On January 27, 1967, a freak accident during a routine test killed astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. At the conclusion of the investigation, fellow astronaut Frank Borman testified to Congress that his friends were killed by a “failure of imagination.” As he said, nobody -- including himself -- imagined that a test of the capsule, performed on the ground, could be so catastrophic.

We heard the “failure of imagination” phrase again last week, when acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe testified about the assassination attempt on former President Donld Trump. He said that the Secret Service’s performance on July 13^th amounted to

A failure on multiple levels, including a failure of imagination and a failure to challenge our assumptions.

I wonder if Acting Director Rowe realized that “failure of imagination” is the most damning admission possible for his agency. The mission of the Secret Service is to anticipate and mitigate threats to their protectees. If an agent can’t imagine that an assailant could attack with a rifle from 120 yards away, said agent lacks the imagination to be in any branch of law enforcement -- especially the Secret Service. Yet Rowe admitted under oath, that the imagination problem was at all levels of his agency.

The calamity of errors on July 13^th is so unimaginable, it has invited speculation of deep state conspiracies from the “Epstein didn’t hang himself” crowd. Given our government’s behavior of the past 10 years, who can blame them?

The FBI and CIA attempted to remove a duly elected President with a hoax they called an “insurance policy.” That is a fact, not a theory. The DoJ attempted to imprison Donald Trump for acts protected by the Constitution. That is a fact, not a theory. Democrat operatives in various states attempted to remove Trump from the Presidential ballot, based on opinions about his motives on January 6. That too is a fact. Congressman Bennie Thompson (D, MS) is trying to legislatively remove Donald Trump’s Secret Service protection. That he is doing so is a fact. Given all the above, it’s not much of a leap to question whether the same people that solicited some unstable patsies to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer might have solicited an unstable patsy to take a shot at Donald Trump.

However, despite our government’s recent history of conspiracies and dirty tricks (which have all failed), I think Hanlon’s Razor should be our guide.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Given that the federal government’s only demonstrated competency is being a pain in our backsides, I’m inclined to suspect that the Secret Service is not an exception to the rule.

However, there is more than one type of incompetence. There is the incompetence of lacking the expertise to do one’s job -- the agent that doesn’t know that an assailant with a rifle could be a threat. There is also the incompetence of complacency -- the agent that assumes nobody will attack with a rifle, because it hasn’t happened recently. The incompetence of complacency happens when one stops trying to out-think (or out-imagine) their adversaries because the job has become routine. Is it possible that agents wear the dark shades, and pose menacingly for the crowds, but fail to imagine what could go wrong because nothing hardly ever goes wrong? I would dare say that few in the Secret Service were even born the last time a President was attacked with a rifle. Is that why they didn’t imagine it could happen?

Complacency is perhaps the most dangerous form of incompetence. It allows an expert to deceive himself with a belief in his on infallibility. Such a person no longer imagines that they could be making a mistake, or that an adversary could be cleverer than they. That’s when our subconscious has an oversized voice in our decision making. The choices of the complacent begin reflecting their biases -- laziness, disgust, unhappiness, hostility, superiority… whatever. The complacent rationalize bad decisions with “It will be okay.”

Is there any reason to believe that the Secret Service -- the institution, not all individual agents -- is the one federal agency not hoping that Donald Trump fails to return to office? Could that bias subconsciously affect the choices of complacent decision makers within its ranks?

Donald Trump’s protective detail repeatedly requested more resources. Perhaps the agency’s decision-makers rationalized denying that request by thinking: Trump’s current detail has managed okay so far. Request denied. It will be okay.

When First Lady Jill Biden required protection in the same state as Donald Trump, the agency’s leadership pulled agents from Trump’s detail. Maybe they thought: We’ll backfill with people from other agencies. They’ve got necessary badges and dark suits too. It will be okay.

We now know that Acting Director Rowe made cuts to the Secret Service’s Counter Surveillance Division (CSD) -- the group that does site threat assessments. We also know that CSD was not present, and did not do a threat assessment at Butler, PA. I can imagine the rationale: This rally is no different than any other Trump rally. It doesn’t need a unique threat assessment. It will be okay.

We’ve learned that law enforcement wasn’t on the roof that the sniper used because it was too hot. The leadership at the event must have thought: If the roof’s too hot for us, it will be too hot for an assassin too. Besides, there are a few local cops over there. They’ll let us know if they see anything sketchy. It will be okay.

Does any of that seem more plausible than: the Secret Service doesn’t know the effective range of a rifle, or that the government tried to kill Donald Trump?

When a critical job -- such as protecting political targets -- becomes routine, those tasked with the job fail to worry that their adversaries may have thought of something they didn’t. They don’t question their own decisions, or worry about what they may have missed. That is when failures of imagination, lead to failures of mission.

The incompetency of complacency can only be fixed through accountability -- something sorely lacking in our federal government. If Secret Service decision makers aren’t sufficiently worried about the safety of their protectees, maybe they’ll worry about longevity of their careers if they face accountability for their failures.

The Keystone Cops performance on July 13^th has resulted in only one resignation, Director Kimberly A. Cheatle. Only one person has faced accountability for what Rowe called “failures at all levels” of the Secret Service. How many more at the Secret Service are still heeding the “it will be okay” voice of their subconscious. Should any politician feel secure under the protection of agents who may still be listening to that voice?

John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high-performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a staff writer for the American Free News Network and can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Image: AT via Magic Studio