I spent a long time working in the utility sector as an engineer and as a manager of engineers (which is more like advanced cat herding than anything else. Trust me on that one). One of the things that used to drive me nuts was when a plant manager or department manager got it into their head that something - some widget, some new toy - would solve some problem.
We'd dutifully install the wonder device. Sometimes it worked, most often it just morphed the original issue into something else. The "problem" that the new toy addressed in most cases was actually a symptom of something else. This is sometimes called the band-aid approach to maintenance.
Problems were usually solved - as in really solved - by taking an integrated approach. In other words, not trying to fix one symptom but by addressing the real root of the problem.
Which leads up to why this post is being written. There's a story in the New York Times today that says that Bush is turning to the big military contractors to solve the border problems. It goes on to be somewhat disapproving of the whole idea. (I will say this is one of the better efforts I have read in the NYT recently, though. It's not completely slanted in one direction).
Using some of the same high-priced, high-tech tools these companies have already put to work in Iraq and Afghanistan — like unmanned aerial vehicles, ground surveillance satellites and motion-detection video equipment — the military contractors are zeroing in on the rivers, deserts, mountains and settled areas that separate Mexico and Canada from the United States.
It is a humbling acknowledgment that despite more than a decade of initiatives with macho-sounding names, like Operation Hold the Line in El Paso or Operation Gate Keeper in San Diego, the federal government has repeatedly failed on its own to gain control of the land borders.
Through its Secure Border Initiative, the Bush administration intends to not simply buy an amalgam of high-tech equipment to help it patrol the borders — a tactic it has also already tried, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, with extremely limited success. It is also asking the contractors to devise and build a whole new border strategy that ties together the personnel, technology and physical barriers.
The story goes on to detail a number of costly failures and things that just didn't quite do what they were advertised to. I read them and instantly recognized the old band-aid approach.
And it sounds like they are going at it this time from an integrated approach. I find that highly encouraging. So let's get some good bids, do a good evaluation and put in a sensible, systematic border control. That high-tech fence the president mentioned. We should also hold the winning bidder accountable for the system working as advertised. I think that's good business.
