Military & Homeland Defense | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for the ‘Military & Homeland Defense’ Category

Secrets in the News: Classified Crossings that Go Too Far

Monday, July 26th, 2010

For the second straight week, Washington, DC and the nation are reeling from headlines and news coverage of events on the national security stage. Last week, it was the Washington Post’s series on Top Secret America, which details the explosive growth of the intelligence apparatus since 9/11. This week, it is the release of nearly 92,000 pages of classified details on the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

While the Post series had the cooperation of the public affairs operations with the various intelligence agencies, combined with the exhaustive research work of the series authors and support staff, the stories this week come courtesy of the WikiLeaks website. Described by CNN and other media outlets as a “whistleblower site,” WikiLeaks has effectively pulled back the curtain with U.S. military and intelligence documents that give no-holds-barred descriptions of the state of U.S. combat operations. Based upon what has been reported, the picture these documents paint is not very promising. While certainly making for an interesting and fascinating read, the release of these documents and the recent Post series begs the question: “Is there anything the media will not share?”

Despite the valid questions raised, I still have tremendous misgivings about what the Post printed last week, as I believe that in identifying the physical locations of critical public and private sector operations, the Post put every person at those places at a risk of greater harm from those who wish to do us harm.

As for the WikiLeaks postings, I find it equally deeply troubling that the President, his senior National Security Team and our military leadership can not obtain unvarnished reports without having the risk of someone, somewhere posting them for all to see. What has been shared is a tremendous violation of trust amongst military/intelligence personnel that goes beyond the traditional Washington leak to a reporter.

The actions taken by this leaker are also illegal. As anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows, when entrusted with such information, your mouth is to remain shut; you share nothing with anyone who is not properly cleared. If you have a problem with what you read and want to raise an objection, there are ways to do so without violating the code of trust you swore to uphold. If you break these tenets, you’ve committed a crime. Period.

I’m sure if the leaker of these documents is caught, he/she will claim all of the First Amendment, Freedom of the Press rights he/she can muster, but in the job they are supposed to be in, they are not acting as a journalist. They are acting as a criminal. Every military leader, including our Commander in Chief, should be afforded the ability to get unvarnished reporting of what is or is not happening on the battlefields where our military personnel serve and not have to see it spread over a newspaper or on the Internet for the world to also see.

The leaker in this case has a unique agenda to pursue and that should not be overlooked or forgotten. Regardless of whether the information is classified or unclassified, every leak to a reporter is about imposing an agenda for further distribution. It is obvious that the person behind this leak has grave reservations about a fight our President has declared “worth fighting.”

That is an argument that good people on both sides of that issue can debate, but doing so at the expense of releasing classified information is a bridge too far.

I am not naive enough to believe that everything in Afghanistan is going swimmingly. Nor do I believe that every word from our political and military establishment is absolute truth. But I am disturbed that in era where our media is in an ever present game of “gotcha,” media outlets feel the need to take one more step to share details that are classified for very good reasons.

For as interested as we may all be in what is really happening in the intelligence community and in Afghanistan, there is also a responsibility to not reveal everything. That is a line I think individuals and organizations like the WikiLeaks source, the Washington Post and others seem to cherish crossing. That’s an agenda in which I find little comfort.

Posted in Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, counterterrorism | Comments

The New Face of Aviation Security?

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

The hunt for someone to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began in 2009, but it wasn’t until June this year that the Senate confirmed John Pistole as administrator. Pistole was the third nominee for the job, after two earlier hopefuls pulled out (see Southers and Harding). Security Debrief followed the confirmation process every step of the way and found the latest development in this week’s Air Cargo Week.

If you visit TSA’s website, you’ll find Pistole’s photo, which looks like this:

In Air Cargo Week’s Arrivals & Departures section, there is a note on Pistole’s confirmation (first bullet, right column). But the photo referenced is clearly not John Pistole.

Who is this man? Nominee #4? A hero cargo pilot? The publisher’s cousin?

It’s Chris Battle, Security Debrief’s founder and editor.

That’s some good PR.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Military & Homeland Defense, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

The Disturbing Value of the Washington Post’s Work

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

There is always something in the media that captures the conversation of people in Washington, whether it is some unfortunate gaffe that a political figure makes, some new gossip about a government official’s missteps, or the latest poll numbers identifying the rising and falling fortunes of one political power over another. This week seems to be different though.

In a series of front-page exposes entitled, “Top Secret America,” the Washington Post has essentially blown the cover off a number of classified programs and their geographic locations around the country. Using public sources and their own talents as investigative journalists, Post reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin have put together a very impressive piece of work that raises a number of important questions about the explosive growth of the intelligence community since 9/11.

These questions (most notably, “What are we spending billions of tax dollars on?” and “What difference are these investments making?”) echo questions that have been raised by both sides of the political aisles over the past few years. The ability to spend money without thinking or an overarching strategy is a skill that Washington has long perfected to the detriment of American taxpayers. Priest and Arkin’s work highlights some of the waste of tax dollars, particularly those instances where multiple intelligence players are conducting the same intelligence analysis work as their peers.

