Navigating Security Clearance Processing

NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE By Lachlan McKinion and Dan Meyer  

“There is little instant gratification within the security clearance process. It is the applicant’s or current holder’s own filing with security that impacts with significance how fast processing takes.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The persistent ebb and flow of security clearance processing times is understood first and foremost through a pretty blunt fact: it is the applicant’s or current holder’s own filing with security that impacts with significance how fast processing takes.

Remember, most security clearance applicants are cleared and do classified work. The critical question is: how fast? What role does the applicant play in the speed of processing?

Let’s face it, another factor impacting processing times is the appeal of federal employment positions. Evidence of this is more anecdotal than empirical, but many in the millennial and Gen Z cohorts value federal employment more than candidates 30 years ago. Getting a federal job is a competition; to get in, you have to win.

Within the security circle of trust, backlogs rise and fall based on the number of older, more complex cases and the ability to close them. Some of those — like “Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse” cases — will drag. Drug use is complex. The facts take longer to resolve. State THC decriminalization leads to complicated fact patterns that take time to parse. This is compared to issues regarding, say, “Guideline F, Financial Considerations.” With continuous evaluations, more data is available to pull from and collect in real time, which can speed up the time to resolve these cases tremendously.

The timing of a filing can also impact processing. File just after one or more public and painful security violations — such as the Edward Snowden case — and applicants will likely end up stuck in the backlog. These actions slowed security specialists down, and no one wants their “yes” on the file of the next leaker.

Despite recent technology enhancements in gathering information about the applicant or holder’s life — they are being watched — a set of eyeballs and fingertips still must review any derogatory information after it is pulled. And those eyes and ears do not move faster; there is no software upgrade to speed up the federal security specialist. Complex cases and info-tech integration issues will always be present, and so will a backlog of some length. The question really is: how to avoid the backlog, shifting that delay to impair a competitor for that federal job you want.

So, how to optimize?

Read the regulations Security Executive Agent Directives 3 and 4 before applying, and every year thereafter. Agency regulations can be poorly written or hard to find; the director of national intelligence, who is the president’s point person on whether one can work for or with the federal government, has put it all in two concise and well-written directives.

A federal worker may not be a spy, but if they are in the executive branch, the DNI determines the policy for their clearance.

Be careful about “wisdom” from friends and the internet — everyone’s advice is rooted in their own security experience, and your experience may not be their experience.

Communicate with security contacts by email and keep a record of communications.

Be precise and on time in submissions. Be ready to apply before applying. Be deliberate filling out the forms. Get advice and counsel from professionals.

Retain copies of all documentation received and sent to security.

If one decides to lie or omit on a security form or in an interview, that is a business — not a legal — decision, and one an applicant will have to protect for life. No case is sadder than the federal clearance holder — mid-30s or early 40s with a spouse and family — who has to take a polygraph with an adjudicated lie still haunting a Standard Form 86 filed decades before. That’s blood in the water for sharky polygraphers.

Do not conduct a whisper campaign in the office or around town attempting to speed up processing. Communicate through security and do so with counsel. Whisperers are gamers, and gamers are not trusted.

First-time applicants ought to be careful about applying to the CIA, FBI or National Reconnaissance Office. Those security offices have very long wait times for reasons specific to each institution.

First-time applicants ought to be very careful about applying for a clearance that requires a polygraph. The polygraph process is, in part, about determining your response to questions through a machine; it is also a review of how you interact with security. It is better to already be within the security system, listening to mentors and watching the process, and then sit for a polygraph.

Keep a roof over your head and bowls full on the table while security does what security will do. There is always another applicant — few are unique, for the most part.

Understand that parents, professors, teachers, coaches, co-workers and friends have probably done great harm by making applicants think they are the center of the world. Security does not think that way. The security needs of the U.S. government are at the center of the world in which they work. To get a cubicle or desk, security has to know that applicants understand that truth.

The adjudicative guidelines enumerated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 are the federal workforce’s bushido. Understanding the code agreed to live by is an important first step in identifying liabilities and the concerns a profile brings to the security file. Bringing in wise women and men, mentors and counsel who can fill in understanding of the gaps is the next step. Do that and leave the backlog to competitors in the rearview mirror. “

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/5/8/viewpoint-navigating-security-clearance-processing-backlogs

Lachlan McKinion is associate counsel in Tully Rinckey PLLC’s Washington, D.C., office. Dan Meyer is a national security partner in Tully Rinckey PLLC’s Washington, D.C., office and vice chair of the National Security Lawyers Association. They can be reached at: info@tullylegal.com.

Optimizing ‘Internet of Things’ Security While Promoting Innovation

“C4ISRNET” By Gary Wang

“The private sector needs policy guidance, technical support, and credible accreditation for making products. On the other hand, the government needs the private sector’s input on innovations and product development to ensure it’s more effective in addressing emerging risks.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The White House recently announced the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program, a cybersecurity certification and labeling initiative to help consumers identify less vulnerable smart devices, effectively raising the bar for Internet of Things, or IoT, cybersecurity standards.

This initiative underscores the importance of public and private sector collaboration to effectively capitalize on cutting-edge technologies without compromising on safety and compliance.

