Guest Spot: Jack Gibbons
Protecting our troops
Once again, the breach of classified information by politicians is in the news. As a former naval officer responsible for the control of classified documents and information, I am dismayed at the cavalier attitude of politicians of both parties in their handing of sensitive, classified materials.
It’s important for Americans to understand exactly what is classified, why it’s classified, and how classified information must be handled.
At its core, classified information is information that, if obtained by enemies of the United States, would place our military and intelligence personnel at risk, compromise our national security, and ultimately place us all in danger. Classified information is divided into four categories based its sensitivity: Unclassified, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. The designation of Top Secret is reserved for the most sensitive information, the release of which would create a grave and imminent danger to our personnel and national security. Additional qualifiers can be added, such as NOFO (No Foreign Distribution) or SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information).
When not in use, all classified documents must be stored in a combination lock safe, in a secure location guarded 24/7 by military or security personnel. Typically, this means a U.S. warship, military base or secure government location, such as Congress or the Oval Office. Additionally, an individual with the proper security clearance must be assigned as the custodian of the documents at each location and, when removed for use, a chain of custody is required. When a government official leaves office, any classified material must be signed over to the incoming official, destroyed according to current protocols, or returned to the originating agency.
Access to classified information by individuals requires the proper security clearance, but there exists another, over-arching requirement: There must be a “need to know” the information. For example, a Top Secret clearance allows access to that level material only if the information is relevant to the mission of the unit involved.
Past infractions of security reflect a lack of concern for the handling of classified documents by politicians of both parties. For example, President Biden had classified documents in a locked cabinet (not a safe) in his garage. Not secure! Vice President Pence had classified documents in a locked cabinet in his study. Again, not secure! And President Trump, after losing the 2020 election, had a voluminous amount of classified material in a closet at Mar-a-Lago. Most definitely not secure! Did these officials have a “need to know”? President Biden could claim he had a need for these documents. But Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence, as private citizens, had no legal standing and no “need to know.”
That brings us to the most recent lapse of security, the current scandal involving the discussion of a current military operation against the Houthi terrorist faction in Yemen on the commercial chat platform, Signal. Notably, the chat inadvertently included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine. The lack of awareness and/or concern for the proper handling of classified information regarding a current military operation boggles the mind and reflects a complete lack of competence by everyone involved. The fact that those involved are among the highest positions of government is truly frightening. Let’s examine the situation more critically.
First, should the information be classified? Despite loud disclaimers from those involved, information about a current military operation requires the highest possible classification — Top Secret. This is a no-brainer. When sending F-18 fighter pilots on a combat mission into hostile territory, it’s absolutely essential that the timing and details receive the highest possible classification for the protection of our military personnel. For the participants to argue that this information is unclassified is absurd and represents the personification of incompetence. Our troops deserve better.
Second, should a discussion of ongoing military operations be discussed on a commercial platform? Absolutely not! Military and government officials cannot guarantee the secrecy and security of the discussion, nor can they be certain other parties with hostile intentions were not hacking the discussion.
Third, should military planning be discussed via cellphone communication? Again, absolutely not! Commercial cellphone communication is not considered secure. Only devices issued by the government, operating via an appropriate encrypted government platform, should be considered secure. A discussion of an ongoing military operation should occur only in a war room setting with the relevant personnel in attendance.
Fourth, should someone have been responsible to ensure that the participants in the discussion are appropriate, possess the proper clearance and have that essential “need to know”? Of course! The fact that a journalist was included in this discussion reflects an appalling level of incompetence and should be grounds for immediate dismissal of those responsible.
Fifth, should the participants be aware that our military personnel are actually risking their lives, and should their comments and demeanor reflect the gravity of the situation? Of course! This is not the forum for emojis or cheerleading. Remember the appropriate seriousness of the war room in the Obama administration when Navy Seals were conducting the operation to capture Osama bin Laden. That level of seriousness is required of administration officials each time young men and women are sent into combat.
The breach of security in this incident is so egregious, had it been done by military officers, those involved would be charged with dereliction of duty, court-martial and likely face a prison sentence. Our military personnel, facing enemy fire, deserve better than this.
Finally, should Mr. Goldberg and The Atlantic have released the transcript of the meeting. Absolutely not! The safety of our military personnel must always remain the paramount consideration. Given the fact that the government officials involved were lying and attempting to justify their incompetence, an argument can be made that the public has a right to know. But the fact remains that even the details of past military operations are valuable sources of intelligence for enemies of the United States. This is not information we should ever intentionally make available to our enemies.
Jack Gibbons is a decorated U.S. Navy veteran who served in Vietnam as an executive officer at a forward base of operations outside Da Nang. He taught social studies at Mattituck High School for 34 years.
