TESTIMONY: DoD Department of Defense Review -- Y2K National Security Ramifications (Hamre: Senate Armed Services Committee 2/24/99)

WARNING: LONG, LONG POST, BUT WELL WORTH THE READ.

For more on the DoD mission-critical system readiness (including comments on the use of the National Guard) see the Senate testimony made by John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense, at an open session with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Also reading-between-the-lines you may get the sense that their real world operational evaluations MIGHT be referring to the Urban Warrior exercises.

There is one thing stated that red flags me. It is under the section DoDs Leadership Focus for 1999 - Ensuring Mission Capability. It refers to a graphics only chart detailing time frames for DoD Remediation, Contingency Planning, Operational Testing, Consequence Support Planning and Y2K Operations.

Im wondering just WHAT does Consequence Support Planning and more importantly Y2K Operations commencing in early to mid Aug 99 mean? Does that signify that the GPS rollover is a key date to commence Y2K Operations? Thoughts? Ideas?

Love these ...

KEY COMMENTS & SUMMARY:

The Year 2000 problem is an especially large, complex, and insidious threat for the Department of Defense.

The complexity of DoD operations results in an enormous scope, variety and number of information technology systems, all potentially vulnerable to the Y2K problem.

Due to our extensive reliance on information technology systems, there are severe consequences for not meeting deadlines for Y2K preparedness.

During 1999 we will test everything from paying service members to exercising vital command and control capabilities from "sensor to shooter." ... Testing in this manner is as complex as going to war and, therefore, involves all areas of the Department of Defense...

Our evaluation and testing efforts will generally follow a pattern of increasing scope and complexity. ... the CINCs, the Warfighters, have each selected among their own unique missions to devise real world operational evaluations to exercise various warfighting missions.

We are using the Department's Warfighters, the CINCs, to evaluate operational readiness to conduct operations unaffected by the Y2K problem.

... the interconnectedness of everything guarantees that Y2K will have an impact on DoD.

OSD is decisively engaged in developing an understanding of the demands that might be placed upon the Department of Defense as a result of Y2K induced disruptions in the US infrastructure.

We announced the DoD plan for preparing the DoD leadership for the impact of Y2K on national security ... outlines the exercise activities that will be conducted at the defense and national level. ... A DoD Defense/ National Security game planned for April and to be completed prior to the national level exercise. The DoD game will focus on policy and crisis management in response to a national security emergency. The DoD senior leadership will fully participate, including myself, the Vice-Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Under Secretaries, the DoD CIO, and selected Principal Staff Assistants and Directors of specified Defense Agencies. State Department and FEMA participation is planned also.

This activity will lead up to a National-level Y2K Table Top Exercise in June. This will be White House Y2K office inter-agency exercise, supported jointly by DoD and FEMA.

CJCS is conducting exercise POSITIVE RESPONSE Year 2000 (PRY2K) ... a series of four command post exercises scheduled from February to September 1999 and is the first national level exercise conducted under conditions of multiple Y2K mission critical system failures. PRY2K assesses the ability of DoD to respond with timely decisions in a Y2K environment and focuses on the strategic national tasks of mobilization, deployment, employment, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR), and sustainment.

The concept is to remove mission critical systems and capabilities from play during the conduct of a robust warfighting scenario and then assess DoD ability to respond with timely decisions. In addition, the exercises assess the ability of the Services to execute operational contingency plans and to mitigate problems associated with Y2K.

... as this year progresses, we will become increasingly involved in DoD support to others.

Another area of focus has been to ensure critical functions and services on our installations will continue uninterrupted during and beyond the Year 2000. We engage Y2K topics at the state and local level for the following five Federal Sectors: Police/ Public Safety/ Law Enforcement/ Criminal Justice Sector; Energy (Electric Power); Water Supply and Wastewater; Waste Management; and the Fire and Emergency Services Sector. Our goal is to identify all dependencies outside DoD within the Federal, State and Local Governments that affect the Department's ability to perform mission critical activities.

These efforts in ensuring our installations are supported during the millennium change are also related to the National Guard Bureau's efforts in preparing for Y2K.

As part of its contingency planning, the National Guard Bureau will conduct a communications exercise this summer to test its, the high frequency radio network from the headquarters to the 54 States, Territories, and the District of Columbia. Success is measured by the National Guard Bureau's ability to communicate with all states simultaneously.

... the National Guard Bureau (States) ... are also asked to ensure that they can answer the call of the respective Governors, should a call be required. Y2K compliance is as essential to a blizzard response, earthquake, flood or other disaster as it is to meeting the Governor's potential call for Y2K related incidents, should they occur.

There are no federal plans to mobilize/ recall the National Guard. Each State Governor makes a determination on calling the National Guard based on the needs of the respective State. Several States have indicated they will alert elements of the National Guard in case they are needed. Some states (Washington and Oregon, for example) already have concluded detailed agreements regarding National Guard response during a Y2K induced emergency. An alert or call to State Active Duty is a State prerogative.

[Does THAT sound definitive enough?]

Our work with other Federal Agencies and international partners highlight the potentially significant demands that might be place upon DoD as the millennium change draws nearer. Consequently, we began centralized planning and management of certain key aspects of our responses to large-scale events affecting the nation.

The Department of Defense, working with other Federal Agencies on contingency and continuity of operations planning, has recognized the potential for multiple competing demands for scarce resources.

The Integrated Process Team (IPT) reviewed current guidance, processes and procedures for Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA), organizational structures to support MSCA, processes and procedures for disaster response overseas, and several other issues that could impact the ability of the DoD to execute both its military responsibilities and provide MSCA.

... the problem of expectation management. For example, what are reasonable expectations about what will occur and what should our leaders be issuing to their subordinates about prudent preparations.

 We are in the process of refining the list of assets that have utility in military support to civil authorities (MSCA) within DoD. Because Y2K is a special case of MSCA in that many concurrent emergencies may occur, special procedures may be required to ensure the most effective use of these resources.

We need to ensure that everyone involved in MSCA knows the specific means and methods for dealing with Y2K.

... we can reasonably expect that DoD will be called upon to assist other agencies and activities during this process. Towards that end, we have begun preparing the DoD leadership for the types of decisions likely to be required during this period.

There have been many positive outcomes of the enormous amount of energy and effort devoted to fixing the Y2K problem. As a result of our preparations for Y2K ... Developed the groundwork for network-centric warfare. In many ways, the Y2K problem acts as a worldwide virus requiring everyone to respond. As a result of our efforts on Y2K, DoD is much better prepared to deal with overt and covert attempts to undermine our IT capabilities.

The enormity and pervasiveness of the Y2K challenge has caused us to focus almost exclusively on the period surrounding the millennium change.

... Continuing our efforts to replace stovepipe systems with enterprise-wide solutions. As ... this process developed and each PSA worked to develop evaluation plans and report progress, it became clear that there were large differences in the maturity of our consolidation efforts. In some areas, such as logistics, the conversion from mainly stovepipe systems to common enterprise-wide software was reasonably far along. In others, a bewildering Tower of Babel is still, lamentably, the order of the day.