IoT devices can include mundane items like home appliances and fitness trackers as well as more complex machines such as connected vehicles and medical devices. Consumer IoT devices may store personal, financial, or sensitive health information.

To effectively shore up defenses for all IoT, the Federal Communications Commission is seeking public comments on the proposed cybersecurity labeling program, which is expected to launch in 2024.

The FCC’s Fact Sheet on Securing Smart Devices states that “According to one third-party estimate, there were more than 1.5 billion attacks against smart devices in the first six months of 2021 alone. Meanwhile the number of smart devices is skyrocketing, with some estimating that there will be more than 25 billion connected devices in operation by 2030.”

As proposed, the program would use criteria developed by NIST to certify products, such as strong default passwords, data protection, software updates and incident detection capabilities.

While security is paramount, the data-driven insights generated by IoT devices have boundless potential to transform society for the better. Therefore, as security protocols are bolstered, organizations must strive to balance security and functionality.

Security by design

Building secure-by-design connected devices is no small task. Manufacturers will require significant guidance and assistance to create products with resilient security features, as well as to earn security accreditation outlined by the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program.

Weak built-in security features are a primary IoT device security challenge. IoT devices are rarely designed by cybersecurity professionals leading to insufficient defense mechanisms. Moreover, many of these devices cannot be easily patched since software updates may change the functionality of the device or require regulatory review and assessment. Some IoT devices even come with legacy or proprietary operating systems that can be difficult to upgrade or secure.

Given the potential consequences of an IoT cyberattack, it’s imperative to hold manufacturers accountable for hardening their products and providing security guidance and support to consumers. Collaboration between IT professionals, manufacturers and public sector regulators is necessary to develop a security program that can respond to evolving security threats, develop patches, and support patch delivery.

Best practices for scalable IoT security

As identified by NIST, account and access takeover are prevalent risks to many IoT devices. Luckily, these risks can be mitigated with appropriate password management practices, including changing the default password, adequately managing the network configuration and password, and instituting proper access control protocols.

Other best practices include segmenting networks and devices to limit lateral movement, removing extraneous services to minimize potential threat vectors, and continually patching emergent security issues.

Powerful tools to protect the data transmitted by IoT devices include encryption and authentication methods. Perhaps most importantly, manufacturers should provide a “kill switch” in the device that allows for the manual shutdown of the entire system in case of an emergency.

Security is not a static issue — while a product may be secure today, it could easily become vulnerable in the future as hacking tactics advance. With continual collaboration between the public and private sectors, such as sharing threat intelligence and risk management best practices, all parties can securely benefit from the transformative potential of IoT.

Once security is strengthened, users can begin to reap the many benefits of smart devices such as convenience, efficiency, automation, situational awareness, and self-service. When used optimally, IoT devices can leverage cloud computing for effective data analytics and log processing. Artificial intelligence and machine learning solutions can even be implemented to identify risks, predict outcomes, improve decision making and enhance customer experiences.

Collaboration between the public and private sectors is key to a successful IoT cybersecurity labeling program such as the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark.”

Insights from leaders in both sectors will allow the nation to rise to meet the urgent need for enhanced IoT security.”

https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2023/09/20/how-to-optimize-internet-of-things-security-while-promoting-innovation/

Gary Wang is Chief Technology Officer at DMI, a supplier of cybersecurity, cloud migration and other services to companies and governments.

New Medium Landing Ship Could Cost Billions More Than Planned Per Congressional Budget Office Report

“Breaking Defense” By Aaron Mehta

“The Navy’s upcoming medium landing ship could cost $3.6 billion more than the service plans, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The Navy’s upcoming medium landing ship could cost billions more than the service plans, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO believes an 18-ship fleet would cost between $6.2 billion and $7.8 billion in 2024 (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or $340 million to $430 million per ship. That’s a stark contrast to Navy figures, which, according to the CBO, has an 18-ship program at $2.6 billion total, or about $150 million per ship.

Even using the more optimistic CBO figure, the gap between the two totals is eyewatering: $3.6 billion more, or a 138 percent overrun.

However, the figures come with a very large caveat: CBO admits that there are a number of factors that could shift things up or down. Among them are design decisions (ships designed to commercial standards are cheaper than those of military standards) and quantity of buy (the Navy has discussed extending the buy up to 35 ships, which would impact both the per unit and overall costs significantly.)

The medium landing ship is part of the US Marine Corps Force Design 2030 effort, which has the Corps shifting away from some traditional missions and towards capabilities that supporters say will be most relevant in the Pacific. The new ship is intended to transport Marine littoral regiments in and around a conflict, with a focus on a potential conflict with China.

The program has actual funding laid out in the fiscal 2025 request: One ship purchased in FY25 and FY26, followed by two ships per year throughout the current future years defense program ending in FY29. The requested funding for FY25 is $268 million with future years’ requests gradually ramping up to above $300 million in FY28 and FY29.

The characteristics being discussed by service leaders put the length of the ship between 200 to 400 feet, with a speed of 14 knots and a range of 3,500 nautical miles. The ship would require a crew of 70, and is supposed to be able to transit 50 marines plus equipment, with a 20 year service life.

The Marine Corps began the formal request for soliciting proposals earlier this year and will spend much of 2024 receiving and evaluating potential offers. A contract to the chosen shipbuilder is anticipated for award in March 2025 and the first ship will be due for delivery roughly four years later in February 2029, according to the new budget documents.

