Published: 10/19/2012

The Hampton Roads area of Virginia has played a vital role in the history of the United States, and of the military in particular, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.

Since the Civil War and the first battle between two ironclad ships, the area has been on the leading edge of American military innovation, with its shipyards serving as the backbone of American naval power, Panetta said in remarks to members of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce.

The broad challenges now faced by the military also face the Hampton Roads region, he said.

After a decade of war, the U.S. is at a strategic turning point, the defense secretary said. Congressionally mandated budget cuts come at a time when the nation still faces a dangerous and unpredictable world, he said.

“I am not one who believes that you have to choose between fiscal security and national security,” he said.

Violent extremism, weapons proliferation, international instability and the rise of new powers across Asia are just some of the challenges facing the country, Panetta said.

“And now we confront a whole new threat of warfare in cyber [space]” he said. “I think this is an area we have got to pay close attention to. This is the battle front of the future. As I speak, there are cyberattacks going on in this country.”

“And now they’re developing the capability to be able to go after our grid -- our power grid, our financial systems, our government systems -- and virtually paralyze this country,” Panetta said.

“We are confronting a series of threats to our national security,” he said. “I’ve got to do everything I can to make sure we protect this country.”

To address those challenges while meeting America’s fiscal responsibilities, he said, the Defense Department undertook a review of the defense strategy. As part of that review, it established new defense priorities and focused on designing a force that would carry the U.S. into the future.

The five elements of the new defense strategy are, Panetta said, a smaller, more agile force; a rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and Middle East; building international partnerships and alliances; ensuring the nation can confront and defeat aggression, even when it occurs on multiple fronts; and making key investments in defense technologies and capabilities.

As part of that strategy, the defense secretary said, “We will continue to invest in the unique capabilities and the military and industrial facilities like those in Hampton Roads.”

“I also want to maintain our industrial base,” Panetta said. I’ll be damned if I’m going to contract out to any other country to be able to protect ... this country.”

For example, he said, despite budget pressures, the Defense Department elected to retain the Navy’s full fleet of aircraft carriers.

“Similarly, we are investing in the Virginia-class submarine and upgrading this important capability for the future,” he said.

“And finally,” Panetta said, “we are investing in the cutting-edge unmanned systems and cyber warfare capabilities that are so important in our mission at Langley Air Force Base.”

“This community has strongly positioned itself to help us achieve our strategy,” he said. “But ... we are jeopardized if Congress does not act to prevent sequester from taking effect in January,” he added.

The additional cuts would be devastating to the nation’s defense, Panetta said.

“There’s still time to prevent sequestration,” he said. “Let me be clear, no one wants this to happen ... but, for God’s sake, don’t just kick this can down the road.”

“The last thing I need, having put this strategy in place, is not to know where I’m headed in the future in terms of a stable budget,” the defense secretary said.

The decisions made in Washington have a lasting and real impact on American communities, Panetta said.

“As we emerge out of this decade of war, the new greatest generation of Americans is going to be returning home to communities like this. They need our support in order to transition back into civilian life,” the defense secretary said.

“I’ve got some great weapons systems. I’ve got some great tanks. I’ve got some great ships. I’ve got the best in terms of bombers and fighters,” Panetta said. “But do you know what makes the United States strong? It is the men and women in uniform who serve this country.”
 

Back to top

Published: 10/19/2012

An alleged assault of a female Japanese citizen in Okinawa by two U.S. service members Oct. 16 has drawn an apology from the commander of U.S. forces in Japan and imposition of a curfew throughout the country.

“I want to personally apologize for the grief and trauma the victim has endured and the anger it has caused among people in Okinawa,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Salvatore A. “Sam” Angelella said in a written statement issued today.

The curfew order requires all members of the U.S. armed forces in Japan, including those serving there on temporary duty, to be on a U.S. military installation, in a private off-installation residence -- or, in the case of people on temporary duty, at their place of lodging, which may include a hotel room -- from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. Violations are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the general’s statement said.

Angelella also has ordered subordinate commanders to conduct core value retraining for military personnel and for civilians covered in the status of forces agreement between the United States and Japan. A review of the U.S. Forces Japan liberty policy will take place over the coming days and weeks, the general said.

