UFOs, or, as the Defense Department now terms them, “unidentified aerial phenomena,” or UAP, have become big news inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.
In June, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an unclassified “Preliminary Assessment on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” disclosing that in the last few years, the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force investigated 144 different sightings of unidentified and mysterious airborne objects. Most striking, the report revealed that in several of these incidents, objects demonstrated “unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics.”
In response, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Marco Rubio recently sponsored an amendment to the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act that would establish an “Anomaly Surveillance, Tracking, and Resolution Office” within the Pentagon. If passed, the newly formed office would be responsible for extensively investigating reputed sightings of mysterious airborne and “transmedium” objects.
Perhaps feeling left out, the Pentagon recently likewise announced it would be further looking into the subject of UAP by establishing the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group. Some have questioned the Pentagon’s timing of introducing a new UAP office, wondering if this was the Pentagon’s attempt at thwarting the much more robust Gillibrand-Rubio amendment. Others, including some members of Congress, also criticized the synchronization group as being inadequate for thoroughly investigating these mysterious events.
Sitting back and watching the political and bureaucratic gamesmanship and having covered this topic extensively for the Debrief, I can’t help feeling a sense of disheartened fascination, an almost schadenfreude curiosity at witnessing the realization that the U.S. government actually isn’t equipped to solve highly complex and expansive problems effectively.
Many view the United States as having the most sophisticated and capable national defense and intelligence apparatus globally. In totality, this is arguably true. However, often not taken into account is that all of America’s capabilities rarely, if ever, come together to achieve a unified objective. Instead, you have constant and bitter bureaucratic infighting, with agencies often distrusting each other and operating as their own fiefdoms.
Take, for example, Project GUNMAN.
In 1978, the NSA discovered a sophisticated radio transmitter inside a false chimney in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. The NSA told the CIA and State Department that the device was most likely used by the Soviet Union to spy on classified U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communications. Thanks to interagency rivalries and mistrust, instead of acting on the threat, the CIA and State Department refused to believe the NSA. The State Department even went as far as issuing a cease and desist letter, telling the NSA to stop saying the Moscow Embassy was compromised.
It wasn’t until 1984 and an executive order from President Ronald Reagan that the NSA was finally able to inspect the embassy’s office equipment. As initially predicted, the NSA discovered the KGB had placed at least 16 covert listening devices in the embassy’s IBM Selectric typewriters. To be clear, after the initial discovery of a hidden radio transmitter, the KGB was able to listen in on classified U.S. communications for an additional six years, resulting in a catastrophic counterintelligence failure and even the deaths of several CIA spies. All thanks to interagency rivalries and hubris!
Given the prevailing taboos associated with UFOs, there is assuredly a wide range of conflicting views within the Pentagon and greater U.S. intelligence community on these reported sightings of mysterious aerial objects. Equally likely, these conflicting stances have caused bureaucratic battles that make GUNMAN look tame. Of course, this is just considering UAP from the vantage of national defense and intelligence. But these enigmatic incidents don’t really fit politely in the conventional national security box.
In fact, given the legal restrictions limiting the Pentagon and intelligence community’s ability to operate domestically to investigate UAP sightings effectively, it would require involvement by a host of other federal agencies. Agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI would all need to be involved. Considering many claims of UAP sightings near nuclear assets, the Department of Energy would likewise need to join the party.
Not only does the FAA, Homeland Security, FBI, and Energy Department not fall under the Pentagon’s purview, but each represents its own separate branch of the executive government. This doesn’t even consider the other more scientifically focused agencies such as NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, adding two more independent executive departments. Considering the difficulty in getting two agencies from the same organization to work together, the idea of effectively coordinating multiple independent departments to investigate a topic that already has plenty of naysayers seems like a daunting, if not impossible, task.
Rather than even bothering with such an arduous task, typically, entire new departments or branches of government are formed in these instances. Yet a new “Department of UAP” wouldn’t solve the overarching problem.
Because the real problem is that the U.S. government has become a Byzantine Empire incapable of conducting whole-of-government approaches toward complex issues, which may not be well defined. Unidentified aerial phenomena just happens to be one problem that exposes this glowing deficiency. Yet, in an increasingly technologically sophisticated world, many other complicated labyrinths are on the horizon, such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity, and robotics.
So, setting aside stigmas, pessimism, or individual willingness to investigate UFOs, the UAP issues provide a rare opportunity for the government. It is a chance to develop and hone a common framework with the necessary authority to coordinate all its sprawling appendages toward a single objective.
In a recent interview, retired USAF Lt. Gen. and Boston University professor Jack Weinstein questioned the necessity of the current UAP legislation. “When we look at problems facing U.S. national security, both internal and external, this amendment holds no value to protecting Americans,” Weinstein told my colleague Micah Hanks.
Many likely share a similar sentiment as Weinstein. I’d contend, however, this view is based on an inability to see the forest for the trees. UAP itself may not be a severe national security problem. The real national security problem is that the U.S. government couldn’t solve the UAP mystery right now even if it wanted to.
Tim McMillan is a retired police lieutenant, an investigative reporter, and the co-founder and executive director of the Debrief . His writing covers defense, science, and the intelligence community.