According to OMB, the Navy awarded early contracts to five contractors for preliminary work on the design: “Austal Shipbuilding, Bollinger Shipbuilding, Fincantieri Marinette Marine, VT Halter Marine (now owned by Bollinger and renamed Bollinger Mississippi), and TAI Engineers.”

A request for comment from the Navy was not returned by press time.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/navys-new-landing-ship-could-cost-billions-more-than-planned-cbo

Justin Katz contributed to this report.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Aaron Mehta is editor in chief of Breaking Defense. He previously served as deputy editor and senior Pentagon correspondent for Defense News, as well as a staff writer for the non-profit Center for Public Integrity. Over his career, Mehta has interviewed dozens of defense leaders from around the globe, covering the intersection of policy, industry and technology at the highest national security levels. Mehta has a particular interest in nuclear issues, foreign weapon sales and NATO issues. Originally from outside Boston, Mass., he now lives in the Washington, D.C. area. amehta@breakingmedia.com

Global Military Spending Surges Amid War, Rising Tensions And Insecurity

“STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE”

“World military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2443 billion. For the first time since 2009, military expenditure went up in all five of the geographical regions defined by SIPRI, with particularly large increases recorded in Europe, Asia and Oceania and the Middle East.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Total global military expenditure reached $2443 billion in 2023, an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022. This was the steepest year-on-year increase since 2009. The 10 largest spenders in 2023—led by the United States, China and Russia—all increased their military spending, according to new data on global military spending published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), available at www.sipri.org. 

Read this press release in Catalan (PDF), French (PDF), Spanish (PDF) or Swedish (PDF).

Click here to download the SIPRI Fact Sheet.

Military expenditure increases in all regions

‘The unprecedented rise in military spending is a direct response to the global deterioration in peace and security,’ said Nan Tian, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘States are prioritizing military strength but they risk an action–reaction spiral in the increasingly volatile geopolitical and security landscape.’

Military aid to Ukraine narrows spending gap with Russia 

Russia’s military spending increased by 24 per cent to an estimated $109 billion in 2023, marking a 57 per cent rise since 2014, the year that Russia annexed Crimea. In 2023 Russia’s military spending made up 16 per cent of total government spending and its military burden (military spending as a share of gross domestic product, GDP) was 5.9 per cent. 

Ukraine was the eighth largest spender in 2023, after a spending surge of 51 per cent to reach $64.8 billion. This gave Ukraine a military burden of 37 per cent and represented 58 per cent of total government spending.

Ukraine’s military spending in 2023 was 59 per cent the size of Russia’s. However, Ukraine also received at least $35 billion in military aid during the year, including $25.4 billion from the USA. Combined, this aid and Ukraine’s own military spending were equivalent to about 91 per cent of Russian spending.

USA remains NATO’s major spender but European members increase share

In 2023 the 31 NATO members accounted for $1341 billion, equal to 55 per cent of the world’s military expenditure. Military spending by the USA rose by 2.3 per cent to reach $916 billion in 2023, representing 68 per cent of total NATO military spending. In 2023 most European NATO members increased their military expenditure. Their combined share of the NATO total was 28 per cent, the highest in a decade. The remaining 4 per cent came from Canada and Türkiye.

‘For European NATO states, the past two years of war in Ukraine have fundamentally changed the security outlook,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato, Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘This shift in threat perceptions is reflected in growing shares of GDP being directed towards military spending, with the NATO target of 2 per cent increasingly being seen as a baseline rather than a threshold to reach.’

A decade after NATO members formally committed to a target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on the military, 11 out of 31 NATO members met or surpassed this level in 2023—the highest number since the commitment was made. Another target—of directing at least 20 per cent of military spending to ‘equipment spending’—was met by 28 NATO members in 2023, up from 7 in 2014.

China’s rising military expenditure drives up spending by neighbours

China, the world’s second largest military spender, allocated an estimated $296 billion to the military in 2023, an increase of 6.0 per cent from 2022. This was the 29th consecutive year-on-year rise in China’s military expenditure. China accounted for half of total military spending across the Asia and Oceania region. Several of China’s neighbours have linked their own spending increases to China’s rising military expenditure. 

Japan allocated $50.2 billion to its military in 2023, which was 11 per cent more than in 2022. Taiwan’s military expenditure also grew by 11 per cent in 2023, reaching $16.6 billion.

‘China is directing much of its growing military budget to boost the combat readiness of the People’s Liberation Army,’ said Xiao Liang, Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘This has prompted the governments of Japan, Taiwan and others to significantly build up their military capabilities, a trend that will accelerate further in the coming years.’

War and tensions in the Middle East fuel biggest spending increase of past decade

Estimated military expenditure in the Middle East increased by 9.0 per cent to $200 billion in 2023. This was the highest annual growth rate in the region seen in the past decade. 

Israel’s military spending—the second largest in the region after Saudi Arabia—grew by 24 per cent to reach $27.5 billion in 2023. The spending increase was mainly driven by Israel’s large-scale offensive in Gaza in response to the attack on southern Israel by Hamas in October 2023. 

