Top Secret America

[bmags]

As the newspapers die out, I think it's important to acknowledge some pretty incredible work that we likely won't see during the transition

 

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

 

2 years in the making, and actually tries to challenge a status quo idea that more resources = good.

 

Today was pretty fascinating, i can't wait to see the full thing.

[whitesoxfan101]

Ahh I was just about to post this as well, as you're right about this being the type of work we probably won't see once newspapers are gone. Reading this made me wonder if the financial situation in our country is actually worse than we're led to believe, since as the article points out, the true cost of the security programs in the hidden world is unknown. At the very minimum, this seems like another gigantic obstacle in the way of trying to ever have a reasonable budget in our country. I guess that's the cost of "keeping America safe", even if we're not sure just how safe it's keeping us.

Edited July 19, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[bmags]

i wish i knew more to use this search function. they should do a web tutorial of some guy whose smart showing how he's searching for s***.

 

If anyone's read todays i'm interested to see what you think.

[lostfan]

On page 12 and 13 they rip my organization pretty good. Although it's pretty oversimplified in the way they say it. If you don't know something, you don't know something. The FBI is really, really good at shifting blame when they f*** something up and making everyone believe they were actually doing a great job.

 

btw: even though this is not my real identity or anything, I'm really not supposed to be speaking on this in public at all (Soxtalk would be considered "public"). If you want to know about what I think you can ask me in private, on Facebook or whatever.

[Balta1701]

On page 12 and 13 they rip my organization pretty good. Although it's pretty oversimplified in the way they say it. If you don't know something, you don't know something. The FBI is really, really good at shifting blame when they f*** something up and making everyone believe they were actually doing a great job.

 

btw: even though this is not my real identity or anything, I'm really not supposed to be speaking on this in public at all (Soxtalk would be considered "public"). If you want to know about what I think you can ask me in private, on Facebook or whatever.

I was genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on the article. I'm happy to wait until all 3 parts have come out.

[lostfan]

Well obviously it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but where they are talking about the disorganization and duplication of tasks is absolutely true, I thought that was common knowledge and I was surprised the article gave it so much attention. There are a lot of different reasons for that I could name off the top of my head:

Turf battles - not just interagency battles, intraagency battles, and these really aren't going away, it's the nature of bureaucracy. One unit/section/organization wants to have control of a certain mission. This means personnel, funding, prestige, etc.

Prima donna/alpha mentality - everybody wants to be doing something important and "sexy." Everybody also wants to be relevant, people genuinely believe in their work and they want to be doing something high-speed. This kind of overlaps into other areas too, like where one agency says their files are too important for another agency to see. Are the files really that important, or do you just think they are?

Poor organization/overlapping of similar missions - Analysts produce similar products that someone else is doing, but the organization they work for wants it done a certain way. This also creates unnecessary rivalries. Another organization has a similar mission and the first agency takes offense to it and feels like their toes are being stepped on.

Profit motive - self-explanatory. Billing positions is the reason private companies are in business so of course they have incentive to be actively adding value, however that's done. This isn't really that big of a problem though IMO and it can be managed.

[bmags]

Well obviously it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but where they are talking about the disorganization and duplication of tasks is absolutely true, I thought that was common knowledge and I was surprised the article gave it so much attention. There are a lot of different reasons for that I could name off the top of my head:

Turf battles - not just interagency battles, intraagency battles, and these really aren't going away, it's the nature of bureaucracy. One unit/section/organization wants to have control of a certain mission. This means personnel, funding, prestige, etc.

Prima donna/alpha mentality - everybody wants to be doing something important and "sexy." Everybody also wants to be relevant, people genuinely believe in their work and they want to be doing something high-speed. This kind of overlaps into other areas too, like where one agency says their files are too important for another agency to see. Are the files really that important, or do you just think they are?

Poor organization/overlapping of similar missions - Analysts produce similar products that someone else is doing, but the organization they work for wants it done a certain way. This also creates unnecessary rivalries. Another organization has a similar mission and the first agency takes offense to it and feels like their toes are being stepped on.

Profit motive - self-explanatory. Billing positions is the reason private companies are in business so of course they have incentive to be actively adding value, however that's done. This isn't really that big of a problem though IMO and it can be managed.

 

I think there are things people just take for granted, things like - "well, i'm sure theres redundancy in our counter terrorism efforts" and then there's the scope and scale. And I think when our budget has tripled in 8 years and people aren't even sure it's made a difference, it's a pretty topical series.

[bmags]

Well obviously it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but where they are talking about the disorganization and duplication of tasks is absolutely true, I thought that was common knowledge and I was surprised the article gave it so much attention. There are a lot of different reasons for that I could name off the top of my head:

Turf battles - not just interagency battles, intraagency battles, and these really aren't going away, it's the nature of bureaucracy. One unit/section/organization wants to have control of a certain mission. This means personnel, funding, prestige, etc.