(In conclusion) ... DoD has recognized and attacked the Year 2000 problem as a threat to the core of our military superiority. The superior ability of the United States Warfighters to obtain, process, analyze, and convey information is our most powerful weapon on the battlefield. It is a cornerstone of our military strategy captured in Joint Vision 2010.

The leaders in the Department respect the complexity and pervasiveness of the issue, and recognize that the Y2K challenge requires ... 

... Our best leadership to motivate, educate, facilitate, and interface with the myriad other Federal, State, civilian industry, Allied and international organizations upon which we depend.

... Support, recognition, and incentives both for successful program managers and for the information technology workers who are doing the hard work. The software engineers, in and out of uniform, who must slog through millions of lines of code to repair our systems, are an important defense resource and there is no time to replace or train more.

... Ruthless stewardship of our most constrained resource time. Time is critical. We can't slow it down. We cannot change the deadline.

... The Department of Defense is like a large ship headed toward an iceberg. We have successfully changed course to avoid the tip but we must continue our efforts to ensure me miss the submerged portion.

... We have fixed most of our mission critical systems and are working hard on the remainder.

... We are developing and exercising continuity of operations plans for all key functions and processes.

... We are preparing our leadership and our organizations for Y2K operations.

... Rest assured, although there will be increasing unpredictability and some degradation in some systems, the armed forces will be ready to ensure national security before, on, and after the Year 2000.

*BIG SIGH*

Think theres something to this Y2K thing NOW newsmedia??

Diane

Read on for pretty extensive excerpts of report found in the ...

Listing of February Senate Armed Services Committee hearings ...

http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/hearings.htm#feb99

February 24, 1999 - READINESS and MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SUBCOMMITTEE - To review the National Security ramifications of the Year 2000 computer problem.

http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/hearings/1999/c990202.htm

UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Wednesday, February 24, 1999 -- 9:30 a.m.
OPEN

Testimony:

Panel II:

Honorable John J. Hamre
Deputy Secretary of Defense
(PDF Format -- 22 pages)

PDF format ...

http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/1999/990224jh.pdf

Excerpts ...

The Y2K Problem

... The Year 2000 problem is an especially large, complex, and insidious threat for the Department of Defense. We are an organization with roughly the population of metropolitan Washington D. C.; the complexity of a small nation; the resources to sustain a global reach; and an information infrastructure that relies heavily on old, legacy computer systems. The Y2K problem is particularly critical because of DoD's dependence on computers and information technology for its military advantage. ...

... of all the Departments in the Federal Government, DoD has the largest number of computer systems. These are not simply weapons systems, the category best prepared for Year 2000, but command and control systems, satellite systems, the Global Positioning System, highly specialized inventory management and transportation management systems, medical equipment, and important systems for payment and personnel records. The complexity of DoD operations results in an enormous scope, variety and number of information technology systems, all potentially vulnerable to the Y2K problem. ...

... DoD has approximately 9,900 systems, of which 23 percent (or approximately 2,300) are active mission critical systems. DoD also operates over 600 military bases, which are much like small towns, where the infrastructure is also vulnerable to Year 2000 problems. Due to our extensive reliance on information technology systems, there are severe consequences for not meeting deadlines for Y2K preparedness. As a result, DoD spent much of last year getting its act together on fixing systems. ...

Management Focus

Our management efforts last year were focused on four key enablers: publishing a DoD Management Plan for Y2K, implementing effective management oversight, making Y2K a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) problem rather than a Chief Information Officer (CIO) problem, and getting accurate reporting mechanisms in place.

DoD Y2K Management Plan

... We also made some key decisions about how to track "systems" at the Departmental level as well as categorizing systems as either Mission Critical, Mission Essential, or Non-Mission Critical. ... Through the last quarter of 1998, that list was reviewed and scrubbed by CEO staffs and became a much more reliable management tool.

Effective Senior Management Oversight

Every month I ... review our progress toward achieving readiness for Y2K. Senior leaders from across DoD attend, to include Service Under Secretaries and Vice Chiefs, Principal Staff Assistants (PSAs) from the OSD staff, and department and defense agency CIOs. These meetings ... mean to reinforce that Y2K is a CEO problem, not a CIO problem.

CEO Involvement

The key event in energizing the Department's CEOs was publication of Secretary Cohen's 7 August 1998 memorandum. ... A key element of our ability to track progress in these areas was implementation of a common DoD database of systems.

[So, let me extrapolate here. We have THE largest computer using organization ON THE PLANET (yes/no)??? Whos, in Hamres words, ... complexity of DoD operations results in an enormous scope, variety and number of information technology systems, all potentially vulnerable to the Y2K problem. AND they were galvenized into action in August of 1998??? Big Ouch!!! Although Figure 1 (graphic in report) seems to indicate that they started in December 1997?]

Accurate Reporting Mechanisms

... DoD had to work hard to establish a stable baseline and list of systems against which to measure progress. Based on some extremely hard work by people throughout DoD, we have significantly improved our ability to track Y2K compliance from a single authoritative database. ... We are pretty much "there" in getting our reporting mechanisms sorted out. ...

[Gee, thats encouraging.]

Progress Report

... We have made significant progress from our former 'Tier One' agency rating. I'd like to quickly review our progress against our original plan, where we are and plan to be on key milestones, and finally, talk about our nuclear systems.

[Significant progress in REPORTING or FIXING??? Im confused.]

Our Plan and The Results

... made steady progress in Y2K compliance for mission critical systems. (See Figure 1 DoD Y2K Compliance Forecasts and Results {in PDF report} summarizes DoD's actual progress against our October projections.) ... showed significant improvement during the last quarter as we approached our self-imposed deadline of 31 December for mission critical systems.

[*Big Sigh*]

Status at Key Dates

... on 31 December 1998, 81% of our systems were validated as being Y2K.

[What does being Y2K mean?]

... Of that 81%, approximately 8% were still in the process of being fielded.

[What does fielded mean? Fixed and tested? May mean fully compliant according to graphic on Figure 2 Dod Status at Key Milestones]

... DoD forecasts that approximately 93% will be fixed by the OMB deadline of 31 March 1999.

[???]

... Of that 93%, approximately 4% require further fielding beyond that date.

[How mission-critical are those 4%? What are they?]

... For systems that did not meet our internal DoD deadline or will not meet the OMB deadline, we have implemented an exceptional measure of management focus and oversight. The status and impact of systems that slip or will be completed after 31 March 1999 are briefed to me ... While it is impossible to prevent all slippage, we are working hard to ensure every system that can be completed in time for CINC, PSA, or Service testing and evaluation makes its target date. Systems that continue to slip may have development and fielding efforts frozen, particularly if intended to replace an already compliant system. ...

Nuclear Systems

... our nuclear command and control system has been thoroughly tested and has performed superbly. We will continue to further test and evaluate our systems involved in this most important function as our highest priority. Later I will discuss our efforts with other nations in this sensitive area.

[Wow. That was informative.]