“Japan is one of our greatest allies, most trusted partners, and is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Pacific region,” the general said. “We will continue to do all we can to ensure the U.S.-Japan relationship remains strong.”

In a statement issued yesterday, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little expressed regret for the victim’s suffering and said officials are working closely with the Japanese government and relevant local officials in their investigation of the alleged assault.

“The Department of Defense takes all incidents and allegations involving misconduct by service members seriously and pledges its continued cooperation,” Little said. “U.S. Forces Japan is actively engaged with the government of Japan, and the U.S. Navy is fully cooperating with authorities in Okinawa as they continue their investigation.”

Little added that officials soon will announce a package of measures to ensure responsible behavior and to demonstrate the Defense Department’s commitment to maintaining positive relationships with the local communities that host U.S. forces.
 

Back to top

Published: 10/19/2012

The Defense Department on Oct. 26 will kick off its annual volunteer mentoring program to help hire individuals with disabilities as part of National Disability Employment Awareness Month, Stephen M. King, DOD’s director of disability programs, said recently.

King said the volunteer program is in step with Executive Order 13548, “Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities,” to highlight the importance of mentoring people with disabilities, and to improve the hiring and retention of people with disabilities within DOD.

"The mentor-mentee relationship develops over the course of seven months, and sometimes becomes so strong it extends outside of the program,” King said. “The relationships have even encompassed advice in decision making related not only to mentees’ professional lives, but their personal lives as well.”

DOD also established the Electronic Mentoring Program –- known as “e-Mentoring” -- in 2002 to supplement the Workforce Recruitment Program for College Students and Recent Graduates with Disabilities, said Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman with the Defense Press Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.

The WRP connects the federal sector with highly motivated post-secondary students and recent grads with disabilities, Lainez said.

E-Mentoring began in 1975 and the program was expanded to all federal agencies 20 years later. Nearly 6,000 positions since then have been filled by WRP participants.

E-Mentoring helps volunteers encourage participants to hone their career plans and consider DOD careers, King said.

E-Mentoring also offers weekly discussion topics, from interview techniques and goal setting to applying for federal jobs and business etiquette.

"Participants have said that DOD's Workforce Recruitment Program's e-Mentoring program gave them the confidence and knowledge needed when applying for full-time employment within the Department of Defense, and the federal government as a whole," King said.

Hiring people with disabilities also contributes to military readiness, Lainez said. For organizations to operate at their optimum, they must capitalize on what all employees bring to the workplace in knowledge, skills and abilities, she noted.

And people with disabilities develop problem-solving abilities that transfer to the workplace, Lainez said.

Last year, 86 recruiters from 40 federal agencies, including 33 DOD recruiters, interviewed students at 290 colleges and universities across the country. DOD hired 79 percent of the WRP participants and 30 percent were people with targeted or severe disabilities as recognized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lainez said.

Mentors comprise service members and civilians from DOD installations worldwide who volunteer their time to help develop qualified individuals with disabilities to enter the DOD workforce. Additionally, mentors bring leadership to the program by “giving back,” she said.

“You would be surprised to know that sometimes mentors benefit from the program just as much as the mentees do,” King said.

“In working with their mentees, they are reminded of their own career goals, and become inspired to reassess their own life plans," he noted.

And those who are mentored become more prepared and integrate more easily into an organization after an experienced volunteer mentors them, Lainez added.

The varieties of opportunities in DOD career fields include business management, accounting, education, criminal justice, administration, and information technology.

Military and DOD civilian employees who are interested in becoming volunteer mentors can contact DOD’s e-Mentoring Program Coordinator at Britney.Canidate.ctr@osd.mil or (703) 614-6390.
 

Back to top

Published: 10/18/2012

Pretrial hearings for two major court cases – one involving the alleged perpetrators behind the 9/11 terror attacks and the other involving the soldier charged with the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history – are converging this week as attorneys operating in two very different legal systems focus on the issue of classified information in the courtroom.

The pre-trial hearing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who has confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks “from A to Z,” and four others who allegedly trained, financed or arranged transportation for the 19 hijackers entered its fourth day today at Naval Air Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mohammed’s codefendants in the case are his nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, charged with selecting and training some of the hijackers; and Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, accused with helping finance the attacks.

