The thing to really emphasize about autocrats is not that they're just big ol' meanie heads, but that they and their teams are generally wildly incompetent at actually operating the systems they control.
These regimes attract the least competent people possible because those people know that so long as they're sufficiently loyal, they'll never be accountable for competence. It's a great opportunity for exactly the people you don't want making important decisions!
His first term he was surrounded by extremely competent and serious people, especially early on. Yes, they got whittled away over time, but they were still a major mitigating factor on his stupidity.
Mattis, Tillerson, Barr, Acosta, Azar, Pompeo, Kelly, Mnuchin are all (surprisingly) god-tier thinkers compared to the current clown car.
The US military bombing Houthis is like squishing an ant, they have no air defense and no risk of meaningful counter attack.
Understand they literally don't care about opsec, nor is there much reason why they should. It's an exercise to continue justifying military budgets and contractor and manufacturer enrichment. Any secrecy at best just is there to hide how thinly veiled the reasoning is, which doesn't need much bother because anyone open to finding out can quickly ascertain. It's just not supposed to be said openly for diplomatic and political reasons.
Not only could they obviously evacuate their targets, wasting tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and dozens of civilian lives on an unsuccessful attack, but it's also literally not true they have no air defenses. They've successfully shot down multiple MQ-9 Reapers very recently (one of the drones used in this attack).
Ok, de minimis air defenses, per the nauseating HN pedantry. The Yemenis have been bombed by drones since at least Obama's extrajudicial citizen murder. How many have they shot down, less than one a year on average?
>, wasting tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and dozens of civilian lives on an unsuccessful attack,
A mistake would be to think this isn't success. The point is to spend lots of money to justify and enrich the bloated defense sector.
It's been filled with this kind of reasoning since at least the Iraq War and probably longer. That half of trillion has to be spent somewhere and the cabinets always need to manufacture a reason. That the campaign fails and more 'need' done is not even necessarily a drawback.
It's not true. But if it is, it doesn't matter. And if it matters, what about [my unrelated gripes]!
None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal.
From your initial comment:
> [the Houthis] have no air defense - False
> [there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False
> Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care
> nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms
True. They have since Obama shot down less than what, one drone a year? This is no air defense and your own evidence confirms it. At best it serves as a rare annoyance but is strategically defenseless. You are simply wrong.
>there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False
True. They have not once strategically gained a victory on the US nor do they have means to do so.
>Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care
True. They invite journalists and use poorly vetted signal channels.
>nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms
True, even with leaks the best they can do is extraordinarily rarely shoot down non piloted drones.
>None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal.
I did not claim that it was....
My thesis is the Houthis are the next easy way to unload massive defense funds with little strategic risk. Their lack of air defenses and no need for opsec informs the cabinet's laxadasical treatment.
Your case is predicated on the assumption that national security is a goal, and therefore highly flawed, as that is only the idealized goal of our military sector. Soldiers are largely brainwashed and lied to about this, which often perpetuates this thinking, as there may be some feeling somehow these indictments strike their core rather than where the real blame belongs which is in the high level orchestrators.
No, my case is predicated on it being bad to share information about an upcoming military operation with the Editor in Chief of The Atlantic and that doing so is the result is of a series of objectively illegal and incompetent actions.
The lack of investigation is an exemplar mechanism by which incompetence is allowed to rise to the top of regimes like this one.
There's no 5D chess. These people are just incompetent. Your gripes about the military-industrial complex are irrelevant.
>No, my case is predicated on it being bad to share information about an upcoming military operation with the Editor in Chief of The Atlantic and that doing so is the result is of a series of objectively illegal and incompetent actions.
We are in 99% agreement depending on framing. By my or your standard what they did was bad and incompetent. I'm judging by the standards for which they are selected -- burning budget to keep the right people paid. At that they are quite competent and agilely shift from Ukraine to further incursion in the ME. In this endeavor, bad opsec is competence as evacuating the target creates further opportunity for operations. The odd drone getting shot down would even be desirable from this view.
>Your gripes about the military-industrial complex are irrelevant.
They are relevant because they help you understand the criteria of competence and understand the one for which they were selected. You or I hypothetically may be better at opsec but we would be incompetent since we would not diligently work to achieve my gripes.
Lol, they were selected for absolute loyalty to Dear Leader, and now they reap the rewards of that loyalty (zero accountability) while we reap the downsides (incompetent leadership).
It's not an adequate defence but you should concede that a serious military do not actually want their best pilots and multilmillion dollar war fighting planes shot down? It is at the very least embarrassing.
> Understand they literally don't care about opsec, nor is there much reason why they should.
yeah no that's not how any of this works. You don't get to chose what's going through official channels and what's going through signal based on how you feel about the target capabilities
You’re welcome to doubt it and the DoD have their own channels for internal communications but the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in 2024 issued guidance suggesting Signal as a “best practice” for highly targeted government officials, so it’s used in situations that cut across many departments as well as external organisations like this.
People mistakenly believing that the issue is using Signal rather than simply accidentally adding a journalist is one of the major hallmarks of this case.
Isn't that recommendation for Signal in cases where they would otherwise use SMS? The aren't saying "use Signal for classified meetings" are they? They have their own apps for that.
“So that we’re clear, one of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe said. “One of the first things that I was briefed on very early, senator, by the CIA Records Management folks was the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the previous administration to the [former President Joe] Biden administration.”
You're continuing to skirt around the substance of the conversation: not for operationally sensitive or classified material.
Signal is used for things like "get to a SCIF to discuss" or "what do you want from Starbucks?"
It is not to be used for any non-public information:
> Unmanaged 'messaging apps,' including any app with a chat feature, regardless of the primary function, are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information. This includes but is not limited to messaging, gaming, and social media apps. (i.e., iMessage, WhatsApps, Signal).