‘The large increase in military spending in the Middle East in 2023 reflected the rapidly shifting situation in the region—from the warming of diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries in recent years to the outbreak of a major war in Gaza and fears of a region-wide conflict,’ said Diego Lopes da Silva, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. 

Military action against organized crime pushes up spending in Central America and the Caribbean

Military spending in Central America and the Caribbean in 2023 was 54 per cent higher than in 2014. Escalating crime levels have led to the increased use of military forces against criminal gangs in several countries in the subregion.

Military spending by the Dominican Republic rose by 14 per cent in 2023 in response to worsening gang violence in neighbouring Haiti. The Dominican Republic’s military spending has risen steeply since 2021, when the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse threw Haiti into crisis.

In Mexico, military expenditure reached $11.8 billion in 2023, a 55 per cent increase from 2014 (but a 1.5 per cent decrease from 2022). Allocations to the Guardia Nacional (National Guard)—a militarized force used to curb criminal activity—rose from 0.7 per cent of Mexico’s total military expenditure in 2019, when the force was created, to 11 per cent in 2023.

‘The use of the military to suppress gang violence has been a growing trend in the region for years as governments are either unable to address the problem using conventional means or prefer immediate—often more violent—responses,’ said Diego Lopes da Silva, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

Other notable developments

• India was the fourth largest military spender globally in 2023. At $83.6 billion, its military expenditure was 4.2 per cent higher than in 2022.
• The largest percentage increase in military spending by any country in 2023 was seen in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (+105 per cent), where there has been protracted conflict between the government and non-state armed groups. South Sudan recorded the second largest percentage increase (+78 per cent) amid internal violence and spillover from the Sudanese civil war.
• Poland’s military spending, the 14th highest in the world, was $31.6 billion after growing by 75 per cent between 2022 and 2023—by far the largest annual increase by any European country.
• In 2023 Brazil’s military spending increased by 3.1 per cent to $22.9 billion. Citing the NATO spending guideline, members of Brazil’s Congress submitted a constitutional amendment to the Senate in 2023 that aims to increase Brazil’s military burden to an annual minimum of 2 per cent of GDP (up from 1.1 per cent in 2023).
• Algeria’s military spending grew by 76 per cent to reach $18.3 billion. This was the highest level of expenditure ever recorded by Algeria and was largely due to a sharp rise in revenue from gas exports to countries in Europe as they moved away from Russian supplies.
• Iran was the fourth largest military spender in the Middle East in 2023 with $10.3 billion. According to available data, the share of military spending allocated to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps grew from 27 per cent to 37 per cent between 2019 and 2023.

For editors

SIPRI monitors developments in military expenditure worldwide and maintains the most comprehensive, consistent and extensive publicly available data source on military expenditure. The annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database is accessible from today at www.sipri.org.

All percentage changes are expressed in real terms (constant 2022 prices). Military expenditure refers to all government spending on current military forces and activities, including salaries and benefits, operational expenses, arms and equipment purchases, military construction, research and development, and central administration, command and support. SIPRI therefore discourages the use of terms such as ‘arms spending’ when referring to military expenditure, as spending on armaments is usually only a minority of the total.”

https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity

Media contacts

For information or interview requests contact Mimmi Shen (mimmi.shen@sipri.org, +46 766 286 133) or Stephanie Blenckner (blenckner@sipri.org, +46 8 655 97 47).

Related content

SIPRI Military Expenditure Database

Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2023

World military expenditure reaches new record high as European spending surges

Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2022

Data Fabrics Deal With Exponentially Growing Volumes And Fragmented Ecosystems

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

“FEDERAL TIMES” By Pragyansmita Nayak

“Enabling self-service data consumption, supporting data through automated governance, data security and protection, and enabling automated data engineering tasks.“

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Think of data as the oxygen that breathes life into modern governance.

It shapes policies, propels citizen services, and guides critical decisions across federal agencies.

However, exponentially growing data volumes and fragmented data ecosystems are threatening to asphyxiate agencies, leaving them gasping for actionable insights amidst regulatory complexities.

Agencies are finding themselves inundated with structured and unstructured data from myriad sources like databases, documents, IoT sensors, and social streams they can neither derive insights from nor share.

Navigating this deluge while ensuring data integrity, security, and compliance presents a significant challenge, exacerbated by siloed repositories and outdated legacy systems. The ramifications are severe and include impaired collaboration, compromised data quality, inability to generate timely insights, and heightened risk of noncompliance. Data is only useful in the right place, and without a cohesive strategy, redundancies proliferate, opportunities for innovation remain untapped, and the goal missed.

Overcoming these hurdles demands an inventive solution, like data fabrics, to derive insights for swifter and more accurate mission outcomes. Data fabric architectures integrate disparate data sources into a unified, scalable, and well-governed infrastructure to fuel mission outcomes in an accessible way. With the ability to weave data from on-premises, cloud, and edge domains, data fabrics forge a single source of trusted organizational data, abstracting away the underlying data storage technology from typical extract, transform, and load data collection processes.

For public and private sectors alike, data fabrics are game changing. Four key business benefits include enabling self-service data consumption, supporting data through automated governance, data security and protection, and enabling automated data engineering tasks. For federal agencies in particular, adopting data fabrics can do wonders in several ways, including through decision intelligence, operational agility, and governance and security for regulatory compliance.