Shining a light on those actions and raising the questions of why we are doing the same thing multiple times over is certainly of value. But Priest and Arkin and their employer, the Washington Post, have also done something of disturbing value that benefits no one but those persons foreign or domestic that wish to do us harm.

By identifying the geographic locations of some of our country’s top secret facilities (government and private sector) and surmising who does what and where at those spots, the Post reporters created an operative target list that is literally synthesized and ready for use by people whose allegiances are not in American’s best interest. While they used publicly available sources and had the cooperation of the public affairs offices of many of the federal intelligence pieces highlighted in the article, the authors seem to have taken the extra mile to share things that frankly need not be shared.

In the Editor’s note about the series, the Post does share that the newspaper removed from their map graphic the geographic locations of several sensitive facilities. As commendable as that may be, that which the Post details has potentially grave consequences for the men and women who work at those facilities. The fact is that every one of those facilities had a bull’s eye on their front door last week. After this series and its wide online dissemination, that bull’s eye just got a whole lot bigger.

There are very good reasons you are not allowed to photograph inside security screening areas (e.g. airport screening areas).

There are very good reasons that the President and other dignitaries’ motorcade routes are not published in the newspaper.

There are very good reasons that when you go to Google Earth or other digital map services some areas are not available for downloading and printing (e.g. Camp David, MD; Area 51; etc.).

There are also some very good reasons that organizations like the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial Information Agency, and others in the public and private sector do not actively place neon marquee signs outside their locations and say “WE DO INTELLIGENCE WORK HERE!”

Is there signage outside many of these facilities to denote who they are?

For many of these structures there is, but that does not mean any of them want to be featured on a local Chamber of Commerce tourism map. Each of those facilities is spread out around the country for reasons of politics, duplicity, expertise and assignments. None of them has made it a policy of publicly waving a flag to say, “Hey look at me” to draw attention to themselves or the people who work there.

Maybe the Post forgot about the 1993 shootings outside of the CIA’s Langley Headquarters, when Mir Amal Khasi got out of his car with an assault rifle and fired away at CIA employees killing two and injuring three more.

Maybe they’ve forgotten about the numerous shootings that have occurred at the Pentagon over the years by those individuals, whatever their grievance, who decided to open fire or display some type of weapon.

While CIA HQ and the Pentagon are much more publicly known (and accessible structures) than many of those identified by the Post series, the fact remains that the people who work at these lesser known facilities are much more vulnerable for potential harm than they were before. Lesser-known targets are easier to strike than the higher value and publicly recognizable ones. Those structures often have their own security forces to safeguard the perimeter. Some of these others facilities may not. As this series continues to be shared by friend and foe alike, the security posture at those locations is certain to change as terrorists, lunatics and the disenfranchised have been given a hefty menu of targets of opportunity.

According to the Editor’s note, as well as the reporters’ public comments, the Post is not interested in causing any personal harm. Unfortunately, their actions speak louder than their words.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, counterterrorism | Comments

The Value of Aspen

Friday, July 9th, 2010

As we continue to swelter in the ongoing summer heat wave, it is easy for me to reminisce about my recent visit to Aspen, Colo. Tucked amongst the Rockies with its clean air, fervent green and majestic views, a town known primarily for its skiing with the rich and famous was home to what was, simply put, the best conference program I have ever attended.

The first annual Aspen Security Forum put forward a program that I can only describe as pleasant, informational waterboarding. By the time each of the presenters and panelists were done, my hand was dead from writing so much and my head hurt from being given the firehouse treatment of a candor and content overload.

With a venerable “who’s who” of notable names in the national security arena attending the two and a half day program, attendees had the opportunity to hear first-hand from the men and women who have served or continue to serve in some of the most demanding positions in the world. It was literally very hard to turn around and not see a face that you did not recognize from some recent event or news program, sharing insights on our country’s national and homeland security challenges.

While the presented content was outstanding, the best part about the entire program was that the overwhelming majority of notable speakers and presenters made themselves available to engage with the attendees. All too often, speakers rush in, deliver their canned pitch, say thanks to the crowd and are whisked away by their aides to get back to the office, leaving actual human contact an afterthought. To have the many distinguished speakers stick around and engage in that lost art-form of “CONVERSATION” was an absolute pleasure.

Hosted by Clark Ervin and the Aspen Institute, this was the first time they had put on a program with this particular focus. You can call it beginner’s luck if you want, but they put together a top notch effort that literally became a “must attend” for anyone who is interested in national and homeland security issues. Fortunately, for those who weren’t able to attend the program, it was taped for later broadcast by C-Span, hopefully sometime this summer. I have to tell you, there is a significant portion of C-Span’s programming that can cure insomnia, but when they broadcast the presenters and panels from the Aspen Security Forum, it will be as NBC used to call it, “Must See TV!”