DoD's Leadership Focus for 1999  Ensuring Mission Capability

... There are still important efforts to be made in getting all systems Y2K compliant, particularly by the 31 March 1999 OMB deadline for mission critical systems. Our management efforts in 1999, however, are shifting to end-to-end evaluations of functional capabilities, contingency plan preparation and testing, and preparing for Y2K operations in the period surrounding the millennium change. As shown in Figure 3 -Major DoD Y2K Activities in 1999 (see chart), this year our focus will be in the following areas:

 Evaluation and testing of our mission and functional capabilities  Preparation and testing of contingency and continuity of operations plans  Preparing our leadership for Y2K situation decision making  Supporting others in preparing for Y2K  Consequence management planning and operational reporting

Chart shows ...

Remediation: Jun 98 - Dec 99

Contingency Planning: July 98 ? - mid-Nov 99

Operational Testing: Dec 98 - early Sept 99

Consequence Support Planning: Feb 99 ? -Mar 00

Y2K Operations: early to mid Aug 99? - early Mar 00

[So WHAT does Consequence Support Planning and more importantly Y2K Operations commencing in early to mid Aug 99 mean? Does that signify that the GPS rollover is a key date to commence Y2K Operations? Thoughts? Ideas?]

Evaluation and Testing of Capabilities

... Our efforts this year are principally focused on improving our confidence in the Department's ability to continue to execute the National Military Strategy. DoD has already completed initial testing of most individual systems and their immediate interfaces. In 1999, the "Year of Testing," DoD will raise the standard. We will concentrate on complex, real-world end-to-end testing of DoD "business functions" and Warfighter missions  the things that we do in carrying out the national military strategy.

During 1999 we will test everything from paying service members to exercising vital command and control capabilities from "sensor to shooter." This will involve a "thin line thread" or "skein" of systems that must operate in concert in order to perform a function. Testing in this manner is as complex as going to war and, therefore, involves all areas of the Department of Defense: the Services, the functional areas overseen by the Principal Staff Assistants of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the CINCs.

[Note: ... Testing in this manner is as complex as going to war... Hummn.]

Our evaluation and testing efforts will generally follow a pattern of increasing scope and complexity. Therefore, the Services will be expected to test the Y2K performance of specific weapons systems before the PSAs perform end-to-end supplier capability tests. Finally, the CINCs, the Warfighters, have each selected among their own unique missions to devise real world operational evaluations to exercise various warfighting missions.

[Wonder if all the Urban Warrior exercises around the country are part of those real world operational evaluations?]

The number and complexity of testing and evaluation efforts is managed in synchronization sessions co-chaired by members of OSD and the Joint Staff. The DoD Inspector General provides oversight and another review to search for holes in our evaluation program. Finally, the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget provide a review by external auditors. The number of activities, finite amount of key resources (particularly testing experts and time), and demands of real world day-to-day operations have forced an iterative and highly centralized deconfliction of our evaluation plan.

[Define deconfliction.]

The key events in our evaluation plan are CINC Operational Evaluations, PSA functional end-to-end evaluations, and Service end-to-end and integration testing.

Operational Readiness Evaluations

... We are using the Department's Warfighters, the CINCs, to evaluate operational readiness to conduct operations unaffected by the Y2K problem. The Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts require us to conduct at least 25 operational evaluations with each unified or specified commander conducting at least 2 exercises. We will exceed those requirements and, as shown in Figure 4 DoD Combatant Command Operational Evaluation Activities in 1999, have 31 CINC operational evaluations already scheduled.

[Someone who understands the various military groups really needs to look at the report graphic. It shows time frames for Primary and Back-up operational evaluations. The only thing I sort of recognize is USSOUTHCOM, which (I think) was referred to in an earlier post associated with the West Coast Marines and Urban Warrior exercises taking place in Alameda/Oakland mid-March 99.] ...

USACOM
USCENTCOM
USEUCOM
USPACOM
USFK
USSOCOM
USSOUTHCOM
USSSPACECOM
NORAD
USSTRATCOM
USTRANSCOM

... Our approach has been to validate the complete warfighting process, from "sensor-to-shooter" using the significant dates specified by the GAO Testing Guide. Initial results from the three already conducted confirm that this kind of evaluation is essential to providing the additional assurance that our systems will remain operational over the millennium date change.

[Note: ... three already conducted. Thats the number I remember from another post.]

In addition to the CINC Operational Evaluations, CJCS is holding a series of Contingency Assessments of our ability to execute warfighting operations that will be discussed later under "Leadership Preparation for Decision-Making."

Functional End-to-End Evaluations

... We are using the Department's Business Process Managers  the Functional Proponents  to evaluate our ability to continue core support functions despite Y2K. Each of our functional process owners, logistics, finance, communications, intelligence, personnel, medical and others will conduct end-to-end evaluations of their core business functions as shown in Figure 5 -DoD Functional End-to-End Evaluations in 1999 (see report graphic).

In some functional areas, particularly logistics, the Services are conducting end-to-end evaluations of their internal functional systems prior to a DoD-wide functional evaluation. These tests are in addition to the CINC operational evaluations and include, in many cases, organizations and systems outside of DoD.

Integration Testing

Service integration testing will fix responsibility with the Department's System's owners  the Military Departments  to ensure continued functioning of other key processes that allow for Title 10 functions of organizing, training, and equipping our forces. This testing is over and above the five-phase OMB process each individual system must complete to be certified as Y2K compliant.

[Why mention Title 10 here?]

The Services' testing is critical to the ability of the CINC Service Components to carry out their parts of the CINC warfighting plans. Service testing provides a useful foundation prior to more complex, real-world CINC operational evaluations. The successful testing of several weapons' systems (Kiowa, Apache, Hellfire, and Multiple Launch Rocket System) at White Sands, New Mexico, for example, provided an excellent basis for future CINC operational evaluations. The testing conducted by the Military Departments is in addition to CINC operational evaluations and functional proponent end-to-end testing. These tests are the third method we are using to ensure departmental compliance with the evaluation requirements contained in the Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts. Those Acts specify "all mission critical systems that are expected to be used if the Armed Forces are involved in a conflict in a major theater of war are tested in at least two exercises."

Finally, OSD and the Joint Staff are working together to develop a configuration management plan to ensure we maintain the hard won confidence in our systems that will result from this comprehensive series of evaluations. While still under development, the underlying tenet is a coordinated approach to configuration control involving the CINCs, PSAs, Services, and the OSD and Joint Staff.

In summary, we have the largest and most comprehensive evaluation plan in the Department's history, and we are continuing to work on refining our plans and improve the overall evaluation of core DoD functions. This plan will significantly improve our level of confidence in our ability to carry on operations despite Y2K. While these extensive efforts will mitigate our risk, the interconnectedness of everything guarantees that Y2K will have an impact on DoD. To deal with this reality, we must focus on realistic contingency planning and continuity of operations planning.

[Exclamation point: ... the interconnectedness of everything guarantees that Y2K will have an impact on DoD.]