Three Benefits of Data Fabrics for Federal Agencies

Once successfully integrated into current postures, data fabrics enable decision intelligence to see a positive ascent as analytics capabilities harmonize across real-time, AI-driven insights. With a unified view of trusted data, agencies can leverage advanced analytics, AI/ML models, and data visualization tools to gain deeper insights, enabling them to quickly identify patterns, anticipate trends, and respond with agility to evolving situations on the ground in real-time.

Next, operational agility would be heightened by streamlined efficiencies and optimized resource utilization. Data fabrics simplify data access and sharing across the enterprise, automating previously manual and cumbersome processes. This frees up personnel to focus on higher-value tasks aligned with the agency’s mission and strategic priorities, while self-service data provisioning further reduces IT bottlenecks.

Third, and perhaps most crucially, robust data governance and stringent security protocols would safeguard compliance with evolving mandates. Centralized data fabrics enable holistic visibility into data lineage, quality, and access controls – empowering seamless oversight. This proactive governance posture elevates data trustworthiness while mitigating risks like unauthorized access or data misuse that could lead to privacy violations or financial penalties. Strict security protocols like granular access controls, data masking, encryption, and audit trails help meet requirements around data privacy (e.g. HIPAA), financial regulations (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley), and cybersecurity (e.g. zero trust).

Moreover, data fabrics catalyze innovation by democratizing access. Breaking down information silos is important because it enables more collaborative creativity to flourish as stakeholders unite over a shared data canvas.

The more digital transformation propels agencies into uncharted territories, ensuring data operations remain agile, insightful, and secure becomes even more paramount. Data fabrics provide this future-proof capability – harnessing burgeoning data volumes into competitive advantages against adversaries.

The time to embrace this revolutionary data architecture is now. Data fabrics are the catalyst Federal agencies need to surmount data obstacles and elevate citizen services.”

https://www.federaltimes.com/opinions/2024/04/15/ballooning-data-volumes-threaten-to-asphyxiate-federal-agencies/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Pragyansmita Nayak is the chief data scientist at Hitachi Vantara Federal. She has more than 25 years of experience in software development and data science. She holds a Ph.D. in Computational Sciences and Informatics from George Mason University and a B.S. in computer science. Connect with her on LinkedIn and X, formerly known as Twitter.

A Soldier’s View-Vietnam,The Balkans,Iraq, Afghanistan,Ukraine And Now The Continued Middle East Bedlam

 Every U.S. citizen from the individual voter to the politician must view our country’s recent, recurring, war making motives as factors when considering future defense and financial security decision-making.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Our near term future as a country involves weighty decisions regarding fiscal and national security.  There are trade offs during federal government war-making decisions and incremental funding authorizations. 

We are approaching a National Debt of $35Trillion with a downgraded fiscal credit rating while carrying the financial burden of ongoing support for NATO and the Ukraine war, the Middle East Gaza conflict, as well as domestic program needs.  

A look over our shoulder at two driving factors of our recent warfare is useful as we consider history when viewing our future while making prudent decisions on the principal contributors to our national debt and security.  

DRIVING FACTOR 1 – GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR  MOTIVES:

The motives of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and The US Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors have fostered continuing wars.  Ongoing warfare nets billions in sales of weapons plus massive construction and redevelopment dollars for international companies. They often operate fraudulently, fostering waste, fraud and abuse.   

It is common knowledge that many of these corporations spent more each year in lobbying costs than they paid in taxes and passed exorbitant overhead and executive pay costs on to the tax payer, thus financing the riches of their operating personnel while remaining marginally profitable to stockholders.

I watched this from the inside of many of these companies for 36 years. You can read my dissertation on the subject at:

Odyssey of Armaments | Ken Larson – Academia.edu

Here is an example of how the lobbying and behind the scenes string pulling worked during the run up and the conduct of the war incursion into Iraq: 

CorpWatch : US: Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

While soldiers and civilians die.

DRIVING FACTOR 2 – LACK OF CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

There has been a complete lack of cultural understanding between U.S./Western decision makers and the middle east culture they have tried to “Assist” by nation building. 

The only real cultural understanding that existed during the period was in the person of General Schwarzkopf who spent much of his youth in the Middle East with his father, an ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He was fascinated by the Arab culture, commanded their respect and, like Eisenhower, led a successful coalition during the first Gulf War to free Kuwait.  

He astutely recommended no occupation of Iraq, went home and stayed out of government. Norman, like General Eisenhower, knew the power of the MIC. 

Eisenhower’s Departing Speech

U.S Tax payers funded billions in USAID and construction projects in Iraq. The money was wasted due to a lack of cultural understanding, waste,  fraud and abuse. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has documented that aspect of the Iraq war history, as well as similar motives and abuses in Afghanistan. 

POGO on Iraq

CONCLUSION AND A HOPE FOR OUR FORTHCOMING DECISIONS:

History has been repeating itself here – much like Vietnam and Iraq, the above two factors are deeply at play with a lack of astute learning in our government as we look back over our shoulder.

We must come to the understanding, like a highly respected war veteran and West Point Instructor has, that military victory is dead.

“MODERN WAR INSTITUTE AT WEST POINT”

“Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish.”

