators, Global Hawks, Hunters, and Scan Eagles. In contrast, the names of other smaller breeds—Killer Bees, Dragon Flies, Wasps,

Moths, Tarantulas, etc.—indicate how close and pesky other drone species can be.

Not all drones are baptized with the names from the natural world. Some bear more traditionally militaristic and mythical tags, like the Reapers, Avengers, Hunters, Dragon Eyes, Guardians, and Sentinels.

Seeking to communicate their new high-tech power

and possibilities, drone manufacturers and their government buyers reach to myths and the gods for their handles: Hermes, Pegasus, Gorgon Stare, and Vampire.

The main distinctive feature of the drone species is that they are unmanned craft. Yet drones are often armed and dangerous—some with Hellfire or the lighter-weight Griffin missiles, while others that specialize in law enforcement can zoom in with Tasers. In conflict zones, they prey on targets, searching, hunting, and destroying. Other predator drone species, like those that patrol our borders, are also on the hunt—for immigrants and drugs.

The military and intelligence sectors of Israel and the United States have—in close collaboration with military contractors—been the leading drone breeders, although scores of other major and small powers are also breeding and deploying drones. Historically, drones have been deployed primarily on national security missions—both in direct war-fighting as “hunter-killers,” or on Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions.

The declaration by President George W. Bush on 20 September 2001 of a global “crusade” in the form of a “war on terrorism” set off drone proliferation, although the US Air Force and intelligence sector had been developing Predator drones for ISR missions since the early 1990s and for targeted killings since the late 1990s.

Following closely behind the government-sponsored development of Predator drones for military missions has been the use of Predators and Predator variants for homeland security missions. Soon after the opening of the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003, General Atomics began collaborating with the DHS’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to deploy unarmed Predators for Border Security.

Immediately following ten days in October 2003 of demonstration flights in Arizona, CBP signed its first in a series of sole-source contracts with General Atomics.

Drone strikes and ISR operations were part of what the Pentagon and CIA called the “Global War on Terror.” President Obama called an end to that war in March 2009, but the drone strikes and other clandestine operations march on as part of what this administration calls “Overseas Contingency Operations.” has not released operational data about CBP/OAM drone operations. Therefore, the extent of the participation of DHS drones in domestic and international operations is unknown. But statements by CBP officials and media reports from the Caribbean point to a rapidly expanding participation of DHS Guardian UAVs in drug-interdiction and other unspecified operations as far south as Panama.

The Department of Homland Security takes a broad view of the scope of drone operations. Yet DHS is not alone in breaking down the barriers that have traditionally—and constitutionally—separated domestic law enforcement and national security operations.

The Pentagon could easily dispute CBP’s contention that its UAV program represents the leading edge in the opening up the homeland to drones.

The Congressional Caucus on Unmanned Systems, which was founded in 2009 by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), has encouraged the Pentagon to work with the Federal Aviation Agency to open national airspace to military and other UAVs.

Currently, military drones are restricted to defined military airspace around military bases, unless operating with special waivers or COAs (Certificates of Authorization) issued by the FAA. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a leading member of the drone caucus, sponsored an amendment to the National Department of Defense Authorization Act of 2009 that authorized the creation of an interagency US Executive Committee under Pentagon sponsorship to increase drone access to national airspace.

“It is vital for DOD and the FAA to collaborate closely to achieve progress in gaining access for unmanned aerial systems to the National Airspace System to support military requirements,” stated the Hunter amendment to the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. With the Pentagon in the lead, the US Executive Committee aims to “enable increased and ultimately routine access of Federal UAVs engaged in public aircraft operations into the NAS to support operational, training, development, and research requirements of FAA, DOD, DHS, and NASA.”

In its Final Report to Congress on Access to National Airspace by Unmanned Aerial Systems (October 2010), the office of the Undersecretary of Defense noted that the Hunter amendment “recommended that the DOD and the FAA form an Executive Committee to act as a focal point for resolution of issues on matters of policy and procedures relating to US access to the National Airspace System (NAS).” Furthermore, “The sense of Congress was that progress has been lagging in the integration of US into the NAS for operational training, operational support to the Combatant Commanders, and support to domestic authorities in emergencies and natural disasters.”

The Pentagon has its own motivations for increasing UAV access to the national airspace, including expanding the airspace available for drone training operations. In addition to training, in its October 2010 report DOD set forth its objectives: the DOD needs to be able to respond rapidly to operational tasking, typically from a COCOM such as the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

Many of these tasked missions relate to homeland defense, homeland security, and defense support to civilian authorities. This includes border and port surveillance, maritime operations, counterdrug operations, and disaster or special event support.

The US military has an expanding UAV presence within the nation’s borders, and it is eager to expand the airspace available for training and other missions. The 2010 report of the newly created UAV Executive Committee reported that the Pentagon was projecting that the number of UAV units or squadrons based in the continental United States will increase to 197 in 2015 from 146 in 2009, while the number of bases where these units are stationed will increase 62%—from 63 to 105 bases.

The Pentagon insists that opening the national airspace to drones is essential to the “sustainability” of the continued development of the US military’s UAV capacity. In its April 2012 Report on Future Unmanned Aerial Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability, the Pentagon clearly states its case and its strategy for complete access to national airspace by military UAVs: “This need for airspace access to test new systems, train operators, and conduct continental United States)-based missions has quickly exceeded the current airspace available for military operations. The situation will only be exacerbated as units return from overseas contingencies.”

According to DOD, “The end state will be routine NAS access comparable to manned aircraft for all DOD US operational, training, and support missions.” In its Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036, the Pentagon insisted in “having robust US Airspace Integration capabilities for all classes of US airspace is fundamental to flexible worldwide US deployment.

According to OAM chief Kostelnik, CBP planned a “Spring 2011 deployment of the Guardian to a Central American country in association with Joint Interagency Task Force Florida.

JIATF-South is a subordinate command to the United States Southern Command (USUTHCOM), whose geographical purview includes the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.

In mid-2012, CBP/OAM participated in a JIATF-South collaborative venture called “Operation Caribbean Focus” that involved flight over the Caribbean Sea and nations in the region—with the Dominican Republic acting as the regional host for the Guardian operations, which CBP/OAM considers a “prototype for future transit zone US deployments.”

CBP says that OAM drones have not been deployed within Mexico, but notes that “OAM works in collaboration with the Government of Mexico in addressing border security issues,” without specifying the form and objectives of this collaboration.

As part of the US global drug war and as an extension of border security, unarmed drones are also crossing the border into Mexico. The US Northern Command has acknowledged that the US military does fly a $38-million Global Hawk drone into Mexico to assist the Mexico’s war against the drug cartels.

Since its creation in 2003 DHS has adopted military and security frameworks for its immigration and border control programs. This is especially evident in its drone program, which, like many other DHS agencies, is directed by former military officers. However, as the drone program clearly demonstrates, the actual operations, while framed as security

missions, are entirely focused on hunting down illegal immigrants and seizing meager sums of marijuana.

The post-9/11 attention to “homeland security,” “border security,” and “national defense” (defense of the homeland by the military) has contributed to the continuing erosion of the dividing lines between domestic and military affairs, between public safety and national security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Barry directs the TransBorder Project at the Center for International Policy. Barry is the author of numerous books about US foreign policy and Latin America. His most recent book is Border Wars (MIT Press, 2012)