System/ Operational Contingency Planning

... Contingency planning is a normal aspect of DoD operations. What we are doing is applying our experience to the special case generated by the Y2K problem. The key elements of our contingency planning effort involve common guidance, focusing on core missions and functions, an adequate management oversight structure, and DoD engagement with other agencies and activities.

Common Guidance

Common Guidance ... Our efforts at managing the individual component Contingency Planning activities are designed to ensure the Department as a whole can accomplish the eclectic and myriad missions assigned. To ensure that these plans are adequate, oversight responsibility for these plans is delegated to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for their subordinate commands and to the Principal Staff Assistants in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for all other plans.

[... eclectic and myriad missions assigned? Interesting terms.]

Focus on Core Missions and Functions

A key part of our planning process is a focus on core missions and functions. We are using the CINCs to manage our core warfighting missions and the PSAs and Military Departments to manage the core support functions.

Warfighting capability is the domain of the CJCS and the CINCs. The CJCS and CINCs use the Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) to hierarchically group critical activities involved in execution of CINC Operational Plans. UJTL tasks are apportioned across the CINCs for evaluation during operational evaluations of "Thin-Line Threads" or core missions and functions. If systems on the "thin line thread" have not yet completed the Y2K compliance process, the system contingency plan is used.

Enterprise-wide support is the domain of the PSAs. Each core business function has internally derived "mission critical" capabilities that must execute to accomplish the DoD mission. Logistics, transportation, medical services, finance, procurement, supply, and a host of other proponents are charged with assessing vulnerability and interdependencies and developing Contingency Plans to quickly restore services or otherwise accomplish the mission.

Core missions and capabilities not addressed by the CINCs or PSAs are bridged by Y2K Contingency Plans developed by the various combatant activities charged with those missions. For example, Title 10 Service missions address "training, organizing, and equipping" the constituent components. Each Military Department has a series of business activities with core missions and functions that serve this crucial need.

In summary, through a designed overlap of individual system contingency plans, CINC warfighting contingency plans, PSA functional contingency plans, and Military Department mission and functional contingency plans DoD achieves an overall collective organizational contingency plan.

Effective Management Oversight

To ensure that oversight is executed with a common standard, the OSD Y2K Program Office is conducting a workshop on oversight activities. ...

... detailing proven methodologies for developing viable systems and operational contingency plans. Content of these workshops includes risk assessment techniques, interdependency management, value-chain analysis, and the top 100 questions a world-class contingency planner must ask/ answer to assure organizational Y2K readiness. Workshop plans in progress include content development on "zero-day" response, preparations and risk mitigation strategies executed immediately before potential date outages to prepare organizations for the rollover.

[What are the top 100 questions a world-class contingency planner must ask/ answer to assure organizational Y2K readiness? Anyone know???]

DoD Involvement with Others

... DoD is engaged with external organizations for systems and operational contingency planning. OSD is decisively engaged in developing an understanding of the demands that might be placed upon the Department of Defense as a result of Y2K induced disruptions in the US infrastructure. We are working closely with the White House, the National Security Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and a variety of other organizations to achieve a balance between DoD mission requirements and support to others. DoD must be able to assure operational readiness to react to challenges to US National Security while at the same time assisting the Nation in such a fashion as may be necessary to negate disruptions to the domestic infrastructure. This Intra-Governmental Contingency Planning is ongoing and likely to continue up to and through 1 January 2000.

Each system, function, and business process owner in DoD is responsible for developing, testing, and refining contingency and continuity of operations plans that ensure DoD can carry out its mission regardless of Y2K. Many of these plans will be exercised during the spectrum of DoD evaluation activities that will occupy us for most of the 2 nd and 3 rd calendar quarter. Certain common elements in many activity contingency plans highlighted the need for special efforts to prepare decision-makers for potential Y2K situations.

Leadership Preparation for Decision-Making

There are two major activities in preparing DoD leadership for dealing with Y2K, Table Top Exercises and the CJCS-Sponsored Exercise POSITIVE RESPONSE Y2K (PRY2K).

Table Top Exercises

We announced the DoD plan for preparing the DoD leadership for the impact of Y2K on national security in an 8 December 1998 memorandum titled, "Participation in Department of Defense and National Level Year 2000 Table Top Exercises." The memorandum outlines the exercise activities that will be conducted at the defense and national level.

[Wonder where that memorandum is?]

These exercises will expose the participants to a reasonably worst case scenario induced by potential Y2K failures. These activities will enhance participants' understanding of potential Y2K impacts on national security; assist in the development of policy recommendations; provide continuing impetus to accelerate progress on fixing Y2K systems problems; and facilitate effective contingency planning. The four-part program includes:

 A set of three functionally oriented one-day policy seminars held in November and December that identified some 70-80 policy-level issues that formed the foundation for further Table Top Exercise activities.

 A daylong Table Top Exercise policy workshop held on 30 January. Participants represented the key decision-makers of DoD (to include myself), the State Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the President's Y2K Coordinator, and congressional staffers.

 A DoD Defense/ National Security game planned for April and to be completed prior to the national level exercise. The DoD game will focus on policy and crisis management in response to a national security emergency. The DoD senior leadership will fully participate, including myself, the Vice-Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Under Secretaries, the DoD CIO, and selected Principal Staff Assistants and Directors of specified Defense Agencies. State Department and FEMA participation is planned also.

 This activity will lead up to a National-level Y2K Table Top Exercise in June. This will be White House Y2K office inter-agency exercise, supported jointly by DoD and FEMA.

POSITIVE REPONSE Y2K

In addition to Table Top Exercises, CJCS is conducting exercise POSITIVE RESPONSE Year 2000 (PRY2K). PRY2K is a series of four command post exercises scheduled from February to September 1999 and is the first national level exercise conducted under conditions of multiple Y2K mission critical system failures. PRY2K assesses the ability of DoD to respond with timely decisions in a Y2K environment and focuses on the strategic national tasks of mobilization, deployment, employment, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR), and sustainment.

[Note ... strategic national tasks... Define standing army on U.S. soil, during a national emergency.]

This series of exercises is designed to achieve senior participation in and awareness of the operational impact of Y2K mission critical systems failure during the mobilization, deployment, employment, and sustainment processes. The concept is to remove mission critical systems and capabilities from play during the conduct of a robust warfighting scenario and then assess DoD ability to respond with timely decisions. In addition, the exercises assess the ability of the Services to execute operational contingency plans and to mitigate problems associated with Y2K. Finally, senior members of the warfighting community will share lessons learned and other vital information via secure videoteleconference (SVTC). The Secretary of Defense, CJCS, Service Chiefs, and CINCs will participate in the SVTC following the exercise with a goal of recommending a strategy to the National Command Authority to mitigate the impact of mission critical systems failure.

To date, these leadership preparation events have already surfaced several interesting issues and we are working on solutions. In many cases, the situations result from likely requests for DoD assistance from other agencies and activities. Consequently, as this year progresses, we will become increasingly involved in DoD support to others.