Military Victory is Dead

Frank Spinney, a foremost expert on the MIC, spent the same time I did on the inside of the Pentagon while I worked in Industry. You may find his interviews informative.

Inside the Pentagon: 30-Year Insider Chuck Spinney

I have hope these historical factors are useful in considering our future financial and defense security and that every U.S. citizen from the individual voter to the politician will consider them in their decision-making. 

What Can We Learn From People Who Are Different From US

Stock Buybacks In Defense Companies And How Contract Incentive Structures Can Change The Practice

“DEFENSE NEWS” By Jerry McGinn, Mikhail Grinberg and Lloyd Everhart

“Contracting incentives can motivate companies that are doing business with the DOD to change from using remaining capital to buy back existing shares of company stock in lieu of making  additional investments in research and development, or production capacity.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Recent comments by U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos del Toro have reignited a long-running issue of contention between Department of Defense officials and the management of the largest publicly traded defense prime contractors — stock buybacks. Specifically, some senior DOD officials have raised concerns when companies that are doing business with the DOD use remaining capital to buy back existing shares of company stock in lieu of additional investments in research and development, or production capacity.

The secretary is rightly focused on the need for increased investment to facilitate greater innovation and production capacity for strategic competition with China. The management teams of some large defense primes, on the other hand, buy back shares as an efficient way to return value to shareholders after considering the attractiveness of investment opportunities available to the company.

Changing this situation and spurring increased investment in the defense market requires addressing the incentive structures that guide market behavior, including stock buybacks.

Before examining market incentives, it is worth noting that the U.S. government decided many decades ago to largely privatize the defense-industrial base. While the DOD retains a modest number of government-owned arsenals, shipyards and depots, the vast majority of the systems developed and services conducted for the DOD are performed by for-profit companies. These companies have developed the innovations and capabilities that have made U.S. forces the best in the world.

This industrial base includes approximately 200,000 small, medium and large companies, the vast majority of which are privately held. Including those traded on foreign exchanges, there are only about 100 companies that are publicly traded. And only a very small fraction of those companies use share buybacks consistently as a strategic management tool.

Secretary del Toro captures the essence of the anti-buyback argument, which has been articulated by Pentagon leaders for years: “You can’t be asking the American taxpayer to make even greater public investments while you continue, in some cases, to goose your stock prices through stock buybacks, deferring promised capital investments, and other accounting maneuvers.”

Why do defense companies continue to pursue stock buybacks? It is principally the large mature defense primes such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and HII that buy back stock. These firms are profitable, generate significant cash flow, have a relatively low cost of capital and are not highly leveraged.

Lack of capital is not a problem hindering investment at the largest defense primes. The issue revolves around the capital allocation decision. If large defense primes are not making significant investments, it is because they believe that this incremental dollar is unlikely to materialize into a profitable contract in the future. For that to change, these primes need to see a better return for the earnings they intend to retain and reinvest. Those returns could come through an increased number of growth opportunities, a greater frequency and volume of competitions, or margin improvement.

In contrast to the large mature primes, smaller publicly traded companies such as AeroVironment and Kratos do not typically buy back shares. They are instead investing in growth, as they see significant opportunities in their own market segments and beyond as the DOD spends heavily in unmanned systems, advanced electronics, autonomy and other areas central to the National Defense Strategy. If similar, larger incentives existed for the larger primes, then that is where capital would be allocated.

Bigger budgets obviously help incentivize investment, but changing how the DOD buys through practices such as open architectures, multiyear contracts and multiple production lines will likewise create more contract opportunities and therefore that stronger demand signal that industry needs to invest.

The DOD is heading in that direction in several important ways, and more emphasis there would be productive. Adopting some of the recent recommendations of the congressional commission on defense planning, programming, budgeting and execution reform, for example, could substantially contribute toward improving incentive structures.

Another promising avenue the DOD can use to incentivize investment by the larger primes revolves around program performance. Secretary del Toro has justly emphasized in his recent remarks that “industry must deliver platforms and capabilities on time and on budget for the sake of our warfighters who are in harm’s way.”

How about, for example, rewarding contractors with substantial profit-margin expansion opportunities for delivering ahead of terms, and punishing them more severely for missing the mark? The beauty of a commercially viable defense industry is that its participants are responsive to incentives.

Ultimately, management at for-profit companies are stewards of others’ capital. Browbeating the financial practices of industry alienates firms large and small. Let’s work instead to change some of the incentive structures in the defense market. Addressing these will help foster the innovation and investment we need in our industrial base as well as reducing stock buybacks along the way. And it is ultimately that vibrant public-private partnership we need to confront today’s daunting national security challenges.”

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/04/08/stock-buybacks-in-defense-what-drives-them-and-how-that-can-change/

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Jerry McGinn is the executive director of the Greg and Camille Baroni Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University and a former senior U.S. Defense Department acquisition official. Mikhail Grinberg is a partner at Renaissance Strategic Advisors and a member of the center’s advisory board. Lloyd Everhart is a research manager at the center.

Public Opportunity To Comment – FAR Part 40 Addition – ‘Information Security And Supply Chain Security’

“REGULATIONS .GOV”

“Content

Action

Notice of request for information (RFI).