To understand why I write that, here’s a rundown of some sessions (with video hyperlinks):

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

When your opening speaker travels all the way from Kabul to Tel Aviv to Aspen to take part in the program, it’s a pretty good indicator that the organizers are up to something big. That was especially true with Adm. Mullen. Coming off a week where Gen. McChrystal was taken out by a large Rolling Stone and replaced by Gen. Petraeus, and then traveling to Afghanistan and Israel to assuage any fears and concerns they may have about the big changes, Mullen made news by essentially not making news. While his comments about the state of the nation’s counter insurgency policy dovetailed those of the White House’s, the plainspoken manner in which they were delivered conveyed the gravity of the situation our military forces are faced with in Afghanistan. His comments about Iran’s nuclear ambitions – “They’ve given us no reason to trust them” – also spoke volumes about what few measures the Administration has left at its disposal in dealing with them.

Aviation Security Panel

There is probably no other facet of the post-9/11 world that Americans gripe about more than dealing with aviation security, but as the CEO of the Air Transport Association (ATA), Jim May, said, “What’s your alternative?” Joined by Erroll Southers of USC’s CREATE Program (and the first Obama Administration nominee to lead TSA) and Christopher Bidwell of the Airport Council International, this panel laid on the table the very real threats and frustrations that accompany this portion of the security environment. One of the most interesting things discussed was the use of full-body imaging devices by airports to screen passengers. While recognizing the civil rights and privacy concerns that people have about them, Jim May of ATA shared that he thought they should be mandatory. When it came to addressing the Government Accountability Office’s recently issued criticisms of TSA’s Behavioral Detection efforts, May and the other panelists pointed out that this program was part of many layers of security, and there was no one-size-fits-all solution or silver bullet that would reduce the aviation risks faced today.

Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush

There are many things that have been written and said about Fran Townsend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush (43), but the word “shy” is not one that would be used to describe her. The only thing that could possibly surpass the candor of her public comments when she was working as a government employee was her candor in being a former government employee. With no holds barred, Townsend explained that, “We have a reason to expect we can connect the dots this time” given all of the post 9/11 work that has been done.

In a more than hour-long conversation with Walter Isaccson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, and the Security Forum audience, Townsend pounded on the fact that much still needs to be done to improve information sharing amongst intelligence and law enforcement agencies across the board. Her declaration that there still needed to be a senior level official or “Cabinet Agency,” but “not a czar,” to “pound these government agencies into submission to do information sharing.” Her proposal that an NGO, public-private partnership, rather than a solely government-led approach to address the growing cyber security risks, was also interesting.

Bill Bratton, former Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Dubbed by many media outlets as “America’s Top Cop” for having led the police departments of Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, I think Bill Bratton surprised everyone at the program when he explained how the terror attacks in Mumbai, India caused him to change the entire structure of the LAPD. His interview with CNN’s Jeanne Meserve detailed how 60 days after those attacks, he was able to transform his police department with new training, exercises and more. The relatively simply trained Mumbai terrorists were not interested in holding hostages; in fact, they were using so-called negotiations to buy time to kill more people. This showed Bratton that he had to change how his department was positioned to respond to a similar event, should it occur in Los Angeles.

Michael Leiter, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center

For a man that much of Washington thought would have his head handed to him following the failed information sharing efforts surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack, Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), displayed all of the skill and confidence that make him one of a few Bush Administration appointees to successfully transition into the Obama Administration. His description of his job, his work with the President to report on the range of threats to the country and how he thinks information sharing needs to work made this particular presentation one of the most revealing and compelling of the entire program. Interviewed by Michael Isikoff, a former Newsweek reporter and now Chief Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, ended up producing some great back and forth between the two men that was as revealing as it was humorous. This session again explained more about Leiter’s job and the mission of the NCTC than any government report or Congressional hearing to date.

Border Security Panel

Despite the countless GAO and IG reports and the many hearings before the U.S. House and Senate, there was no better overview of America’s border security than a panel made up of:

Bob Mocny, Director of DHS’ US VISIT Program;
Mark Borkowski, Director of CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI); and
Steve Oswald, Vice President of Boeing.

These three gentlemen described what worked, what didn’t, what could be better and what the future may look like on programs that have regularly been making news for years. In presenting the details of these newsworthy programs, they did so with none of the drama or hysterics that are so often associated with the Congressional hearings that have exhaustively covered the respective programs. What each of them said frankly offered more substantive insight than any of the previous Congressional hearings have produced to date. That was an observation made not just by the conference attendees but also by the first-tier media, congressional staff and others who have observed each of these respective programs closely. Truth be told, if you want to know what is really happening with US VISIT and the Secure Border Initiative (minus the belligerent questions and political posturing), spending 90 minutes watching this panel when it is aired on C-Span will be time well spent.

Attending News Media

As I mentioned, the conference was a literal “who’s who” of notable current and former national and homeland security leaders, and the same could be said for the attending members of the media. With CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, the Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu, Newsweek’s/NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, and more, it seemed as if there was a representative from every major news outlet, print and broadcast media in attendance. While many of them were there to serve as session/panel moderators for the various parts of the program, the entire forum was a reservoir of information for them on today’s security concerns and a background on the actions of the past. It was also a treasure trove for journalists in developing future sources for national and homeland security news stories.

Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security

After consecutive 12-hour days of literally (albeit pleasantly) waterboarding attendees with tons of substantive content, it’s hard to figure out how to end a program such as that in Aspen, but they picked a great closer in former DHS Secretary Chertoff. Whether it was the fact that he’s been out of office for almost a year and half and doesn’t have to worry about a 2 AM phone call from National Operations Center about someone doing something vile to the homeland, Chertoff’s candor and demeanor crystallized for everyone the seriousness of the threats we face while also assuring we should continue to go about our regular lives. As one of the very few “senior statesmen” on homeland issues that we have in this country, his conversation with Fox News’ Catherine Herridge conveyed the balance that we need to have when planning for and operating against the range of risks we face.

A wondering disappointment

I can say without doubt that I loved every moment at the Aspen Institute, but I can’t sign off without discussing the one disappointment that I and many others had in the presentation by DHS Deputy Secretary, Jane Holl Lute. Whether it was her discomfort at the conversational interview format led by CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, her fear in the week after the McChrystal debacle, not wanting to say anything to cause problems for herself or the Administration, or the fact that maybe she was having a bad day, her presentation left the overwhelming majority of attendees scratching their heads in wonder as to the real story at the Department.

All of the questions that were asked by Meserve were fair and nothing was out of the ordinary, but Lute’s responses were defensive, sometimes evasive and could have been dramatically better. Time and time again in her hour long session there were questions to which she could have responded with hard and fast examples of the Department’s accomplishments. Instead, she offered simplistic, almost apple-pie like anecdotal responses that left the audience wondering why she wouldn’t answer the most basic of questions.

When she stated, “the [U.S.] border has never been more secure,” and offered no facts to prove that statement, portions of the audience looked around at one another in shock while others openly chortled at the declaration.

When it came time for Q&A with the audience, the tenor of her responses seemed to be even more defensive. When Michael Isikoff asked her about her statement on the border’s security and her metrics to prove that it had never been more secure, Lute seemed to bristle at the question. She firmly retorted, “The Secretary has been very clear on what those metrics are,” and effectively cut him off.

Lute’s response referred to the speech Secretary Napolitano delivered at CSIS the week before, when she declared, “the U.S. border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo.”

In that speech, Secretary Napolitano detailed a series of metrics to back up her statement, but none of those were shared by Lute with Isikoff or the observing audience. In speaking with Isikoff and some of the other attendees after her remarks, none of them were aware of the CSIS speech and the metrics behind the powerful declaration. To the credit of the Department, Bob Mocny and Mark Borkowski did an exceptional job during their joint appearance on the Border Security panel explaining why DHS leadership is stating things have improved on the border.

It is certainly a debatable point to make a declaration like the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have made in recent forums about border security. When you back it up with information and facts, it provides some measure of credibility and fosters informed debate. When you state it and don’t want to defend it with facts, it leaves people wondering why you would state something like that and not be able to prove it. After her appearance in Aspen, a lot of people were left wondering about the Deputy Secretary, and after viewing her session either on-line or on C-Span, I expect there will be a lot more.

Final thoughts

All of our time is valuable, and God knows we don’t have enough of it, but if you can set your DVRs to record the Aspen Security Forum or go to the Aspen Institute webpage and download panels for your Ipod/MP3 player – DO IT. Think of each of the respective sessions as graduate level courses shared by esteemed faculty who have the real life scar tissue and experiences to tell you what happened and what we can all do better. If you do, I’m confident you will walk away from each session with a lot more knowledge and a bit of a mild headache too. That’s what pleasant informational waterboarding will do to you, but I have to say, it is much more enjoyable amongst the mountains and beautiful vistas of Aspen.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Terror Finance, Terror Strategic Analysis, Transportation Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Rich Cooper Reflects on Admiral Mullen at the Aspen Security Forum

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Security Debrief contributor Rich Cooper is in Colorado for the Aspen Security Forum. Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided the forum’s opening remarks. Here’s what Cooper told Government Security News after the Admiral’s talk.

At Aspen: Diplomatic Admiral Mullen carefully avoids the inflammatory McCrystal script – Government Security News

Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, kicked off the Aspen Security Forum in front of a sold-out crowd of approximately 800 people on June 28, with observations and answers to audience questions that were so polite, so balanced, so calibrated and so devoid of news-making content that they set a new standard of excellence in this “button-your-lip” post-General Stanley McCrystal era…

…One observer, Rich Cooper, principal with Catalyst Partners, was impressed with Mullen’s tough comments on Iran. “Seeing a person in his position stating that Iran has given us ‘no reason to trust them’ spoke volumes to me,” said Cooper. “Here’s a military officer saying we’ve exhausted what we can do there.”

Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, Terror Strategic Analysis, counterterrorism | Comments

Police chief: Cartels threaten U.S. law enforcement in Arizona

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Police chief: Cartels threaten U.S. law enforcement in Arizona – Homeland Security Newswire

We reported two months ago that there is a new twist in the on going war along the U.S.-Mexico border: Mexican smugglers now use “cloned” Border Patrol vehicles to smuggle drugs into the United States. There is an added danger here, as Mexican drug cartels have launched an assassination campaign against U.S. law enforcement personnel along the border; driving a Border Patrol look-alike vehicle allows the assailants to get closer to their targets without arousing suspicion (“Mexican smugglers clone Border Patrol vehicles to evade detection,” 12 April 2010 HSNW).