Supporting Others

The principal focus of our efforts this year to ensure cross-organizational awareness and coordination necessary for continued operations across the millennium change within the Department of Defense, Federal Government, allies and coalition partners. In compliance with The President's Council on Y2K and other guidance, DoD has been fully engaged in assisting other activities in preparing for Y2K, including other federal sectors, the National Guard's work with the States, and our international partners and allies.

Federal Sector Outreach

The Department of Defense engages in critical functions or shares unique interests with other Federal participants. We have engaged thirteen Federal Sector Outreach Working Groups that cover the full spectrum of business activities, from Health Care to Emergency Management/ Disaster Response to Benefits Payments; and International Trade.

A good example of our outreach engagement has been in the Health Care sector where DoD is the lead agent for the Federal Government in the area of biomedical equipment.

DoD biomedical equipment is currently 96 percent Y2K compliant. The remaining 4 percent will be compliant by Mar 31, 1999. "Biomedical" means instruments and equipment typically found in a clinic, hospital, doctor's or dentist's office. As an example, some electrocardiogram (EKG) machines have a date function that could be affected by Y2K. The EKG equipment, however, records analog signals that are not date-dependent. Thus, the equipment deals with dates only to tag the data.

[So, does that mean the DoD will stand ready to mobilize, and provide National Health Care in the event the private sector health care system is only marginally functional?]

DoD Health Affairs has taken the lead on verifying biomedical equipment compliance along with a multi-agency federal working group consisting of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and Public Health Service. The group has collaborated with equipment manufacturers to develop a database of compliance information for biomedical equipment used in the military health system.

In essence, DoD assessment and remediation efforts for biomedical devices allow other users access to up-to-date Y2K compliance information. This spares the other users the time and expense of duplicating Y2K compliance assessment.

Another area of focus has been to ensure critical functions and services on our installations will continue uninterrupted during and beyond the Year 2000. We engage Y2K topics at the state and local level for the following five Federal Sectors: Police/ Public Safety/ Law Enforcement/ Criminal Justice Sector; Energy (Electric Power); Water Supply and Wastewater; Waste Management; and the Fire and Emergency Services Sector. Our goal is to identify all dependencies outside DoD within the Federal, State and Local Governments that affect the Department's ability to perform mission critical activities.

These efforts in ensuring our installations are supported during the millennium change are also related to the National Guard Bureau's efforts in preparing for Y2K.

National Guard Planning for Y2K

As part of its contingency planning, the National Guard Bureau will conduct a communications exercise this summer to test its, the high frequency radio network from the headquarters to the 54 States, Territories, and the District of Columbia. Success is measured by the National Guard Bureau's ability to communicate with all states simultaneously.

States have been asked by the National Guard Bureau to ensure they are capable of performing their federal missions as elements of the Army and Air Force. The States are also asked to ensure that they can answer the call of the respective Governors, should a call be required. Y2K compliance is as essential to a blizzard response, earthquake, flood or other disaster as it is to meeting the Governor's potential call for Y2K related incidents, should they occur.

There are no federal plans to mobilize/ recall the National Guard. Each State Governor makes a determination on calling the National Guard based on the needs of the respective State. Several States have indicated they will alert elements of the National Guard in case they are needed. Some states (Washington and Oregon, for example) already have concluded detailed agreements regarding National Guard response during a Y2K induced emergency. An alert or call to State Active Duty is a State prerogative.

These and other issues have been raised during our internal DoD Table Top Exercises thus far and may continue to surface in subsequent exercises. In addition to our focus on operational within the United States, we have been working hard to engage with our international partners and allies on the Y2K issue.

International Outreach to Allies

Much of DoD's effort to ensure mission capability is directed toward organizations outside DoD. We are encouraging allies and partners to address the Y2K problem vigorously in an effort to mitigate the potentially destabilizing effects of international Y2K disruptions. Where there are mission critical dependencies we are working to ensure continuity of operations through systems remediation and development of contingency plans.

DoD's extensive participation in international outreach efforts is another example of foresight in consequence management and contingency planning efforts. These initiatives can be categorized in five areas: Remediation, Testing, Table Top Exercises, Consequence Management, and International Outreach. The first four have already been mentioned and I'd like to briefly summarize our efforts in the international arena.

Most of DoD's international outreach efforts have focused on Allies, Partners, and threat reduction efforts. Additionally, the DoD IG recently recommended increased involvement of the Defense Security Cooperative Agency in Y2K Outreach to nations that purchase military equipment via Foreign Military Sales. Other direct involvement is as follows:

Allies and Partners

 Participated in a NATO conference hosted by Ministry of Defence (MOD) United Kingdom in mid-November 1998 to continue planning for Y2K-related exercises and contingency plans.

 Conducted follow-up visits to SHAPE headquarters in Belgium in November 1998.

 Participated in UN Y2K conference on 11 December 1998, to initiate contact with nations strategic to U. S. National Security interests. Contacted delegations from 42 nations impacting DoD missions.

 Participated in conference of economically and strategically vital Pacific Rim hosted by Australian government, 15-23 February 1999.

 Participated in a follow-up conference with Canadian officials on Y2K lessons learned, Coming Challenges, and Mission Critical Systems Status in February 1999.

 Broadened Canadian-US Y2K working groups to include Mexico.

Threat Reduction

 Joint Staff visit on threat reduction issues to Russia and Belgium in January 1999.

 Follow up DoD visit to Russia and Belgium on Y2K Threat Reduction plans in February 1999.

Our dialog and plans with Russia on the critical area of nuclear weapons command, control, and communications and shared early warning are continuing. DoD has had limited dialog with other nations, and I will defer to my colleague, the Deputy Director for Central Intelligence, on the specifics of other nation status.

Our work with other Federal Agencies and international partners highlight the potentially significant demands that might be place upon DoD as the millennium change draws nearer. Consequently, we began centralized planning and management of certain key aspects of our responses to large-scale events affecting the nation.

Consequence Management Planning

The Department of Defense, working with other Federal Agencies on contingency and continuity of operations planning, has recognized the potential for multiple competing demands for scarce resources. We began "consequence management" planning several months ago to deal with the elements common to most mission and function contingency plans. Major components are: planning, request management, and operations and reporting during the millennium change period.

At my direction, the Department has just completed a review of its posture for Y2K Consequence Management. We formed an Integrated Process Team (IPT) consisting of representatives from all elements of DoD, including the Joint Staff, PSAs, the Military Department, and the Director of Military Support (DOMS). The IPT reviewed current guidance, processes and procedures for Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA), organizational structures to support MSCA, processes and procedures for disaster response overseas, and several other issues that could impact the ability of the DoD to execute both its military responsibilities and provide MSCA. Recommendations fell in three major areas:

Planning

 Public affairs planning and guidance. Deals with the problem of expectation management. For example, what are reasonable expectations about what will occur and what should our leaders be issuing to their subordinates about prudent preparations.

 International issues, such as Host Nation Support. These efforts are an in confluence with our International Outreach efforts and also relate to our installations overseas and their support from local communities.