Prima donna/alpha mentality - everybody wants to be doing something important and "sexy." Everybody also wants to be relevant, people genuinely believe in their work and they want to be doing something high-speed. This kind of overlaps into other areas too, like where one agency says their files are too important for another agency to see. Are the files really that important, or do you just think they are?

Poor organization/overlapping of similar missions - Analysts produce similar products that someone else is doing, but the organization they work for wants it done a certain way. This also creates unnecessary rivalries. Another organization has a similar mission and the first agency takes offense to it and feels like their toes are being stepped on.

Profit motive - self-explanatory. Billing positions is the reason private companies are in business so of course they have incentive to be actively adding value, however that's done. This isn't really that big of a problem though IMO and it can be managed.

 

also I didn't think the article took a negative tone on people in the business, just that the system itself needs to be refocused.

[lostfan]

also I didn't think the article took a negative tone on people in the business, just that the system itself needs to be refocused.

I didn't really think so either. Everybody was talking about this article at work this morning. "Did you read the WaPo article" etc. But I don't think it said anything really that inflammatory or controversial.

[EvilMonkey]

Well, you also have the government axiom that if you come in under budget, then you really don't need that money next year either, so you get your budget cut. You have to overspend just to stay the same.

[lostfan]

Well, you also have the government axiom that if you come in under budget, then you really don't need that money next year either, so you get your budget cut. You have to overspend just to stay the same.

That's true, an agency is never going to voluntarily allow its budget to be cut. I've seen this happen.

[southsider2k5]

Well obviously it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but where they are talking about the disorganization and duplication of tasks is absolutely true, I thought that was common knowledge and I was surprised the article gave it so much attention. There are a lot of different reasons for that I could name off the top of my head:

Turf battles - not just interagency battles, intraagency battles, and these really aren't going away, it's the nature of bureaucracy. One unit/section/organization wants to have control of a certain mission. This means personnel, funding, prestige, etc.

Prima donna/alpha mentality - everybody wants to be doing something important and "sexy." Everybody also wants to be relevant, people genuinely believe in their work and they want to be doing something high-speed. This kind of overlaps into other areas too, like where one agency says their files are too important for another agency to see. Are the files really that important, or do you just think they are?

Poor organization/overlapping of similar missions - Analysts produce similar products that someone else is doing, but the organization they work for wants it done a certain way. This also creates unnecessary rivalries. Another organization has a similar mission and the first agency takes offense to it and feels like their toes are being stepped on.

Profit motive - self-explanatory. Billing positions is the reason private companies are in business so of course they have incentive to be actively adding value, however that's done. This isn't really that big of a problem though IMO and it can be managed.

 

So nothing has changed since the 9/11 commission made their recommendations.

[lostfan]

So nothing has changed since the 9/11 commission made their recommendations.

Yes and no. There's moves made in the right direction, the DNI is a good concept on paper, but the agencies all fight tooth and nail to keep their authority, they aren't voluntarily giving it up. So the DNI still can't do what he wants, the Secretary of Defense probably still has more authority. The only reason any progress was made in the Bush Administration was that Secretary Gates got along well with some of Bush's appointees and I think he still gets along with Obama's appointees. But all it takes is one appointment in the future to undo that progress.

[southsider2k5]

Yes and no. There's moves made in the right direction, the DNI is a good concept on paper, but the agencies all fight tooth and nail to keep their authority, they aren't voluntarily giving it up. So the DNI still can't do what he wants, the Secretary of Defense probably still has more authority. The only reason any progress was made in the Bush Administration was that Secretary Gates got along well with some of Bush's appointees and I think he still gets along with Obama's appointees. But all it takes is one appointment in the future to undo that progress.

 

The funny thing is that you could use your previous post almost verbatum to describe how we regulate the financial sector too.

[whitesoxfan101]

also I didn't think the article took a negative tone on people in the business, just that the system itself needs to be refocused.

 

Agreed, the article seems more interested in the problems of the system. I don't think it has a problem with the people themselves.

[bmags]

part 2

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-sec...l-security-inc/

 

unfortunately I woke up late and likely won't be able to read this until after work. But I'm anxious to talk about it then.

[lostfan]

I don't know why but I didn't come away with the sense of "omg this is damning" that so many people did when reading part 2. Maybe because I am a contractor already and none of this is really news to me.

 

Even though it didn't say it in the article, one thing I'll say is that contractors aren't inherently prone to corruption or ethics violations. That kind of thing is beat into our heads all the time. The ones in Iraq that got away with a bunch of s*** because of s***ty/no oversight really made a bunch of other people look bad, but when you're dealing with public money one of the fastest ways to damage your reputation and lose a s***load of money is to get a reputation as a cheater who takes money without doing work.