Speculation about death threats by Mexican drug cartels toward U.S. law enforcement has been widespread for some time, but this is the first time U.S. officials along the border confirmed a case.

CNN’s Nick Valencia reports that the threats began less than two weeks ago, after off-duty police officers from the Nogales police department seized several hundred pounds of marijuana from a drug smuggling operation they stumbled upon while horseback riding in the eastern fringes of Nogales, the chief said. The smugglers in the incident managed to flee into Mexico before they could be detained, Nogales Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told CNN.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Defense, Narcotics, Smuggling, counterterrorism | Comments

Each Service Sees Cyber a Little Differently

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Now that Congress has finally confirmed Gen. Keith Alexander for his fourth star and the duty of Commander, US Cyber Command, he has a tough road ahead. Cyber Command will be a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command. It is not an intelligence organization – despite Alexander being dual hated as the Director of the National Security Agency – but is what the military refers to as a warfighting command.

Like U.S. Special Operations Command, Cyber Command will provide forces to the Geographic Combatant Commanders and in some cases will directly execute over-arching/global missions. To do this, Alexander will have control of components from each of the services. The Air Force will “give” its 24th Air Force, the Navy its 10th Fleet, the Army its Cyber Command, and the Marines their Marine Forces, Cyber.

Alexander is a Joint Commander who must blend these elements into a cohesive force to deal with an enormous set of challenges in a unified manner. The first challenge he faces is getting all his serviced components on the same sheet of music. Please note, this is no mean task. They are all different and all had diverse “birthing” processes. None of the differences are born of malice, or even inter-service rivalries; they are simply products of each organization’s respective cultures.

The 24th Air Force came first. The AF originally wanted to “own” cyber much the way they really own space today. They saw logic in this approach and roared down the road to capture the prize, offering the others a fait accompli. They were disappointed when the Secretary of Defense said “no” and backed off making cyber a Major Command with a four star commander.

Today it is a numbered Air Force (three star level) under Air Force Space Command. The organization is fairly conventional and is based on the model of other AF set ups. They have made the specialty designations indicate that it is an operational, vice a support-type command. They have made a great deal of progress in designing and re-orienting the career paths and education tracks for both their enlisted and officer level personnel.

The Navy came next, with the 10th Fleet. This is a reactivation of a historic (WW II) organization to take on a twenty-first century task. This is also a three-star level command, and it at least appears to be modeled on other more conventional Navy organizations. In reality it is not.

The Navy has pushed together its Intel and Communications organizations to create both the command and the Navy Staff entities with which it will work. They gave the command to a gruff Surface Warfare officer who was told to get it up and running as fast as he could. They are taking a look at many innovations that will “break the mold” as far as Navy practices go. Things like every sailor going to sea, which has long been a virtual commandment in the Navy. The cyber forces may never leave home. The Navy has not gotten too far into how all this will happen yet, but their boss has said it publicly, and in the Navy, that means it will happen.

The Army has gone very slowly. Initially, the only real element they had was a battalion, commanded by a lieutenant colonel. Rather than jumping right into a solution, the Army (again following service character) began to conduct a Capabilities Based Assessment for Cyber. This is a laborious, detailed (OK, painful) process that analyzes the needs, the intent, and the missions, and at the end of its long pipeline, spits out a full DOTMLPF solution set (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Manpower, Logistics, Policy, Facilities). Based on that study, the Army is now standing up a Cyber Command that will reside at Ft. Belvoir, VA. They had previously established a Task Force on the Army Staff that combined Intel, Signal, and operations elements under the Director of Operations. Where the Air Force and the Navy see themselves as possible leaders of strategic cyber, the Army has focused primarily on protecting its own networks and executing tactical and operational-level missions in support of its commanders in the field.

I confess to a lack of hard knowledge on the Marine Corps plans but have been told they are thus far separate from the Navy and more akin to the Army in that they are more tactically focused. Their contribution will be small and specialized, as befitting the Marine Corps missions and size.

The bottom line of all this is that Gen. Alexander now has to make these elements work in harmony. The military is much better at this sort of collaboration today than it has ever been before. In cyber, however, differences can be more problematic than in the other domains. Alexander must push for more unity of method and not just unity of purpose. Cyber is not the realm to allow service distinctions to continue if they in anyway hinder mission accomplishment.

Alexander is uniquely suited for this job. In fact, one Senator lamented during his confirmation process that while he knew Alexander could do this job, he was not sure that in a few years we could find a replacement. His task is a difficult one, but in the end, the nation’s military networks should be better protected and our enemies suitably deterred. Additionally, Alexander’s forces should also be able to support and advise their counterparts at DHS in the protection of our civilian networks.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Gushing Oil May Drown Proposal to Curb Coast Guard Funding

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

Gushing Oil May Drown Proposal to Curb Coast Guard Funding – CQ Homeland Security

With Coast Guard officers and cutters leading the disaster response in the Gulf of Mexico, an unpopular Obama administration proposal to reduce the agency’s funding in fiscal 2011 is quickly becoming even less popular on Capitol Hill.