Request Management

 Resource visibility and allocation. We are in the process of refining the list of assets that have utility in military support to civil authorities (MSCA) within DoD. Because Y2K is a special case of MSCA in that many concurrent emergencies may occur, special procedures may be required to ensure the most effective use of these resources.

 Personnel policies. Personnel turbulence and rotation are common issues, particularly with DoD's military population. We are trying to hammer out workable policies that ensure continuity of key personnel over the millennium event.

Operations and Reporting

 Developing the common lexicon and operational picture. This is an issue within the Federal Government that has major implications for DoD's normal reporting procedures and formats. We are fully engaged in helping ensure a common lexicon is used for Y2K that can be applied to other potential national issues.

[What does ... fully engaged in helping ensure a common lexicon is used for Y2K that can be applied to other potential national issues mean? A special Y2K operations code or something???]

 Training. We need to ensure that everyone involved in MSCA knows the specific means and methods for dealing with Y2K. In addition, we will need to rehearse and exercise our procedures for request management and reporting.

As we continue to refine our plans for preparing for and managing the millennium event, the Department's reliance on activities and agencies outside DoD becomes key. In addition, we can reasonably expect that DoD will be called upon to assist other agencies and activities during this process. Towards that end, we have begun preparing the DoD leadership for the types of decisions likely to be required during this period.

The Department's reliance on other nations to conduct its missions and functions has been an eye-opening outgrowth of the Y2K problem. In this regard, our work on the Y2K problem has had several salutary effects and suggests several implications for future DoD information technology operations.

Lessons Learned and Implications for the Future

We have learned many lessons about managing information technology systems in the course of dealing with the Y2K problem. Out of that hard work have come several "good news" stories as well as some obvious next steps.

Good News

There have been many positive outcomes of the enormous amount of energy and effort devoted to fixing the Y2K problem. As a result of our preparations for Y2K, the Department now has:

 An excellent inventory of all information technology (IT) systems: hardware, software, and embedded systems. In addition, we have the management structure in place to deal with management of the approximately 9,900 systems in DoD.

 Improved procedures for managing IT assets. Of note has been a significant increase in the awareness of issues associated with configuration management as a CEO issue related to mission performance.

 More uniform, up-to-date versions of software throughout the organization. In particular, many long overdue upgrades were completed to achieve Y2K compliance for our enterprise-wide support functions.

 A detailed map and agreements with interfaced organizations. The interface listing provides a clear picture of where DoD relies upon others or is relied upon for data. Coupled with the increased appreciation for configuration management issues, we are better able to determine the true costs of issue associated with enterprise-wide upgrades.

 A contact network in place to deal with future enterprise-wide IT issues. Perhaps the greatest benefit of this operation has been to educate DoD senior management of the consequences of failing to "pay the bill" to ensure our IT infrastructure keeps pace with industry standards.

 Developed the groundwork for network-centric warfare. In many ways, the Y2K problem acts as a worldwide virus requiring everyone to respond. As a result of our efforts on Y2K, DoD is much better prepared to deal with overt and covert attempts to undermine our IT capabilities.

Next Steps

The enormity and pervasiveness of the Y2K challenge has caused us to focus almost exclusively on the period surrounding the millennium change. As we continue these preparations, the Department will be working to develop plan to implement the results of some of our lessons learned from this process. In particular, many challenges will remain to completing resolution of issues generated by Y2K, including:

 Our reliance on legacy automation systems. In many cases, DoD has applied several years worth of software upgrades in a very short period of time to achieve Y2K compliance. The long-term costs of failing to budget for and execute an enterprise-wide common configuration baseline have been crystal clear. It truly is a "pay me now or pay me later" situation.

 Replacing "windowing" solutions with reliable software code. Applying a software patch that told the computer to treat certain 2 digit dates as if they were indeed 4 digits completed many of our remediation efforts. By doing so, we've bought ourselves a grace period, but not a final solution. During this grace period we must either fully resolve the date management code in the software or replace the system.

 Completing fielding of systems delayed by Y2K efforts. Again, one outgrowth of our Y2K compliance efforts was to slow down development of some systems that did not seem likely to be Y2K compliant in time. We must deal with these system delays and ensure that the subsequent development and fielding efforts do not undermine our Y2K compliancy status.

 Rescheduling work held in abeyance for the more urgent goal of Y2K compliance. In summary, the opportunity cost of delaying the development of other systems in order to pay for, schedule, attain compliance, and observe the configuration freeze to ensure continued Y2K compliance, has put DoD very far behind in a field that introduces an new generation of technology every 18 months. We must work hard to catch up and pay for it.

 Sustaining and improving our mapping of interfaces and reliance on systems and organizations outside DoD. The August 1998 SecDef memorandum requiring signed interface agreements for all systems was a critical step in jump starting our efforts. We must continue the momentum developed during Y2K to further refine and map our system and capability dependencies within and exterior to DoD.

 Continuing our efforts to replace stovepipe systems with enterprise-wide solutions. As part of our management approach, we fixed responsibility for enterprise-wide business processes with the PSAs. As this process developed and each PSA worked to develop evaluation plans and report progress, it became clear that there were large differences in the maturity of our consolidation efforts. In some areas, such as logistics, the conversion from mainly stovepipe systems to common enterprise-wide software was reasonably far along. In others, a bewildering Tower of Babel is still, lamentably, the order of the day.

 Continuing to replace expensive, proprietary systems with commercial off the shelf (COTS) and government off-the-shelf (GOTS) products and modules. This effort will promote more uniform and more current software, hardware, and system maps.

 Continuing to centralize management of the Department's "business processes" such as logistics, finance, and communications. In particular, our experience with personnel systems during Y2K argues strongly for movement to an enterprise-wide common group of systems. These efforts, while enormously difficult, hold the potential for huge long-term payoffs for the Department.

Conclusion

DoD has recognized and attacked the Year 2000 problem as a threat to the core of our military superiority. The superior ability of the United States Warfighters to obtain, process, analyze, and convey information is our most powerful weapon on the battlefield. It is a cornerstone of our military strategy captured in Joint Vision 2010.

[Joint Vision 2010? Whats that?]

The leaders in the Department respect the complexity and pervasiveness of the issue, and recognize that the Y2K challenge requires:

 Our best leadership to motivate, educate, facilitate, and interface with the myriad other Federal, State, civilian industry, Allied and international organizations upon which we depend.

 Support, recognition, and incentives both for successful program managers and for the information technology workers who are doing the hard work. The software engineers, in and out of uniform, who must slog through millions of lines of code to repair our systems, are an important defense resource and there is no time to replace or train more.

 Meticulous prioritization and focus on the most important systems. We must constantly fight to stay focused on our critical systems and not let our efforts become diluted by attempting to fix everything at once.

 Ruthless stewardship of our most constrained resource time. Time is critical. We can't slow it down. We cannot change the deadline. The Department of Defense is like a large ship headed toward an iceberg. We have successfully changed course to avoid the tip but we must continue our efforts to ensure me miss the submerged portion.