Summary

DoD, GSA, and NASA recently established Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 40, Information Security and Supply Chain Security. The intent of this RFI is to solicit feedback from the general public on the scope and organization of FAR part 40.

Dates

Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at the address shown below on or before June 10, 2024 to be considered in the formation of the changes to FAR part 40.

Addresses

Submit comments in response to this RFI to the Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for “RFI FAR part 40”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “RFI FAR part 40”. Follow the instructions provided on the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “RFI FAR part 40” on your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Respondents may answer as many or as few questions as they wish. Each individual or entity is requested to submit only one response to this RFI. Please identify your answers by responding to a specific question or topic if possible. Please submit responses only and cite “RFI FAR part 40” in all correspondence related to this RFI. Comments received generally will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. Public comments may be submitted as an individual, as an organization, or anonymously (see frequently asked questions at https://www.regulations.gov/faq ). To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check https://www.regulations.gov, approximately two-to-three days after submission to verify posting.

For Further Information Contact

For clarification of content, contact Ms. Malissa Jones, Procurement Analyst, at 571-882-4687 or by email at malissa.jones@gsa.gov. For information pertaining to status, publication schedules, or alternate instructions for submitting comments if https://www.regulations.gov cannot be used, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite FAR Case 2023-008.

Supplementary Information

The final FAR rule 2022-010, Establishing FAR part 40, amended the FAR to establish a framework for a new information security and supply chain security FAR part, FAR part 40. The final rule does not implement any of the information security and supply chain security policies or procedures; it simply established FAR part 40. The final FAR rule was published in the Federal Register at 89 FR 22604, on April 1, 2024. Relocation of existing requirements and placement of new requirements into FAR part 40 will be done through separate rulemakings.

Currently, the policies and procedures for prohibitions, exclusions, supply chain risk information sharing, and safeguarding information that address security objectives are dispersed across multiple parts of the FAR, which makes it difficult for the acquisition workforce and the general public to understand and implement applicable requirements. FAR part 40 will provide the acquisition team with a single, consolidated location in the FAR that addresses their role in implementing requirements related to managing information security and supply chain security when acquiring products and services.

The new FAR part 40 provides a location to cover broad security requirements that apply across acquisitions. These security requirements include requirements designed to bolster national security through the management of existing or potential adversary-based supply chain risks across technological, intent-based, or economic means ( e.g., cybersecurity supply chain risks, foreign-based risks, emerging technology risks). The intent is to structure FAR part 40 based on the objectives of the regulatory requirement (similar to how environmental objectives are covered in FAR part 23, and labor objectives are addressed in FAR part 22). Security-related requirements that include and go beyond information and communications technology (ICT) will be covered under FAR part 40. An example of products and services that include and go beyond ICT are cybersecurity supply chain risk management requirements such as requirements related to section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232). Security-related requirements that only apply to ICT acquisitions will continue to be covered in FAR part 39. The test for whether existing regulations would be in FAR part 40 would be based on the following questions:

• Question 1: Is the regulation or FAR case addressing security objectives?

○ If yes, move to question 2

○ If no, the regulation would be located in another part of the FAR.

• Question 2: Is the scope of the requirements limited to ICT?

○ If yes, the regulation would be located in FAR part 39

○ If no, the regulation would be located FAR part 40.

The following are examples of the FAR subparts and regulations that are under consideration and could potentially be located in, or relocated to, FAR part 40:

Part 40—Information Security and Supply Chain Security

40.000 Scope of part.

○ General Policy Statements

○ Cross reference to updated FAR part 39 scoped to ICT

Subpart 40.1—Processing Supply Chain Risk Information

○ FAR 4.2302, sharing supply chain risk information

○ Cross reference to counterfeit and nonconforming parts (FAR 46.317)

○ Cross reference to cyber threat and incident reporting and information sharing (FAR case 2021-017)

Subpart 40.2—Security Prohibitions and Exclusions

○ FAR subpart 4.20, Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab

○ FAR subpart 4.21, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment

○ FAR subpart 4.22, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application, which covers the TikTok application, from FAR case 2023-010

○ Prohibition on Certain Semiconductor Products and Services (FAR case 2023-008)

○ FAR subpart 4.23, Federal Acquisition Security Council, except section 4.2302

○ Covered Procurement Action/agency specific exclusion orders (FAR case 2019-018)

○ FAR subpart 25.7, Prohibited Sources

○ Prohibition on Operation of Covered Unmanned Aircraft Systems from Covered Foreign Entities (FAR case 2024-002)

Subpart 40.3—Safeguarding Information

○ FAR subpart 4.4, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry

○ Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) (FAR case 2017-016)

○ FAR subpart 4.19, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems

In this notice, DoD, GSA, and NASA are providing an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments on the proposed scope of FAR part 40. Feedback provided should support the goal of providing a single location to cover broad security requirements that apply across acquisitions. Providing the acquisition team with a single, consolidated location in the FAR that addresses their role in implementing requirements related to managing information security and supply chain security when acquiring products and services will enable the acquisition workforce to understand and implement applicable requirements more easily.