Meanwhile, here at Fort Meade, the second day of pre-trial hearings continued for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. He is an Army intelligence specialist accused of downloading and transmitting classified information to the whistle-blowing group WikiLeaks while he was deployed to Iraq.

The legal systems being used to prosecute these cases are significantly different.

Manning, as a member of the U.S. military, is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This system has roots dating back to the Revolutionary War, and is intended to promote good order and discipline in the armed forces. The 9/11 defendants, on the other hand, will be tried through a military tribunal governed by the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

Manning is charged with aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges against him also include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”

If found guilty, Manning could receive up to life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge.

Military commissions, on the other hand, apply to “an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent who has engaged in hostilities, or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or was a part of al Qaeda.”

The 9/11 defendants were captured in Pakistan between 2002 and 2003 and have been confined at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.

They were charged during their arraignment in May with terrorism, conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft. If found guilty, they could receive the death penalty.

A casual peek into the courtrooms gives a glimpse into one of the most obvious differences between the UCMJ and military commission processes.

By law, Manning is not required to attend proceedings regarding his case, but a military lawyer with more than 20 years experience said on background that he’s never seen a service member not attend. Photographers outside the courtroom yesterday captured images of Manning being escorted from the courtroom in his Army dress blue uniform with gold-colored private first class rank on his sleeves.

Army Col. James Pohl, the judge presiding over the 9/11 case, ruled earlier this week that the defendants don’t have to attend their court sessions, as long as they sign a waiver form each morning they choose to skip. When they do elect to attend, they can dress as they choose – as long as their attire doesn’t include U.S. military uniform items or prisoner garb in a color that would misrepresent their security status at the detention facility.

Mohammed quickly took advantage of both rulings. He opted out of court the first day after Pohl ruled that he could – the day the judge also took up the wardrobe issue. Yesterday, Mohammed initially elected not to attend the third day of pre-trial hearings, then showed up later that morning wearing a camouflage vest over his traditional white tunic.

Most of the distinctions between the UCMJ and military commission legal processes are less obvious to those without legal training, and the discussion could fill textbooks. One big question being debated during the 9/11 hearings, for example, is whether the defendants have constitutional rights.

However, a central concern in both the Manning and 9/11 cases is the issue of how classified information is dealt with in court.

Today, the fourth day of pretrial hearings for the 9/11 suspects continued to focus on the balance between protecting classified information that, if made public, could jeopardize U.S. national security, and the constitutional mandate that court proceedings be open to the public.

The prosecution and U.S. government lawyers say protections are needed to prosecute the case without disclosing classified information that would threaten U.S. national security.

In contrast, the defendant’s defense teams accused prosecutors of using an overly broad banner of national security to safeguard information vital to providing a solid defense. Echoing them were lawyers representing the American Civil Liberties Union and media groups, who said the government wants to squelch information the public deserves to know.

Pohl is expected to rule this week on a protective order the prosecution has requested to spell out what provisions are protected and which ones aren’t.

A central issue in both the 9/11 and Manning cases involves information regarding the defendants’ detention. For Manning, that involves time when he was allegedly mistreated while being held in a Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va. Of primary concern regarding the 9/11 defendants is time they spent in the hands of the CIA before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

Both cases also require hammering out details about witnesses who can be called. In Manning’s case, for example, some witnesses’ names have been redacted from the motion and are considered to be classified as secret. At Guantanamo Bay, the issue involves whether the defense is required to give the prosecution a heads up about what testimony the witnesses it calls are likely to provide –something the government would weigh in deciding whether to fly a witness to the court.

Meanwhile, Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge hearing he Manning case, ordered the prosecution yesterday to release hundreds of emails about his incarceration to the defense team. Lind’s ruling covered all but 12 of about 600 emails regarding a range of issues: from Manning’s visitor list and provisions to ensure he had proper uniforms to plans for responding to protesters and media queries. These emails, added to ones already in the possession of Manning’s defense attorneys, bring to 1,200 the total number of emails that will presumably be used to argue that their client was treated illegally.

Lind also issued rulings that would allow parts of CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security documents used in the case to be redacted.