The Coast Guard’s prominent role in the oil spill cleanup has led some lawmakers, including Joseph I. Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to rail anew against the budget reductions, making it increasingly likely that Congress will ignore the proposed cuts.

The administration’s original $9.6 billion request for the Coast Guard in fiscal 2011 would give the agency about $156 million less than it received in fiscal 2010. The reduction would result in the elimination of about 1,000 operational staff jobs and five counterterrorism units, as well as the decommissioning of a number of cutters, helicopters and surveillance jets used in drug interdiction and rescue missions.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland State & Local, Maritime & Seaport Security, Military & Homeland Defense | Comments

Oversight panel leaders push on Fort Hood inquiry

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Oversight panel leaders push on Fort Hood inquiry – Government Executive

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Wednesday they have made one more offer to get the Obama administration’s cooperation in the committee’s inquiry into the November Fort Hood shootings, but indicated they would have to seek authorization for a subpoena.

Lieberman said he and Collins had “no desire” to subpoena the Defense and Justice departments but feel they have no alternative. Allowing the administration to use the argument that giving the committee access to the documents and witnesses it has requested would jeopardize successful prosecution of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan would set “a very bad precedent” that “will haunt future congresses,” he said.

“Unfortunately, I do believe we will be returning to the committee for authorization,” Collins said, because she believes the administration will not cooperate.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, counterterrorism | Comments

Military Wants To Super-Charge Troop Smarts

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Military Wants To Super-Charge Troop Smarts – Danger Room

The Pentagon’s been trying to get ahead of the curve on neuroscience for years, toying with ideas like mind reading lie-detection and performance degrading drugs for enemy combatants. Now, they’re launching a major effort in harnessing neuroscience to better prepare soldiers for the mental rigors of modern warfare.

In a series of small business solicitations released last week, the Office of the Secretary of Defense outlined plans for a new “Cognitive Readiness Technology” program, with the intent of “making our warfighters as cognitively strong as they are physically strong.”

Neuroscience is at the locus of the program, because before they can super-charge cognition, Pentagon scientists need to understand exactly how it works. So they’re launching “Neuromorphic Models of Human Social Cultural Behavior (HSCB),” in an effort to accurately model human cognition, including how we perceive, learn and retain information.

Posted in Intelligence, International, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology | Comments

U.S. hypersonic glider lost in space

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

U.S. hypersonic glider lost in space – Homeland Security Newswire

U.S. military scientists lost contact with a hypersonic glider nine minutes into its inaugural test flight last week, a defense research agency said on Tuesday. The unmanned Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2) is designed to fly through the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere at speeds of up to Mach 20, providing the U.S. military with a possible platform for striking targets anywhere on the planet with conventional weapons.

AFP reports that the HTV-2 was launched last week aboard a Minotaur IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, according to DARPA. The test flight called for a 30-minute mission in which the vehicle would glide at high speed before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean, north of a U.S. military test site at the Kwajalein Atoll.

The glider separated from the booster but soon after the signal vanished, a spokeswoman said.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Prompt Global Strike A Step in the Right Direction

Monday, April 26th, 2010

The determination to proceed with the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) weapon system by the Obama Administration, as reported by the New York Times, raises interesting questions about the long-term future of nuclear weapons. PGS is effectively a tactical nuclear weapon without the messy nuclear after-effects. The system definitely has its advocates and detractors, its good points and bad. However, in a world the President is determined to make nuclear free, it is a step in the right direction.

The New York Times made much of the argument by the Russians that the system would increase the risk of a nuclear confrontation because they would not know if a launch were nuclear. That’s a grand theory, but it belies the concept of global thermo-nuclear war (remember that one?)

Unless a launch were strategic in nature, with sufficient missiles launched as to deny the enemy the ability to react because they had lost all their weapons and command and control, then the question is moot. Conventional weapons that have a similar effect as nuclear weapons can be used for the same purpose, but they have to be used in the same manner. The Russians, Chinese or whomever would have to see the same attack profile of hundreds of rockets in order to see the need to retaliate, and whether the pre-emptive strike was nuclear or not, the intended world-ending effect would be the same.

The PGS is simply an acquisition decision based on effect, as all acquisitions should be. In this case, the highest level of command has decided that in all but the very worst situations, nuclear fallout is unacceptable, and the deployment and weapons effect of PGS are very desirable; ergo a non-nuclear weapon system that behaves like a nuclear weapon. PGS increases the options available to the president without crossing the nuclear hurdle.

This positive news assumes that PGS really will mimic the effects of a nuclear strike. If not, then will the weapon system just be an overlap for Cruise and other conventional weapon systems? If so, it begins to look and feel like a lot of money spent for little capability improvement; however, the intention is good. One could of course postulate that if the President is truly serious about removing nuclear weapons from the equation, then shouldn’t the technology for PGS be shared with the other nuclear-equipped nations?

As ever with weapons procurement on this scale, the technology is not yet there, and who knows what other benefits may be found in the development stage. PGS, like all systems, has its challenges, and its use will have its issues as well. The determination to have the effect on the target area be measured in seconds rather than decades, however, is an important step forward, one that, if nothing else, reduces the risk of accidents associated with the current nuclear weapons arsenal.

