previous post next post  

OPSEC: Obviously Nobody Knows What It Is

By Denizens on October 17, 2007 | | Comments (12)

[Denizen Opinion - Kat]

Okay. Not really opinion, but apropos the Armorer's ongoing wry (not ry) humor over having his blog on the "examples" of op sec violators, I caught this little blog from Mudville's infamous Dawn Patrol: Nancy in Iraq.

No, she didn't violate op sec as far as I could tell (I'm a civilian, what do I know), but someone came along and said she did after she talked rather vaguely about getting mortared and how she would rather be laughed at by some folks for zealously putting her Kevlar helmet and "flak" jacket on than to be one of those people who doesn't and bites the big one.

Anony Mouse comes along in comments and says that she gave out too much info. A little commenting goes back and forth.

The long and short of it is that it is clear no one really understands what is or isn't "op sec" and how much the enemy knows, has had confirmed physically or can easily obtain through other open sources.

Check the blog and the comments.

What's Op Sec?

Does anyone actually know?

Then there is the NYT version of Op Sec. Op Sec? Screw'em.

Which sometimes makes you think Op Sec is a word we like to throw around so we can sound all James Bondish.

Share This Article:

Categories:

12 Comments

By Greg Morris on October 17, 2007 7:48 AM
I think OPSEC is not giving the enemy, or potential enemies, or even nosy friends any information that can be used against us. Even if something is "public knowledge", we certainly shouldn't make it easier on our enemies. The other thing is, most people don't understand that vague or incomplete information can be used to generate really good intelligence... so as a general rule, you have to give 'em less, not more.
 
By MajMike on October 17, 2007 8:15 AM
i could tell you what it means, but then i would have to kill you. here's a link to a cheap quick definition: http://jproc.ca/crypto/terms.html
 
By AFSister on October 17, 2007 9:03 AM
As far as I can tell, nothing in the blog OR comments would violate OpSec. There were no pictures or video posted that isn't available elsewhere. First names are mentioned, but not last. Location is mentioned "generally", but no coordinates were given. Reaction to the attack is discussed, but who would be surprised about a soldier under attack putting on protective gear, getting to a bunker and checking on teammates? Op Sec doesn't mean "close your mouth"... it means "watch your mouth". As far as I can tell, she's watching it.
 
By Damian on October 17, 2007 9:23 AM
I tend to be with Kat on this one: OPSEC is a moving target, ill-defined and all too often used as a feeble excuse for not making a real effort on the important information war being waged for domestic and foreign hearts and minds in this Long War. I wrote about one particular Canadian example of that phenomenon here: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/ied-success-rates.html I'd suggest the enemy in Iraq, for example, gets more information from the public testimony of General Petraeus on Capitol Hill, than it does from Nancy In Iraq. EVERYTHING we say in public about our military efforts violates OPSEC to some degree or another, whether it's American forces tipping their hand about the surge strategy they'll be employing, or Canadian forces advising the number of troops we have on the ground in Kandahar province in Afghanistan. Balanced against the need for OPSEC is the need to educate our respective populations about the true nature of the conflict, so that they can make informed democratic decisions. Without that public support, the medium-to-long-term war effort is doomed no matter what the troops on the ground do or don't do. To me, the real question is about balance, about the optimal compromise between OPSEC and critical information for the voting public.
 
By AFSister on October 17, 2007 10:50 AM
Totally concur, Damian.
 
By Oldloadr on October 17, 2007 11:12 AM
The issue that Nancy was first attacked on in her blog had to do with knowing when the attack was over. That is not an OPSEC thing. You always know when the indirect fire is going to stop because the bad guys already know how long they have until the AH-64s/A-10s/F-16s show up and "light up their night." Shoot & Scoot is the only survivable TTP for insurgents to attack CV. We didn't tell them that; they figured it out on their own after a few of their buddies got down range of 20mm, 30mm, Hellfires, GBU-12s etc. (LOL).
 
By kat-missouri on October 17, 2007 1:42 PM
Yeah...Oldldr...I think that was my point. The enemy has had our response time figured out for a couple of years. They know how long it takes to spin up. They either figured it out in the way that you mention or because they have guys watching our posts with cell phones that were willing to do that. Of course, I just saw an interesting report over Jawa about satellite images with our bases outlined on a Jihadi forum. Yep. Op Sec in this day and age is interesting to say the least.
 
By BillT on October 17, 2007 4:13 PM
Of course, I just saw an interesting report over Jawa about satellite images with our bases outlined on a Jihadi forum. Outlines added, obviously, by the bad guys. The fact that pix of bases are there isn't worth getting huffy over -- individual unit locations and individual building IDs *would*. For all the flap over GoogleEarth, the satellite pix there have minimal military value unless you want to see what an area looked like, say, in 2003 and then compare it with a current aerial photo to see what's changed...
 
By dave on October 17, 2007 4:53 PM
What I find interesting is given the size of the base in question some personnel on base never even heard the attack. From some media reports about the recent attack it appears the targeting has improved as of late and some believe that there is a spy on base helping the shooters improve thier aim. Given the crude methods use to launch the rockets how consistant can they be with thier targeting now that they seem to have it improved toa degree?
 
By kat-missouri on October 17, 2007 5:03 PM
I remember a TINS from Bill that talked about indigenous workers who worked for the bad guys and would pace off the area or give rough estimates as to the locations of things on the bases for targeting. Odds are, that was and is happening on our bases. However, for these kinds of attacks and their actual purposes, which is media driven and whose purpose is basically to harass and keep people from relaxing on these bases, indirect fire, gun and run, etc is effective without much risk to their personnel. They can't really afford that risk because they really don't have that many personnel. Unlike the Vietnamese who not only wanted to harass, but were attempting to destroy large portions of the base, its supplies and personnel so took the risk of not only sustained indirect fire but direct artillery that could be counter targeted. they had hundreds of thousands of more fighters to replace their losses. These AQ and Iraqi insurgent force do not have that luxury. So, for their purposes, they don't necessarily need exact measurements, just the general location of the base.
 
By BillT on October 17, 2007 5:39 PM
Odds are, that was and is happening on our bases. Odds are, you're right. Odds are, you're also right about the nature of the attacks -- you only have to scatter a few rounds into a central area and you'll disturb *something*, and you may even get lucky and hit something of value. We solved a lot of quick-reaction problems by having crews nap in the helicopters, with the pilots staying awake in shifts and switches and throttle set for "combat crank" -- hit the igniters and about 45 seconds later, you were in the air and ready to hit the bad guys' firing position (btw, kat, the NVA and VC were just as antsy as the jihadis about beating feet outta there). That won't work with the hi-tech, overly-sophisticated helicopters we have today -- takes too long to start each engine and then get the 'lectrical stuff online. I've preflighted an OH-6 (eight minutes), strapped in (less than a minute), cranked the engine and gone to full throttle (three minutes), repositioned for takeoff, launched and been a mile away (three minutes) in the time it took two of my buddies to go from before-start to engine-runup in a Black Hawk. And it's about the same for an Apache, if not a bit longer -- all those weapons checks gulp time like me with a six-pack of Belgian ale... Did any of that violate OPSEC? Nope. I guarantee you the bad guys know *to the second* the minimum time they have from the initial turbine whine to the Apache leaving the pad.
 
By Captain Tony on October 20, 2007 9:23 PM
Funny, we were talking about this today at lunch. One of my buddies is a cop, Infantry and MI officer. He was complaining about getting dinged for confirming open-source info. And YES, there are bad guys working for us.