Ironically, the only concrete decision made during the 9/11 hearing today had nothing to do with the court proceedings. Rather, it involved the cleanup of administrative space the defense teams have complained are plagued with rat droppings and mold. Although base officials had declared them safe, a defense lawyer told Pohl the space is making her staff sick.

A Navy officer promised a comprehensive cleanup before the next series of pre-trial hearings, assuring the court that occupational health experts will verify that they they’re up to standards.
 

Back to top

Published: 10/18/2012

President Obama has nominated Army Gen. David M. Rodriguez to succeed Army Gen. Carter F. Ham as the commander of U.S. Africa Command, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.

U.S. Africa Command is the newest combatant command, and its headquarters is in Stuttgart, Germany. The command encompasses all of Africa and its adjacent waters except for Egypt.

The Senate must confirm Rodriguez, who currently is commander of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.

“He has served in a variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said in announcing the nomination. Rodriguez was the first commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, the corps-level command in Afghanistan. He was the commander during the surge into Afghanistan, “and was a key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

Ham has served as the Africa Command chief since March 2011. “Under his leadership, Africom has played a very central role in some very important missions,” the secretary said. “From the NATO campaign in Libya that led to the fall of Gadhafi to successful counterterrorism efforts in Somalia [and] Yemen to efforts we are now involved in in Nigeria and Mali and elsewhere, General Ham has really brought Africom into a very pivotal role in that challenging region.”

The nation is “deeply grateful for his outstanding service,” he said.

Panetta also announced the nomination of Lt. Gen. John M. Paxton Jr. to receive his fourth star and serve as the next assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. He would succeed Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., whom the president has nominated to command coalition and U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Paxton is commander of Marine Corps Forces Command, Marine Fleet Force Atlantic and U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe. Paxton and Dunford also must be confirmed for their jobs by the Senate.
 

Back to top

Published: 10/18/2012

The Defense Department will work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure the financial health of service members and their families, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.

Panetta and Holly Petraeus, the bureau’s assistant director for service members’ concerns, spoke specifically about the financial burden of student loans.

“The number one reason people in the service lose their security clearance is because of financial problems,” Panetta said. “And that’s something that we absolutely now have to address.”

Petraeus presented the results of a report on the challenges that service members face in repaying student loans. This is a problem, Panetta said, noting that some 41 percent of service members are paying off an education-related loan.

“I’m concerned that the report that is being issued today warns of student loan companies that not only may confuse service members, but even violate the law in the approach that they take,” he said.

Petraeus said she repeatedly hears of the burden of education loans whenever she visits troops. “Service members are entering the military with student loan debt, and as a result facing both financial challenges and paperwork challenges,” she said.

In one case, a sailor told her of entering the Navy carrying $100,000 in student loan debts. “He joined the Navy because it was the only way he believed he could make it, but most of his Navy paycheck was going towards paying off those loans,” she said.

Petraeus said this is not an isolated case, and she is concerned that service members are not getting the information they need about programs and policies that could help them reduce that debt significantly while they are on active duty.

“This is an opportunity for us to fix an issue that is impacting the financial readiness of the force and causing harm to military consumers,” she said. “We need to be proactive in addressing problems in the servicing of student loans for members of our military.”

The student loan problem may be in the same category as home loans. In past years, the bureau found that mortgage lenders consistently failed to give troops the protections they earned under the Service Members Civil Relief Act.

“There are real concerns of a similar problem with student loan servicing and SCRA violations,” Petraeus said. “In fact, I think the problem may be greater with student loans than it was with mortgages because I believe many more young service members enter active duty with student loans than with a mortgage.

Service members are having problems invoking consumer protection rights under the legislation. They do not know about repayment alternatives, and student loan servicers “are providing them with inaccurate or incomplete information about their options,” she said. “And they are confused by eligibility requirements for benefits that are so complicated that they either can’t figure out what they are entitled to or don’t realize that taking one benefit might exclude them from being eligible for another, more helpful one.”

And this is real money. Petraeus said the young sailor carrying the $100,000 debt burden could pay nearly $25,000 extra if he doesn’t receive the active-duty interest rate cap. “And if he stays in the Navy for 10 years but doesn't know about or doesn't use the income-based repayment plan, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and the SCRA rate cap, he could lose out on nearly $76,000 that he could have cut off his debt in those 10 years,” she said.