Posted in International, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

The Navy Moves Forward on Cyber

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

I was privileged to attend a super event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Monday. They hosted Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, Commander of U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and U.S. 10th Fleet (both Navy cyber organizations). It was in the main a normal “command brief,” but McCullough’s forthrightness made it much more.

McCullough has had a stellar career as a Navy surface warfare officer. The officers in that field are known for their no-nonsense way of doing business, but the Vice Adm. is clearly in a class by himself. His commands “own” a wide portfolio of electronic issues for the Sea Service. He has Info Ops, SIGINT, Electronic Warfare, Networks, Space Ops, Information Assurance, and Cryptography.

That is a huge plate. Grouping these skills/missions together makes perfect sense, but it is an enormous task regardless.

McCullough opened his remarks by telling the industry audience that after several months, he is beginning to understand the problem set. He emphasized that anyone who thinks there is a quick technological fix to this is dreaming. It will be a long slog and a tough one. He also admitted that while cyber is a domain, he looks at it as a battle space, so he can maintain his orientation as a war fighter and as a provider of direct support to other war fighters.

His three main areas of focus are to protect the Navy’s networks and cyber capabilities, to facilitate the offensive operations, and to produce non-kinetic effects when they are called for.

While there are lots of “good” activities ongoing right now, McCullough said that no two are alike. There is a need for some sort of standards and standardized procedures across the space. One set of initiatives that is needed in the Navy is a relook at their career management. Confessing that he always thought that “every sailor” needs to go to sea, he sees now that he was wrong. It takes too long to educate and train experts in cyber. To do so and then send them away to a new assignment after two to four years of utilization is not wise. Even for the officers in this field, the Navy has to stabilize their personnel or waste huge amounts of money and time.

The Vice Adm. also noted five areas to which he is paying as much attention as possible:

Keeping an operational mindset, vice a “support” view;
Refining the Command and Control (C2) relationships between himself and his regional/geographic counterparts;
Obtaining and maintaining situational awareness of the cyber battle space;
Understanding and properly using the present authorities (he has Title 10, Title 50, and even some Title 14 authorities); and
Developing a way to operate in real time (computer fast).

These are the right priorities for the Navy (and other services too) right now. McCullough emphasized that all the services were working together on this challenge. None of them had all they needed to address it alone, so their joint cooperation was the key.

He wrapped up with an acknowledgement that there were huge definitional issues still to be resolved. It is easy to talk of computer network attacks, but being able to execute them without lots of unintended consequences is very difficult.

Bottom line: The Navy is moving in absolutely the correct direction, with the right man at the helm. McCullough’s recognition that they are not there yet is not just accurate, it is crucial to ever getting there.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Intelligence, International, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

US consulate attacked in Pakistan

Monday, April 5th, 2010

The Associated Press: US consulate attacked in NW Pakistan

Islamist militants attacked a U.S. consulate in northwest Pakistan with car bombs and grenades Monday, killing three people, hours after 41 people died in a suicide attack on a political rally elsewhere in the region.

Posted in International, Military & Homeland Defense | Comments

Military Savvy and Sensitivity to Cyber Issues

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

This will be a short and odd post. I was privileged to participate as a speaker at a gathering of senior military leaders. It was a non-attribution event, so I am prohibited from discussing the details or who was there, but several “messages” warrant going out. If anyone wants to question my integrity for not giving the names, I am afraid I will have to live with it.

This group of 25 or so general and flag officers (with several senior executive service folks mixed in) spent a week off site, chewing on lots of issues that will bedevil them as they continue up the ladder of our nation’s military. I (and others) was there to discuss the tech industry’s viewpoint and to provoke some discussion on cyber issues.

Using full disclosure, I am a retired career military officer, so I was culturally predisposed to flow with a group like this. Even factoring that in, I was blown away by the quality of the discussion. About 75 percent of the “students” were honest to goodness experts in the intricacies of the present cyber explosion. The others clambered to gain the expertise they recognized that they needed but were missing. They worried, debated, and opined about privacy, civil liberties, and the proper use of ubiquitous social media.

There were no Neanderthal Ludites here folks; these men and women care as much about the potential negative effects of too much security as they do the lack of it. They want to see the United States use its incredible potential for innovation, not lock it down.

They want industry to share information with law enforcement and intelligence, but they want those organizations to learn how to protect and be sensitive to industry’s proprietary information concerns as well. They are as open to new ways of thinking as they are to new weapons systems. I, for one, was thrilled that our nation is the hands of leaders of this caliber.

I would love to give full credit to the government entity that organized and funded this event. They deserve to be congratulated and given more money and assets. The obvious benefits of this sort of high quality, totally open intellectual exchange cannot be deigned.

When you give these hard working Type-A officers a chance to stop (even for a few days), they do not waste it. These people have in their hands the most precious resource this great country possesses – our young men and women. Several have just returned from combat command in Afghanistan and Iraq; others were headed that way soon after the class. Still more are in key leadership positions directly involving cyber issues.