We have fixed most of our mission critical systems and are working hard on the remainder. We are developing and exercising continuity of operations plans for all key functions and processes. We are preparing our leadership and our organizations for Y2K operations. We are working with those who rely on DoD and upon whom we rely. We have focused special attention on nuclear systems and have already tested them several times. We are looking ahead to leverage our Y2K experience for future DoD information technology operations.

DoD has gained a great amount of experience facing the Year 2000 challenge, and we stand ready to support other Federal Agencies with which we interface. Rest assured, although there will be increasing unpredictability and some degradation in some systems, the armed forces will be ready to ensure national security before, on, and after the Year 2000.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999

Hate it when bold messes up!

Sorry!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

Troll,

You might try spelling my name correctly!

D-i-a-n-e

Got that? Sheesh!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

again.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 08, 1999.

Diane, couldn't this have been posted a hotlink? 50K missives on a forum as busy as this one seems pointless.

ATTENTION FORUM HOTHEADS! NOTICE IN THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES THAT I DID NOT MALIGN DIANE IN ANY WAY, AND WAS SIMPLY SUGGESTING AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF OBTAINING INFORMATION. THANK YOU!

-- , (.@,.,), March 08, 1999.

Thanks Diane. This says a lot and not much of it good. Many people seem concerned about the military taking over. I think that is baloney. My concern is if they can function at all and, if not, what the condition of the world will be 01\06\2000. Great job!

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), March 08, 1999.

-- , (.@,.,),

Sorry about the bold goof, but if you noticed, I took the time to make lots of comments. Just hotlink to the file if you prefer. That's why I stick them there.

Please DO read this report. In some ways IT IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE RECENT SENATE REPORT just released.

I donno, Mike. Sure looks to me like they're planning to mobilize for Y2K. Not that it will be easy.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

Diane (and some others) usually post the entire text of items like this DOD report, having more than once discovered that the hot-link has become a cold link overnight. Some have expressed dark suspicions as to why this has happened, but I think it's often only an administrative change by the webmaster involved, relocating the piece in a large and complex website.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 09, 1999.

Diane, you went through a lot of work and time and concentration to present this serious information here for our benefit. Thank you very much. Your reporting is indispensable to this Forum.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 09, 1999.

Diane, thanks for your effort.

Don't you think it would be strange if the DoD weren't planning to mobilize?

Thought the part about the biomedical equipment was a bit of a reach. As if the military has sufficient infrastructure to handle even triple their own current census, let alone significant portions of the general population.

A lot of his presentation involves actions which are just now being hammered (not to pun) out which causes me to wonder if many of these plans will reach a point of executability. The Dept's supply lines are noted to be in a compromised position both nationally and internationally - DoD is embedded within the same technological matrix as the rest of us - even world class disaster planning isn't going to pull irons from the fire if/when the Big Canals shut down, if/when Oil flows in insufficient quantity, if/when Electricity becomes non- reliable or dangerous to the equipment using it, if/when international shipping is compromised, if/when Civil Disorder reaches a point at which individuals in DoD decide they should be at home with family, not guarding an empty Hall of Congress or a Food Mill unable to operate due to lack of raw materials, or an Auto Plant closed because of JIT failure?

I keep remembering the PR from last year when the contract was let, to SAP I think, for the supply arm of the Army - 1 BLOC. I remember the spanking the Navy got last fall for still being in inventory.

I'm glad they are doing something, but I get the idea they are whistling past the graveyard. Did you notice that the cutoff dates were in Mar00? Is that the point at which the Disaster Planners decided that all is going to be OK, or is it the point that the DPs decided that mission & personnel support will collapse? They are planning for a reasonably worse case scenario, what is that? If Hamre's testimony is any indication it appears to me that they are looking at an above "5" hit. As well they should be!

Me, still a "10" and been one for over a year.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), March 09, 1999.

Diane,

I found this sight which seems to be a basic explanation w/links.

short summary:

Joint Vision 2010 promotes a common view of the future.

Four key ideas, dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection, concentrated through the lens of information superiority and enhanced by innovative technology, will enable us to dominate the full range of military operations.

link here

It's a starting point anyway.

-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 09, 1999.

What's your beef with the military? You inserted comments which are pointless, worthless, not well thought out, and reflective of your ignorance. You obviously have let your emotions cloud your Y2K judgement. Go back and do some more thinking.

-- Someone smarter (than@you.com), March 09, 1999.

Someone smarter (than@you.com),

I don't see much evidence of that claim.

Got links? Or just lurks?

Or even an ability to connect the dot mils ... JBD?

Diane

(Thanks Deborah, I'll look.)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

There are no federal plans to mobilize/ recall the National Guard. Each State Governor makes a determination on calling the National Guard based on the needs of the respective State. Several States have indicated they will alert elements of the National Guard in case they are needed. Some states (Washington and Oregon, for example) already have concluded detailed agreements regarding National Guard response during a Y2K induced emergency. An alert or call to State Active Duty is a State prerogative. [Does THAT sound definitive enough?] What answers are you looking for? Yes it does sound definitive enough.

Rest assured, although there will be increasing unpredictability and some degradation in some systems, the armed forces will be ready to ensure national security before, on, and after the Year 2000. *BIG SIGH* [Think theres something to this Y2K thing NOW newsmedia??] Youre angry at the media now or still the gov?

[AND they were galvenized into action in August of 1998??? Big Ouch!!!] Where did you find the word galvenized? Yes they started remediation long before August of 98.

We are pretty much "there" in getting our reporting mechanisms sorted out. ... [Gee, thats encouraging.] Would you rather they not be reporting on progress? I thought thats what you wanted.

We have made significant progress from our former 'Tier One' agency rating. I'd like to quickly review our progress against our original plan, where we are and plan to be on key milestones, and finally, talk about our nuclear systems. [Significant progress in REPORTING or FIXING??? Im confused.] It doesnt take much. The paragraph is pretty self explanatory to me.

[*Big Sigh*] Here you cant even make a comment. Sigh

[What does fielded mean? Fixed and tested? May mean fully compliant according to graphic on Figure 2 Dod Status at Key Milestones] Implemented, put into production, put out in the field. Pick one miss I do my Homework.

... DoD forecasts that approximately 93% will be fixed by the OMB deadline of 31 March 1999. [???] Here you cant even make a comment. I could easily put in question marks too but that doesnt increase your credibility.

Of that 93%, approximately 4% require further fielding beyond that date. [How mission-critical are those 4%? What are they?]

our nuclear command and control system has been thoroughly tested and has performed superbly. We will continue to further test and evaluate our systems involved in this most important function as our highest priority. Later I will discuss our efforts with other nations in this sensitive area. [Wow. That was informative.] So now you dont even recognize status when you see it.

Is that enough of your pointless comments?

-- Someone smarter (than@you.com), March 09, 1999.

Someone smarter (than@you.com), aka JBD,

Clearly, your stated BRILLIANCE outshines us all!

Why don't your try posting an "original" thought? Instead of making it your petty little "mission" to attack me?

Too hard for you?

