The men and women who are defending our country, whether in the field or in the Pentagon, deserve our gratitude and respect. But sometimes the U.S. Army does things that are wrong, and sometimes it does things that are dumb.
In the latter category, consider its ham-fisted efforts to protect sensitive military information from disclosure to the enemy. Under the title “Operations Security” (OPSEC), the Army recently published an updated, 79-page, densely packed manual on the subject, replete with instructions like the following:
(a) Identification of critical information – determine what information needs protection.
(b) Analysis of threats – identify the adversaries and how they can collect information.
(c) Analysis of vulnerabilities – analyze what critical information friendly forces are exposing.
(d) Assessment of risk – assess what protective measures should be implemented.
(e) Application of appropriate OPSEC measures – countermeasures that protect critical information.
The OPSEC document itself contains a classification marking of “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) noting that it “contains technical or operational information” and that “Distribution is limited to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors.”
It also bears a “Destruction Notice,” instructing those who possess it to “destroy [it] by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.”
The trouble is that the OPSEC document is now widely available on the web. Published first by Wired News, it was then replicated by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the Left-leaning advocacy group which runs a website that is one of the world’s best private repositories of documents pertaining to U.S. security and secrecy.
The Army has now demanded that FAS remove the document from circulation. “You have Army Publications hosted on your website illegally,” wrote Cheryl Clark of the Army Publishing Directorate, “There are only 5 Official Army Publications Sites. You are not one of them, you can link to our publications, but you cannot host them. . . . Please remove this publication immediately or further action will be taken.”
Steven Aftergood, who runs the FAS website, has refused to obey:
Dear Ms. Clark,
I have considered your request that we remove Army publications from the Federation of American Scientists website. For the reasons below, I have decided not to comply.
You indicate that we have posted Army documents “illegally.” That is not true. The posted documents are “works of the United States Government” under 17 U.S.C. 101. Such items cannot be copyrighted, as explained in 17 U.S.C. 105. Nor to my knowledge is there any other law that would prohibit posting of such documents on a public or private website.
You threaten unspecified “further action” if we do not comply with Army regulations governing distribution of records marked “For Official Use Only.” But the Federation of American Scientists, a non-governmental organization, is not a component of the U.S. Army and is not subject to internal Army regulations, including regulations on FOUO documents.
Accordingly, our publications are not illegal nor in violation of any applicable regulation.
I recognize that the Army has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its online publications are authentic and up to date. I have therefore added a disclaimer to our Army doctrine web page, indicating that ours is not an official U.S. Army website. I have also provided direct links to the five official websites.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/index.html
I believe this addresses the substance of your concerns, if not the details.
Steven Aftergood
What will happen next? I do not know. But Aftergood, who is a thoughtful critic of government secrecy—he and I have debated issues of secrecy and government leaks in the pages of COMMENTARY—would seem to have the law on his side.
If the U.S. Army is serious about operational secrecy, it would do well to keep its secrets truly secret and not let them slip into the hands of the Federation of American Scientists. Trying to recall a secret once it is out only compounds whatever damage has been done. Even before the advent of the Internet, it was impossible to squeeze toothpaste back into the tube.