America is well served. We owe a great debt to these people, one I know we will never be able to repay. We know it, and so do they, yet they do it anyway, without any complaint. For them, it is not a job, it is a calling.

Posted in Cyber Security, Military & Homeland Defense, counterterrorism | Comments

Will the Pentagon Finally Get Web 2.0?

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Will the Pentagon Finally Get Web 2.0? – Wired

On Friday, the Pentagon announced a new social media policy that will the troops to use Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites, within limits. True to form, Pentagon social media czar Price Floyd announced the policy change in a Twitter update.

It’s an important move, and has the potential to clear up the military’s longstanding confusion over web 2.0. Last summer, Noah broke the news that the Department of Defense was strongly considering a near-total ban on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. Not long after that, the Marine Corps banned Web 2.0 sites from its networks. But the crackdown also came as military services and top leaders embraced social networking tools to communicate with the public.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology | Comments

Key lawmakers tackle Islamic extremism in the military

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Key lawmakers tackle Islamic extremism in the military – Government Executive

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee leaders on Wednesday asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to revise department policies to address Islamic extremism.

The committee is investigating the Nov. 5, 2009, shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 13 and injured dozens more. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist who apparently adopted radical Islamist views, some of which were reportedly known by his peers, has been charged with the killings.

Posted in Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Radicalization | Comments

The Military Looks for Help in Cyber Defense

Monday, December 14th, 2009

In all my years in the military (28 years in uniform and a total 35 years in the Department of Defense), I always held a certain mind set. It goes something like this:

“In the private sector, if they do poorly, they lose money; in the military, if we do poorly, we lose lives.”

I still think this is true, but now, when I look at the military’s efforts in the cyber security realm, I am concerned. The military still has the highest motivation, but in the cyber security realm it is not doing as well as some entities in the private sector.

Please do not misunderstand me. The military and other U.S. defense agencies are doing well in many areas. For instance, the National Security Agency is unparalleled in its capabilities, many of which are highly classified. If we have to unleash cyber war, I feel fairly confident we will defeat our enemies. But on the defensive side, I have much less confidence.

The Military Services are all calling for help. There have been several recent contract actions started to provide the services with help for everything from the initial strategic planning for cyber efforts to specific capabilities in defending networks. This challenge reaches across the strategic – operational – tactical divide that governs how the military views conflict. It also crosses the barriers of geography, domains and nations. Lastly, it spills pretty regularly into commercial spaces where the military has no expertise or legal authorities.

To address this quandary, the services are looking to defense contractors to help them evaluate their needs and their present capabilities. This defines the delta of what they must do to fix the problem. The next step is to design a force structure, doctrine, methodology, and personnel system that can address this problem now and in the future.

A big issue is that in cyber security most of the big private sector federal integrators, staffed largely by former government employees, continue to think like the government agencies they served for so long. The solutions that many have developed are not greatly different than what the military is coming up with on their own. This is not to denigrate these firms. Despite the bad press they sometimes get, our Federal agencies could not function without them. In this case, however, I am afraid the closeness in their thought process to their clients’ will end up working against the Nation by limiting the types of solutions considered. We need some new thinking.

It will take ideas and thoughts from the “real” private sector to adequately address the challenges in cyber security. Of course, the government in general, and the military in particular, have unique requirements and challenges. That said, we still need to look to the private sector for successful cyber security applications and other ideas that will help the military build a system through which we can defend the networks critical to our military’s performance.

Let’s look outside the Beltway “box” and find some really creative solutions. Our military advantage depends on it.

Posted in Cyber Security, Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Terrorists Inside U.S. and Planning to Strike, Says DHS Secretary

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Terrorists Inside U.S. and Planning to Strike, Says DHS Secretary – Security Management

Home-based terrorists are currently inside the United States and are looking to strike targets here and abroad, the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said in a speech last night.

“Home-based terrorism is here. And like violent extremism abroad, it is now part of the threat picture that we must confront,” Napolitano told the America-Israel Friendship League in New York City, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press release.

Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post called Napolitano’s statements last night her “bluntest assessments yet of terror threats within the country” a night after President Obama announced he will send an additional 30,000 U.S. service members to Afghanistan to fight Taliban militants and al Qaeda terrorists in an effort to stabilize the war-torn country.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland State & Local, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, counterterrorism | Comments

A New Way Forward: Right Makes Might

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

A New Way Forward: Right Makes Might – Homeland Security Watch

Last night President Obama outlined his administration’s strategy and plans for a troop build-up and eventual draw down of forces in Afghanistan during a 35-minute nationally-televised speech from the United States Military Academy at West Point. Two points stood out for me: One from the speech itself and one from the context.

At several points during the second half of the speech, the president reiterated his view that our national security and our homeland security are deeply intertwined. In particular, he emphasized connections between the cost of the war and the parlous state of our economy.

The president made a point of identifying how important it is for the American people to support the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In doing so he drew a connection between our efforts there and efforts over the past 60 years starting in Europe to build a wide range of international institutions that have enabled security and prosperity not only for the United States but for other nations as well.

Posted in International, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, counterterrorism | Comments