Thoughts About Security Clearances

The latest buffoonery coming out of the Trump White House is one that few people fully understand: Donald Trump's petulant stripping of security clearances from former intelligence and security officials who have criticized him ... including taking them from those who actually no longer have security clearances.

Because of the excessive spin and bloviation on this topic, I thought I'd share a few observations with you based on my career as a military intelligence officer and as a civilian contractor supporting the Air Force after my retirement from active duty.

First of all, former senior members of the intelligence and security communities - particularly those who were career officials rather than political appointees - represent a wealth of knowledge and experience on which their successors can draw. Maintaining their clearances allows them to be tapped (often on short notice) for advice or historical perspectives on planned actions. Here's a personal story: after I retired from the Air Force in 1996 I worked as a contractor on the Air Staff, where one of my early tasks was to develop a planning framework for cyber security for the Air Force. I spent months working on the project, and when it was far enough along, my Air Force customer wanted it presented to a "greybeard* panel" (more colorfully known as a "murder board") of former senior intelligence officials. The board consisted of a half-dozen retired intelligence generals and admirals, including two former directors of the National Security Agency. I presented my proposals to them and answered very detailed and probing questions for a long and agonizing day, at the end of which they endorsed many of my ideas, shot down others, and made a number of excellent suggestions for improvements. They were able to do this because they had the professional knowledge and experience and the retained clearances that allowed them to continue to contribute to the nation's defense. Trump apologists seem to believe that a high-level clearance can be granted on the fly for brief periods of time if necessary. This reflects an abysmal misunderstanding of how classified material is protected and how access to it is granted.

The White House has accused former intelligence and security officials of "monetizing" their clearances - of using them to make huge salaries in the commercial world. Well, consider this: it's very expensive to get a security clearance. It involves months of investigations, interviews, and parsing of virtually every aspect of the candidate's life, and a careful consideration of the risks and benefits of granting access to classified information. A company that wants to bid on a classified contract needs people with clearances, and - understandably - prefers to hire people who already have them, rather than hiring new people and paying the government tens of thousands of dollars to conduct new clearance investigations. The government, for its part, wants to hire people who are ready to go, without the need to wait for clearance investigations and adjudications to be completed. I'd have thought an administration that's as intensely pro-business as this one would love to save companies money by recognizing the savings represented by hiring people who've already been cleared.

Third, the idea that criticism of Donald Trump and his policies has something to do with the possession of a security clearance is ridiculous. No one needs a top secret clearance or other special accesses to see the damage this administration is doing to the nation. Mr Trump is not at all concerned about security clearances per se ... he's simply concerned that the stature and experience of these persons gives authority to their criticisms, and yanking clearances is a petulant and convenient way to hit back at them when he can't argue on merit.

That's my take on this. I expect that those who worship at the festooned altar of Donald Trump won't accept this view, but I'm past caring about it. I no longer have a clearance, but I don't need one to recognize ignorance and poor leadership.

Have a good day. More thoughts later.

Bilbo

* I suppose if there had been any women on it, it would have been a "greybeard and bluehair panel."

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 2015

In the biblical book of Revelation, verses 1 through 8 of Chapter 6 introduce the figures we know today as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Only one of them (Death) is actually named; the others are simply described - War, Famine, and Pestilence.

But the Bible was written more than a thousand years ago, and things change. The traditional Four Horsemen certainly are still with us, but I contend that they are slowly being displaced by the updated Four Horsemen - Vanity, Ignorance, Demagoguery, and Denial.

Vanity is exemplified by self-important celebrities and political figures interested only in their own self-aggrandizement. Many televangelists, and rabble-rousing community leaders like Al Sharpton follow the Horseman of Vanity.

Ignorance is exemplified by those who deny evidence and blindly follow their prejudices. Those who choose to ignore common sense, compassion, morality, and established science in favor of blind religious belief follow the Horseman of Ignorance.

Demagoguery represents political blowhards who rage endlessly and irresponsibly, without regard for the consequences of their ravings. Right-wing TV and radio gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, and irresponsible politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz follow the Horseman of Demagoguery.

Denial is the twin brother of Ignorance, and represents those who blindly follow their chosen beliefs, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, refusing to admit or acknowledge objective reality. Climate change deniers and Second Amendment zealots follow the Horseman of Denial.

America is a free country, although there are those who would play upon our basest instincts and fears in an attempt to take those freedoms away. Nobody will ever take away the hundreds of millions of guns now in the hands of people who take counsel of their worst fears, but our other fundamental freedoms - of speech, peaceful assembly, and religion - are on the block*. We are afraid of the wrong things.

Look around you. Think. And if you're going to follow a horseman, do it at the track.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Look under "p" for Patriot Act.

The Great Pentagon Doughnut War

At a time when the nation is at war with murderous religious bigots; when the federal budget is a mess; when members of Congress refuse to work with each other, half of them despise the President, and both parties despise each other; at a time when ebola is ravaging West Africa, volcanoes are erupting all over the place, earthquakes are causing devastation and loss of life, and the nation's capital is tied up in knots over whether or not the local football team should be called the "Redskins" or something less inflammatory, you'd think we have enough to worry about.

You'd think wrong.

The really critical issue of the day is this: what constitutes a doughnut?

This is a matter of no small concern to my coworkers and I, because it comes to the heart of one of our very serious office traditions. You see, we work in the Pentagon. To enter the Pentagon, one must have a Pentagon access badge which features a magnetic stripe that allows one to swipe into the building itself and then into the various individual rooms to which one is authorized access. If you forget your badge, you can get a temporary visitor's badge, but it doesn't have the magnetic stripe, and so you can't enter your office unless someone already inside comes and opens the door for you.

In our office, the tradition is that if you inconvenience your coworkers by forcing them to get up and open the door to let you in each time you come back from a meeting, the bathroom, lunch, etc, you are required to buy a box of doughnuts as payment for the disruption to routine.

Now, a few weeks ago one of my coworkers ... we'll call him "John" ... forgot his badge. In due respect for tradition, he stopped by the Dunkin Donuts shop on the way up to the office and picked up a box of "Munchkins" - donut holes:

When John opened the box of Munchkins, another of my coworkers ... we'll call him "Mike" ... objected vociferously that John had not followed the rules, because he hadn't bought doughnuts, he'd brought Munchkins. These, Mike insisted, are doughnuts ...

Ridiculous, responded John. Munchkins are doughnuts, just in a different form.

Not so!, insisted Mike ... the rules say doughnuts, and Munchkins aren't doughnuts.

It went downhill from there, with the folks in the office lining up on both sides of the argument. John turned to the Eternal Source of All Questionable and Unverified Knowledge*, Wikipedia, and printed out the entire file on doughnuts - including pictures - to prove that Munchkins were, in fact, doughnuts. That file hangs on the office bulletin board to this day, ignored by partisans on both sides of the argument who believe with nearly religious fervor that Munchkins either are, or are not, real doughnuts**.

Me, I'm agnostic about the whole thing. Who cares about the shape, as long as they're free?

So, Dear Readers, what's your opinion? Is Mike right, or is John right? Does it matter? Or should we try something else? ...

Leave a comment and let me know.

Have a good day. And have a doughnut while you're at it. And a nice cup of coffee, too.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Sing halleluja!

** At least nobody has cut any heads off, yet.