Diane, who is sometimes brilliant, and sometimes not, like all of us, and that makes us ALL VERY human

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

Hey "someone smarter" instead of critiqueing Diane's comments, a real waste of time ihmo, why not critique Hamre's testimony. He gives enough "solid facts" in that testimony allowing anyone who has been tracking DoD to raise numerous questions as to whether some areas are smoke and mirrors or has progress actually been made.

Care to comment upon the DoD stepping in and working with civilians in the use of the DoD's biomedical equipment? Care to comment as to why the DoD biomedical equipment is apparently y2kOK, yet the local hospital's isn't?

Care to comment upon DoD's position that they will be able to help Natl Guard and implied, the local police, if needed and called upon for that help? Care to work thru and give us a ballpark figure for the numbers of troops and the troop support logistics (transportation, billeting, food, water, waste)? Care to comment upon who you think just might get some of this DoD manpower help?

Care to comment upon the Navy's very late date for finishing assessement?

Care to comment upon the fact that DoD's number of dedicated critical systems has continually shrunk? Care to comment upon the fact that DoD has some of the oldest continually working computers in the world running code no one even knows? Care to comment upon the 500 plus different languages those systems (mainframes, mini's, desktop, and weapon's) use? Care to make a judgement as to which systems have been downgraded to non-critical?

Care to make a comment upon the testimony in which Hamre expresses DoD's surprise at DoD's dependance upon foreign suppliers? Care to make a comment upon DoD's supply chain?

Care to make a comment upon how DoD is going to pay their troops/ dependanats and employees if/when there are banking problems, check printing problems, electrical problems?

Care to make an estimate as to how long troops will remain in field if those troops see a civil situation deteriorating and their families are perceived to be in danger?

Care to comment upon the fact that even though the DoD has "world class" emergency planners and perhaps even contingency planners, that DoD has just got on the ball the last 6 months in reaching out to foreign countries and military organizations, many of the first meetings taking place just now, or even in the future?

Got time?

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), March 10, 1999.

Care to comment upon the DoD stepping in and working with civilians in the use of the DoD's biomedical equipment? Care to comment as to why the DoD biomedical equipment is apparently y2kOK, yet the local hospital's isn't? Let me guess here. You find this contradictory and the DoD is lying about their readiness. Maybe you havent heard about your local hospital because they dont want to say. (FACT: They are more susceptible to lawsuits than the military. The military hospitals and doctors can not be sued by military personnel and almost impossible for dependents to sue.)

Care to comment upon DoD's position that they will be able to help Natl Guard and implied, the local police, if needed and called upon for that help? Care to work thru and give us a ballpark figure for the numbers of troops and the troop support logistics (transportation, billeting, food, water, waste)? Care to comment upon who you think just might get some of this DoD manpower help? No. I have no clue on the prioritized list or how much the military prepared to support. Why? do you want to be on this list to get DoD manpower help? I think its a positive aspect that they are considering supporting local communities. Will you do the same? I will help any way I can; I start by sharing what I have with friends and family.

Care to comment upon the Navy's very late date for finishing assessement? Y2K is a phased event. Heard other reports about some Navy systems completed through testing. So, not enough info to conclude anything.

Care to comment upon the fact that DoD's number of dedicated critical systems has continually shrunk? [Why do you keep pounding this one? I would be suspect if the numbers stayed the same. An enterprise wide assessment usually does change as you get into the details.] Care to comment upon the fact that DoD has some of the oldest continually working computers in the world running code no one even knows? [And they can take this opportunity to upgrade their systems] Care to comment upon the 500 plus different languages those systems (mainframes, mini's, desktop, and weapon's) use? Care to make a judgement as to which systems have been downgraded to non-critical? [Like youve never re-thought the necessity of things you have in your possession? Some thing I thought I needed I ended up throwing away. Re-assessing is a good thing here; helps to clean house.]

Care to make a comment upon the testimony in which Hamre expresses DoD's surprise at DoD's dependance upon foreign suppliers? Care to make a comment upon DoD's supply chain? No. I dont comment on things I dont have direct knowledge of. Something Diane and most of you should remember.

Care to make a comment upon how DoD is going to pay their troops/ dependanats and employees if/when there are banking problems, check printing problems, electrical problems? I dont believe this will happen; its like saying the nukes will launch on the rollover. If the banks and power have problems of this size, then none of this remediation matters and your little preparations wont get us out of this one. This scenario goes to the heart of a doomers and pollyannas argument and cant be answered here.

Care to make an estimate as to how long troops will remain in field if those troops see a civil situation deteriorating and their families are perceived to be in danger? Its their job, the call of duty. They are fully aware of the fact they need to leave their family behind when the time comes. They signed up to this.

Care to comment upon the fact that even though the DoD has "world class" emergency planners and perhaps even contingency planners, that DoD has just got on the ball the last 6 months in reaching out to foreign countries and military organizations, many of the first meetings taking place just now, or even in the future? What a nice thing to do! Congratulations to the military! Better late than never.

Got time? Point is there is little info here to draw any conclusions; you make your own. Further, the DoD is not required (more like can not for security reasons) to divulge the details. Point is they dont have to explain every detail to you on the internet, a highly unsecure environment. They answer to their chain of command and their troops. If you are in the military I suggest you ask them to answer these questions. And for someone like Diane who has no military experience or Y2K experience whatsoever to make comments as worthless as the ones she makes only shows her freedom of speech and not her ability to connect the dots. When you connect the dots you have a lot of lines.

-- Someone smarter (than@you.com), March 10, 1999.

Thanks Mitchell.

Someone smarter (than@you.com) isnt even worth the response time.

When you connect the dots you have a lot of lines.

Brilliant assessment! (Not!)

It even flies in the face of CIA information gathering strategy ...

"We teach a concept called open source and public domain intelligence -- that is, taking what is in the public domain and creating new knowledge by analysis and interpretation," he said. "If you spend 20 percent of your intelligence budget on open source intelligence you'll be able to answer 70 percent of the boss's questions." (Check out Wired News for the link).

But, of course, that would be connecting the dots too much, for you. Wouldnt it?

Got logic? (No evidence so far from you).

Do your homework, or not. However, I will now exercise my right to ignore your stunningly inaccurate assessments.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 10, 1999.

Darn, "someone smarter", I was hoping you would actually attempt to answer some of those questions. Instead you make a lot of assumptions about me, the primary one appearing to be that I'm unable to think myself out of a cardboard box.

The actual thread is about Hamre's testimony. I assume Diane has, and I KNOW have done enough research to question some of that testimony.

If you retreat back into your "no comment upon anything you don't absolutely know about pose", I strongly suggest you keep your comments about my powers of observation, propriaty and your guesses about me personally or what you suppose my agenda to be, to yourself.

Please comment upon Hamre's testimony all you want or if you have done enough research to even be able to. I for one would love a good discussion about that testimony!

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), March 10, 1999.

thanks, Diane, for taking the time to go through loooong stuff like this to help us prepare. BTW, did anybody else notice there are apparently now 54 states plus territories plus DeeCee? did i miss something, like the addition of Puerto Rico or something?

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), March 11, 1999.