DOD SECURITY POLICY IS INCOHERENT AND UNMANAGEABLE, IG SAYS
“DoD security policy is fragmented, redundant, and inconsistent,” according to a new report from the Department of Defense Inspector General. This is not a new development, the report noted, but one that has persisted despite decades of criticism.
There are at least 43 distinct DoD security policies “covering the functional areas of information security, industrial security, operations security, research and technology protection, personnel security, physical security, and special access programs,” the Inspector General report noted.
“The sheer volume of security policies that are not coordinated or integrated makes it difficult for those at the field level to ensure consistent and comprehensive policy implementation.”
Remember when rioters in Watts, Calif., began shouting “Burn, Baby! BURN!” in the turmoil of 1965? I'm sure they didn't have the following future in mind.
That would be the various lawsuits against KBR for operating burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we should all be paying attention to this and not just for the human toll it has taken on soldiers and contractors. It also says something disturbing about the ability of the federal government to exercise proper control over its private contractors.
An article, “Military Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan: Considerations and Obstacles for Emerging Litigation” by Kate Donovan Kurera, in the Fall 2010 issue of the Pace Environmental Law Review provides the necessary insight.
Aug 21 2012 ► Aug 11. In the United States, the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), “the highest-level intelligence analysis targeted at the key national security issues and concerns of the President”, is increasingly going digital. For that matter, so is much of the output produced by the US Intelligence Community at large. According to AOL Defense News, “The President and his top officials want and will get a single mobile device allowing them to access highly classified and unclassified data wherever they are”. The mobility feature is driven by a desire not to be tethered to a desk or a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).
In addition to the obvious benefits of mobility, the digitized PDB allows for a more in-depth and interactive reading of intelligence matters. In the example of the PDB, as the President reviews the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information on a specialized tablet, he can jump back and forth, click on links to take a deeper dive, see follow-up briefings, review background materials for greater context, view videos, photographs, maps and other visual aids. In fact, the PDB has gone from a static page to an interactive assessment of top intelligence concerns, landing it squarely in a quasi Web 2.0 world for the Intelligence Community.
(1) Little to disagree with here; (2) I remember author's name from my first years in current job; (3) there seem to be multiple reserve studies/actions ongoing now; (4) there is a major effort ongoing to reduce the number of Reserve/National Guard soldiers brought on active duty for “Active Duty of Operational Support.”
Phi Beta Iota: The article below is well-intentioned but ignorant. The infantry, 4% of the force, takes 80% of the casualties and gets 1% of the budget. There is plenty of money for a properly sized well-equipped, trained, and organized force including a National Guard optimized for domestic disorder and disaster and once in a lifetime deployment. What General Flynn is about to discover is that DIA and USDI civilians expect him to drink the kool-aid and “go along” with pathologically dysfunctional intelligence, policy, acquisition, and operations processes that are not just inadequate and ineffective, but also unaffordable. The “design” potential of intelligence with integrity has been absent from the US Intelligence Community for over 50 years now. The time has come to restore that potential….in an election year, this might be exactly what is needed, not just for DoD, but across Whole of Government. Afterthought: 18 veteran suicides a day – day after day after day. Has this been analyzed (e.g. breakdown by MOS and NG vs Active vs Reserve)?
These Days, Reservists Are Just Soldiers Who Get Laid Off Between Deployments
By Maj. Gen. Michael Symanski (US Army, ret.), Best Defense department of reserve affairs
The Army will add more time to the National Guard and Reserve training year, so let's be candid about what the “operational” reserve military forces really are: A method to avoid the cost of a full-time military of adequate size. The reserve force, which was our strategic capital banked for a once-in-a-career national military emergency, has been cashed in because our expensive regular force has been too small to wage a protracted war. We no longer have citizen soldiers; we have professional soldiers who are laid off between deployments overseas.
Phi Beta Iota: As President Barack Obama faces what David Gergen calls one of three “choice” or turning point elections in modern US history, one has to wonder where he stands on the subject of the truth. Below the line is a methodical review with many links from retired Marine Corps officer Jim Fetzer, who focuses on the Cheney-dominated US Government at the time. Equally troubling facts can be asserted on the New York end by focusing on Larry Silverstein and Rudy Guliani. If ever a sitting President had a ready-made opportunity for eradicating an opposing political party by enabling the truth to be told about a major event in modern US history, Barack Obama is that President. We do not favor a traditional justice approach here, but rather a Truth & Reconciliation Commission. If Barack Obama were to sponsor The Smart Nation Act, the Electoral Reform Act of 2012, a Truth & Reconciliation Commission on 9/11, and the immediate decriminalization of marijuana and then of all other drugs [with a jobs program equal to the challenge of existing unemployment and emptied prisons with restored voting rights], it would be game over. Then instead of having to fight for credibility and traction every day, he might actually be able to govern in 2013-2016. On the other hand, if President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are intent on demonstrating there is no substantive difference between the two parties that control the electoral process and the disbursement of the public treasury, they should continue to do precisely what they are doing now.
The classification guides that function as the framework for national security secrecy underwent a substantial overhaul during the past two years. As a result of the Fundamental Classification Guidance Review, a large fraction of existing classification guidance has been eliminated, and at least some existing categories of classified information have been declassified.
Out of 3,103 classification guides, or compilations of classification instructions, that were reviewed by national security agencies, 869 were either cancelled or consolidated, the National Archives announced in a news release today.
The purpose of the Fundamental Classification Guidance Review, mandated by President Obama's executive order 13526 (section 1.9), was “to ensure the guidance reflects current circumstances and to identify classified information that no longer requires protection and can be declassified.”
The newly revised guidance should provide increased clarity and specificity about what is to be classified, along with greater traceability in identifying the justification for classification.
But it is less clear that the Review will result in a diminished volume of classified information.
Concerns over their cost effectiveness and strategic value make the deployment of PMSCs a risky proposition. More worryingly, argues David Isenberg, is that they may permit governments to circumnavigate democratic debates over the necessity of sending armed forces into battle.
By David Isenberg for the ISN
From the outset, it needs to be established that the use of private military and security contractors (PMSC) – whether in wars or humanitarian and stabilization operations – is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, even if this was the case, the United States is unlikely to decrease its reliance on them in the future, if for no other reason than the fact that contractors are now essential to maintaining the U.S. military’s vast network of overseas bases and facilities. But it is also true that the deployment of PMSCs does not always make sense. Indeed, just because contractors are often unfairly vilified doesn’t mean that their claims should be taken at face value. Yet, like any other issue worthy of debate the devil is always in the details. Questions concerned with how PMSCs will be used, who monitors contracts for proper implementation – not to mention the challenge of developing transparency and accountability processes – are questions that have far too often been answered by trial and error.