The bureau will be teaming up with DOD to train judge advocate general personnel, personal financial managers and education service officers so that they know about these benefits and consumer protection, she said. “We also plan to push out the message through a variety of media to all service members,” Petraeus said. “We want them to know that even if they did not know about or ask for student loan repayment benefits when they entered the military, it’s not too late to do it now.”
 

Back to top

Published: 10/18/2012

The U.S. lead in cyber technology innovation has created both advances and vulnerabilities, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command said here last night.

Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who also is director of the National Security Agency, gave the keynote address before hundreds of industry leaders and technology experts at a dinner honoring the first 11 inductees into the new National Security Hall of Fame.

“We’re the country that made all this technology, … [and] it has had a significant positive impact on our country and the world,” Alexander said. “We’re the first to create it, [so] we ought to be the first to secure it.”

The job of protecting the nation’s cyber investment is not something NSA or the government can do alone, the general said. NSA, the Homeland Security Department, Cyber Command and the FBI must work as a team on the government side, and that team must work with industry, academia and U.S. allies, he explained.

The nonprofit National Cyber Security Hall of Fame was established this year to honor individuals and organizations that created the foundational building blocks for the cybersecurity industry. The Hall of Fame’s motto is “Respect the Past: Protect the future.”

Chairman Mike Jacobs said the evening was an opportunity to “recognize the men and women who have devoted their professional careers to protecting our systems against the threats and vulnerabilities they had the foresight to imagine in the past four decades.”

“From the code makers and code breakers stationed at outposts around the world, to tens of thousands of information security and assurance professionals working at universities, federal agencies and businesses throughout our country, we salute you,” he said.

The inaugural inductees work in the areas of technology, public policy, business education and public awareness, and were chosen from 300 nominations.

Dorothy Denning is a professor in Department of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. In 1982, she published the first of four books and many articles on cybersecurity. Denning is recognized as one of the world's leading experts in information security.

Carl Landwehr is editor-in-chief of IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine and lead research scientist in the Cyber Security Policy and Research Institute at George Washington University. In 1976, he began developing prototypes in security modeling, database security and token-based authentication.

Peter Neumann is principal scientist at SRI International. In 1975 at SRI, he led the provably secure operating system project, which developed a important framework for verifying that the main component of an operating system meets its specification.

Roger Schell is president of AESec, a company that develops verifiably secure platforms. In 1983, he created the trusted computer system evaluation criteria, also called the Orange Book, for the Defense Department. This DOD standard was used to evaluate, classify and select computer systems being considered for the processing, storage and retrieval of sensitive or classified information.

Whitfield Diffie, Martin Hellman and Ralph Merkle invented the public key cryptograph. In 1974, Merkle created a public-key cryptosystem. Two years later, Diffie and Hellman, influenced by Merkle, published a fundamental paper called “New Directions in Cryptography,” which held that the nation stood on the brink of a revolution in cryptography.

Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adelman invented the RSA algorithm for public-key cryptography, a system requiring two separate keys -- one secret and one public. An RSA user creates and then publishes the product of two large prime numbers, along with an auxiliary value, as their public key. The prime factors must be kept secret. Anyone can use the public key to encrypt a message, but with currently published methods, if the public key is large enough, only someone with knowledge of the prime factors can feasibly decode the message.

F. Lynn McNulty was a federal information systems security pioneer named to the 2012 class posthumously. In 1970, he was among the first to recognize the need for stronger data security protections with the breakout of computer networks.

During the ceremony, each recipient received a crystal vase engraved with the National Cyber Security Hall of Fame shield, a framed embroidered wall hanging and a two-sided Hall of Fame founder’s coin.
 

Back to top

Published: 10/18/2012

Fifty years after they discovered Soviet missiles poised to strike the United States from Cuba, two intelligence officers met with hundreds of their current-day counterparts to commemorate the anniversary of the crisis that nearly brought the world to nuclear war.

Dino Brugioni and Vincent DiRenzo were part of a small group from the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center who worked for 13 tense days in October 1962 to avert disaster. They joined author and journalist Michael Dobbs, and two current analysts, in an Oct. 15 panel discussion at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency here.