DoD, GSA, and NASA seek responses to any or all the questions that follow this paragraph. Where possible, include specific examples of how your organization is or would be impacted negatively or positively by the recommended scope and subparts; if applicable, provide rationale supporting your position. If you believe the proposed scope and subparts should be revised, suggest an alternative (which may include not providing guidance at all) and include an explanation, analysis, or both, of how the alternative might meet the same objective or be more effective. Comments on the economic effects including quantitative and qualitative data are especially helpful. In addition to the FAR parts and subparts proposed for relocation to FAR part 40, let us know:

1. What specific section(s) of the FAR would benefit from inclusion in FAR part 40?

2. What specific suggestions do you have for otherwise improving the proposed scope or subparts of FAR part 40?

William F. Clark,

Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.”

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAR-2024-0054-0001

A Child’s Wish For The Future (Video)

A child’s voice narrative in Paul Hardcastle’s video masterpiece to which much of the world would do well to listen at the present time.

Medal of Honor Recipient Who Recently Died Spoke Of Our Greatest Enemy

Col. Puckett was the last living Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean War and Passed Away April 9, 2024

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-ranger-legend-ralph-puckett

“TASK AND PURPOSE” By Matt White And David Roza

“He fought Chinese soldiers in the Korean War, North Vietnamese troops in Vietnam, and he fought a long recovery from the wounds he suffered in Korea. But the Army Ranger said America’s greatest battle is not with a foreign adversary, but with itself.

“We have divided ourselves into tribes,” he told reporters on the press call. “Our enemies outside our country are aiding and abetting the dissension within our ranks. They’re watching with satisfaction as they see us destroying ourselves.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“While we have many enemies of this country today who want to see us fall, there’s no greater enemy in my opinion than ourselves,” Puckett said during a phone call with reporters on Thursday, the day before he received the Medal of Honor from President Joe Biden. 

The award recognized Puckett’s “extraordinary heroism” during a battle near Unsan, Korea, in November 1950. A lieutenant at the time commanding the Eighth Army Ranger Company, which consisted of 51 Army Rangers and nine Korean soldiers, Puckett held off an overwhelming force of Chinese soldiers before eventually being forced to retreat. Having been seriously wounded, he told his soldiers to leave him behind, but was ultimately dragged to safety.

Puckett was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross after the battle and offered a medical discharge, which he refused. Instead, he recovered and went on to receive a second Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars for valor, five Purple Hearts, and two Bronze Star Medals with the “V” device for valor. He fought in Vietnam, retired in 1971, and has since become a living legend and mentor within the Army Ranger community.

“He feared no man, he feared no situation and he feared no enemy,” said retired Army Gen. John Walter Hendrix in the Army’s official profile of Puckett. “Clearly a unique, courageous soldier in combat and even more importantly, in my opinion, Col. Puckett was an ultimate infantry leader.”

Col. Puckett on the radio in Vietnam (Photo courtesy of the Puckett Family)

The 94-year-old Puckett was praised by both President Biden and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in during his award ceremony at the White House where Biden called him “a true American hero.” But the day prior, the Ranger had a warning for his fellow Americans.

Puckett pinned some of the blame on lawmakers in Congress, who he said have “put their self-interest ahead of their sworn oath” to protect democracy.

The former soldier did not point fingers at any politicians he felt were responsible for choosing self-interest over oath. However, earlier in the call, Puckett expressed his and his wife Jeannie’s faith in President Biden.

“She [Jeannie] expresses it best, she expresses exactly the way I felt about the President when he spoke to me,” Puckett said when recalling Biden’s call telling him he would receive the Medal of Honor. “’This is a man that’s leading our country. I think I can depend on him. So could you.’”

During the award ceremony, Biden also highlighted Puckett’s role as a commander in the early years after the military was desegregated in 1948.

“In an Army that had only recently been integrated, his team included Black, Latino, and Asian American members,” Biden said. “As my mother would say, ‘God love you, man.’”

When the military was considering opening all combat positions to women in 2015, Puckett looked forward to seeing women meet the Ranger standards, saying “I want to see them do it,” Biden recalled.

Whether these anecdotes reflect Puckett’s political views is unclear. However, the Ranger was vocal in his endorsement of one President in particular: George Washington, who the Ranger called “his favorite American.” Specifically, Puckett referred to the grim frozen days of Valley Forge, where Washington and his men weathered through the snowy forests to emerge ready to fight the British for American independence in the Revolutionary War.

“He was amazing, he never gave up. When things were the toughest, George Washington was there,” Puckett said. “He gave everything that he had to train and to lead his soldiers and to fight for freedom. George Washington is my favorite hero, because of the man that he was, the true soldier and leader that he was, and all he did for our country.”

But it wasn’t just Washington who rallied in Valley Forge that winter of 1777 to 1778. It was the common farmers-turned-soldiers under him. Those soldiers stuck with the general and with the cause through the snow and disease to fight, playing just as big a role as the famous founding fathers did in creating this country, Puckett said. 

Now, we have a responsibility to carry on that tradition. Just as Abraham Lincoln once said “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” so too must we “come together and fight together as a United States of America,” Puckett said.

“Our country was not created to be the States of America, but rather we were named the United States of America,” he said. “It’s my hope that all Americans will come to think about that and adapt that to their own thought process, to their own belief system.

“Our country depends on you, me, what you do every day and how you live,” Puckett added. “Without you, we will not be able to maintain our freedom. It depends on us.”

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/ralph-puckett-ranger-medal-of-honor