Security expert destroys GOP congressman who tried to 'mansplain' border security to her

[CousinIT]

Alternet Link: https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/security-expert-destroys-gop-congressman-who-tried-to-mansplain-border-security-to-her/

Original twitter thread:

Link to tweet

UNROLLED Twitter thread:

Oh hey. Sorry for the delay. Not on twitter all the time, Congressman. This may take a while and I know how busy you must be but let's start with substance then move to process. Shall we? 1/

On substance, I think you know the answer. And if you listened to the one person who is your colleague and who actually knows the border (and is from your party), you would understand why the dynamics of border security are fluid and require a layered, not static, response. 2/
That would be Will Hurd so just read this first. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/will-hurd-border-wall-myth-781204/

If viewing better than reading, how about this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/politics/will-hurd-donald-trump-border-wall-central-america/index.html

So, why would anyone who lives, works or actually spent a career (I think you know my bio by now. . . ) in homeland security and border management not favor a wall? The alternatives -- man/women power, technology, barriers (yes, lest you forget, the Obama Administration built

nearly 800 miles of barriers, drones, dogs, etc. -- are so much better. See unlike a war zone (I'll defer to you on that), a port of entry must permit flow. It is how we function as a market economy. So us "experts" think about it in terms of how do we better "secure flow" 5/

build a wall. So let's take your example of the fentanyl arrest. Think about it: it was stopped because it wasn't a wall. It was intelligence, man/women power, technology and DOGS that led to the arrest. That's how it should work; it's not a sign that there is a better 6/

alternative with a static solution. So I suspect you get this but I"m happy to explain. On process, though, you are the congressman. And you know that your job is to weigh priorities with funding. 7/

So let's assume you have 100 pennies to spend across competing priorities. And so let's say you want ALL of them to be spent on border enforcement (not sure how your constituencies would feel about that). 8/

How would you spend them? No one, not even CBP until last few months, ever even thought a wall made sense because it would take years (tell me how that solves a crisis, but as you know there isn't one), require eminent domain (your Texas colleagues have thoughts on that), and 9/

would pull from the dynamic security that does work. So that us "experts" oppose the wall is just an unbecoming comment. Us experts include your Republican colleagues and those of us who have worked border issues in government. And, again, CBP. 10/

Anyway, I feel silly writing this. You know this and if you don't happy to continue the conversation but one final thing. . . about that mansplaining thing. 11/

I wasn't going to re-engage it. I don't want to be know as the "expert" who accused you of mansplaining any more than you want to be known for an SNL skit. It's not why we do what we do; it's personal and I took to heart what you said in response to the SNL skit. Civility. 12/

And as a graduate of Harvard, your odd mentions of it in every tweet to me (this is the first time I have mentioned it) suggests its a dig. I'm sorry you feel that way about what you may or may not have learned here. We try to teach responsible bipartisan leadership. 13/

Some of us have spent a career in and out of government, or media, or private sector, and the academy (she is me). But I would take your interest in my opinions more seriously if they didn't include such odd personal attacks. 14/

It's not becoming of your position.
I wish you best as you assess this and your role. And you engage with women and men whom you disagree with in a much less personal manner. I believe the facts, history, economics and policy are against building a wall. You don't. 15/

Support your point with facts, history, economics and policy. Not with mocking a woman. Because, well, she is me. And you will lose that one. 16/16

Hi. So I'm back online and thanks for all these responses. I was rushed when I wrote this so I think I'm allowed to continue because in the responses it occurred to me that the basic tenets of security were relatively new to folks and I"ll try to arm you all with what I know 17/

to help in this debate. So back to substance. Earlier I mentioned how we want fluid responses to support the (sometimes competing) goal of "secure flow." It's how we think about movement in our homeland. (I'll leave the moral and legal issues about a wall to others). 18/

But there is also a second tenet for how we think about complex security challenges: layered security. The basic goal here is to ensure that you don't build a system around, what we call, a "single point of failure." 19/

A "single point of failure" is to be avoided at all costs because if it is penetrated, then the whole system goes down. 9/11 and cockpit doors; Sony hack and a single system administrator; BP oil spill and a blowout preventer. So, ideally we build systems that have multiple 20/

barriers so that the access point is either avoided (i.e. you can't get into a system through cyber attack because the system is layered and bifurcated) or difficult to access (i.e. lock the cockpit door, but have multiple security layers before entry to plane.) 21/

So, on substance, the "wall" defeats those two primary tenets of protecting a complex system: balancing security with flow (the border and points of entry) and avoiding the single point of failure (the wall can be overcome by a ladder or tunnel). 22/

It's just a way to think about the substantive arguments about real security. Moral debates are important; legal ones as well. But it's important that critics of the wall also have the tools to explain why we aren't "soft" on security, but actually take it quite seriously. 23/

Ok, I think I may have violated some unwritten rule of twitter and threads, but my objection to the wall (even assuming I could get it for free and in a day, which I can't) are not just "that's not who we are" or "immigrants are good for America." 24/

I'm not known for being soft on security, border or otherwise. And so in the realm of policy options, the wall fails every standard that we have learned in homeland security for the last 20 years. Now, I say good night. 25/25

[madaboutharry]

1. He is on MSNBC now acting like a twit.

[CousinIT]

2. Why does MSNBC invite HIM on and not HER? n/t

[UniteFightBack]

3. Because she is paid by CNN! nt

[pangaia]

9. Among perhaps other reasons, because he is the 9 car bloody pile up

on the right side of the road, not the beautiful garden on the left side.

Think local evening news...

[Lonestarblue]

4. Of course he's a twit.

He’s a Texas Republican, and being a twit is a requirement. Just look at the leaders of our state government. The only exception I know about is Will Hurd, who actually seems to be a decent human being and acts more like an independent than a Republican.

[obamanut2012]

5. burn

[cally]

6. I'm so tired of the mansplaining

Crenshaw tried with AOC and now Kayyem. It seems to be his thing to try to demean strong women. He gets burned each time. I wonder if he will ever learn.

[demmiblue]

7. That was pretty epic.

[liberalmuse]

8. I wish MSNBC or CNN would would put Juliette Kayyem on.

I read this the other day and it is the most succinct, and comprehensive rebuttal for the stupid wall I’ve come across thus far. “Single point of failure” is an excellent phrase for Democrats to adopt about Trump’s proposed wall scheme.

[pangaia]

10. OK, I am pretty slow sometimes, I don;t quite understand the 'single point of failure' thing.

and her explanation for not having a wall.

I mean, as something really 'concrete'(no pun intended) I can use when necessary to shut somebody up.

[Canoe52]

11. That's part of what she is saying, the answer isn't a short misspelled sound bite,

the situation and solution is much more complicated.

[pangaia]

12. Thanks.

[Canoe52]

13. Single point of failure, if only using a wall, when that wall is breached at any point the rest of

the wall is now useless. Like a castle wall being breached by an invading army.

[pangaia]

15. Thank you.

[liberalmuse]

16. Trump proposes to sink most of the money

For the border into a wall, rather than the numerous things we can do to better ensure border security (technology, more drones and surveillance equipment, etc.). A wall is easy to circumvent in the 21st century. It will not work. It is essentially a sinkhole for money better spent on things that will actually work.

[pangaia]

17. I k8nda thought that was what she was talk8ng aboutm but wasn't sure.

Thanks.

[liberalmuse]

20. I answered this at work on break.

And only saw Canoe52’s response, which was much better only after I posted.

[Amaryllis]

19. She is saying dont put all your eggs in one basket. If that one fails, you have no backup.

[area51]

14. Bravo.

[irisblue]

18. Kicking for truth