Through reminiscences and present-day observations, the group illustrated the significance of the crisis and its continued impact on the tradecraft of imagery and geospatial analysis.

A photo interpreter, DiRenzo led the NPIC team and formed the initial conclusion about the presence of Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles in Cuba from analysis of U-2 spy plane imagery. He discussed the immediate wake of his discovery.

"Considering the severity of the identification, we figured we'd be in for a long night," DiRenzo said. He indicated that the initial assessment was not a "slam dunk," as convincing people of the true significance of the find was difficult. While DiRenzo was absolutely sure, the image did not show clearly identifiable missiles, but rather, long, canvas-covered objects that, to the layman, could be almost anything.

Charged with preparing materials on daily developments for NPIC Director Arthur C. Lundahl’s briefs to the executive committee and the White House, Brugioni was instrumental in arming President John F. Kennedy with intelligence needed to navigate this perilous moment in history.

He recalled with humor how many of his briefing boards came back from the White House marked up with blue crayon from a doodling Caroline Kennedy. On a more somber note, he also relayed the fearful mood of the time.

"Black Saturday, we had gone to [defense readiness condition] 2," Brugioni said. "Fourteen hundred bombers were loaded with nuclear weapons; 50 B-52s were in the air; eight Polaris submarines were at sea; 125 [intercontinental ballistic missiles] were ready to fire; there was tactical aviation; there was 60 Thor missiles in England, 30 Jupiter missiles in Italy, and 15 Jupiters in Turkey. That morning we met with Art Lundahl and told him that all 24 pads were operational, meaning that within four to six hours, 24 missiles could be coming at the United States.

“I remember Lundahl scratching his chin, looked at me and said, ‘I don't want to scare the hell out of them, but I want to make sure they understand the danger,’" Brugioni recalled.

The son of a career diplomat, Dobbs spent his formative years behind the Iron Curtain. He became a Cold War scholar after covering it as a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post. He drew a parallel between his work and intelligence analysis.

"I feel a kinship with intelligence analysts. We try to start with the evidence and proceed from the evidence to the conclusions,” Dobbs said. “Our goal is to tell truth to power."

Dobbs went on to laud the efforts of the team who identified the missiles, and to praise Brugioni for his efforts since the crisis to improve public understanding of photo analysis.

"Dino has done more than anyone else to explain the art and science of photo interpretation to the broader public," he said. "He's a great educator; he's very good at explaining very complicated matters to laymen."

He also discussed how his research of the crisis, with the advantage of 50 years of hindsight, affirmed both the significance the crisis and the criticality of intelligence to policymaking. He also pointed out that 60 to 70 percent of the actionable intelligence came from NPIC during the crisis.

"This was the moment of the photo interpreter," Dobbs said. "They were able to tell [the president] when the missiles would be ready to fire."

It was probably the single biggest intelligence coup of the Cold War, he added.

Art Lundahl’s son, Robert, shared his late father's connection with the president.

"Above all, my father was certainly a technologist. He was a scientist at heart; he loved technology," said the younger Lundahl. "It sounded like President Kennedy had an equal interest in technology. There was a bond there."

Beyond technology, Lundahl also shared what he believes to be the key to his father’s effectiveness as an intelligence officer: exceptional communication skills.

"He was born to brief," Lundahl said. Specifically, he noted his father’s ability to be credible, while adjusting to the knowledge level of his audience and using humor to diffuse tension.

NGA analyst Walter S. Trynock compared and contrasted the world of 1962 with today’s environment. Communication skills remain critical for analysts, he noted, but the tools for providing geospatial intelligence are markedly different, and today’s leaders are bombarded with information.

"The type of information, and the pace in which information is received by the policymaker, is constant, at all times of the day and night," Trynock said. "So the challenge is to bring out the relevancy and the 'so what' to contribute to their decision making.”

Then and now, keen analysis always has been key, Dobbs said.

"Intelligence is like a huge jigsaw puzzle, and you only find a few pieces, and there are always going to be some missing pieces, but from the pieces you do find, you try to inform policymakers about the entire jigsaw puzzle," he said.
 

Back to top