If you're at CIA, messaging a colleague at all is absolutely work use.
Sorry but it's clear that in addition to — again — skirting the substance of the conversation, your barometer for just how security-conscious these types of organizations are is completely out of whack.
The CISA guidance is advising that people use Signal for their general purpose communications, not for sharing details of military plans ahead of their execution.
"case closed" == we're not going to talk about it more, and there will be no consequences.
these people are wildly incompetent and are a danger to US and international security. I am utterly shocked the US Army, Feds, or basically anyone hasn't stepped up to displace them.
The thing to really emphasize about autocrats is not that they're just big ol' meanie heads, but that they and their teams are generally wildly incompetent at actually operating the systems they control.
These regimes attract the least competent people possible because those people know that so long as they're sufficiently loyal, they'll never be accountable for competence. It's a great opportunity for exactly the people you don't want making important decisions!
Insightful yet frightening.
Donald Trump got elected in 2016 -- this is news? He's been surrounded by incompetent Yes Men for ages; the smart ones left, often rapidly.
His first term he was surrounded by extremely competent and serious people, especially early on. Yes, they got whittled away over time, but they were still a major mitigating factor on his stupidity.
Mattis, Tillerson, Barr, Acosta, Azar, Pompeo, Kelly, Mnuchin are all (surprisingly) god-tier thinkers compared to the current clown car.
The US military bombing Houthis is like squishing an ant, they have no air defense and no risk of meaningful counter attack.
Understand they literally don't care about opsec, nor is there much reason why they should. It's an exercise to continue justifying military budgets and contractor and manufacturer enrichment. Any secrecy at best just is there to hide how thinly veiled the reasoning is, which doesn't need much bother because anyone open to finding out can quickly ascertain. It's just not supposed to be said openly for diplomatic and political reasons.
Not only could they obviously evacuate their targets, wasting tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and dozens of civilian lives on an unsuccessful attack, but it's also literally not true they have no air defenses. They've successfully shot down multiple MQ-9 Reapers very recently (one of the drones used in this attack).
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/houthi-stri...
Ok, de minimis air defenses, per the nauseating HN pedantry. The Yemenis have been bombed by drones since at least Obama's extrajudicial citizen murder. How many have they shot down, less than one a year on average?
>, wasting tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and dozens of civilian lives on an unsuccessful attack,
A mistake would be to think this isn't success. The point is to spend lots of money to justify and enrich the bloated defense sector.
Now just imagine an entire cabinet filled with this type of motivated reasoning! Frightening indeed.
It's been filled with this kind of reasoning since at least the Iraq War and probably longer. That half of trillion has to be spent somewhere and the cabinets always need to manufacture a reason. That the campaign fails and more 'need' done is not even necessarily a drawback.
It's not true. But if it is, it doesn't matter. And if it matters, what about [my unrelated gripes]!
None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal.
From your initial comment:
> [the Houthis] have no air defense - False
> [there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False
> Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care
> nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms
> [the Houthis] have no air defense - False
True. They have since Obama shot down less than what, one drone a year? This is no air defense and your own evidence confirms it. At best it serves as a rare annoyance but is strategically defenseless. You are simply wrong.
>there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False
True. They have not once strategically gained a victory on the US nor do they have means to do so.
>Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care
True. They invite journalists and use poorly vetted signal channels.
>nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms
True, even with leaks the best they can do is extraordinarily rarely shoot down non piloted drones.
>None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal.
I did not claim that it was....
My thesis is the Houthis are the next easy way to unload massive defense funds with little strategic risk. Their lack of air defenses and no need for opsec informs the cabinet's laxadasical treatment.
I rest my case
Your case is predicated on the assumption that national security is a goal, and therefore highly flawed, as that is only the idealized goal of our military sector. Soldiers are largely brainwashed and lied to about this, which often perpetuates this thinking, as there may be some feeling somehow these indictments strike their core rather than where the real blame belongs which is in the high level orchestrators.
No, my case is predicated on it being bad to share information about an upcoming military operation with the Editor in Chief of The Atlantic and that doing so is the result is of a series of objectively illegal and incompetent actions.
The lack of investigation is an exemplar mechanism by which incompetence is allowed to rise to the top of regimes like this one.
There's no 5D chess. These people are just incompetent. Your gripes about the military-industrial complex are irrelevant.
>No, my case is predicated on it being bad to share information about an upcoming military operation with the Editor in Chief of The Atlantic and that doing so is the result is of a series of objectively illegal and incompetent actions.
We are in 99% agreement depending on framing. By my or your standard what they did was bad and incompetent. I'm judging by the standards for which they are selected -- burning budget to keep the right people paid. At that they are quite competent and agilely shift from Ukraine to further incursion in the ME. In this endeavor, bad opsec is competence as evacuating the target creates further opportunity for operations. The odd drone getting shot down would even be desirable from this view.
>Your gripes about the military-industrial complex are irrelevant.
They are relevant because they help you understand the criteria of competence and understand the one for which they were selected. You or I hypothetically may be better at opsec but we would be incompetent since we would not diligently work to achieve my gripes.
Lol, they were selected for absolute loyalty to Dear Leader, and now they reap the rewards of that loyalty (zero accountability) while we reap the downsides (incompetent leadership).
Have a good day!
Except that the Houthis have actually shot down US assets.
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2024/09/16/ho...
So opesec, against all enemies, is important. Not just for diplomatic and political reasons. For OPERATIONAL (the op in opsec) reasons.
And not using expiring messages on Signal is important also for record retention requirements.
Their extraordinarily rare shoot down have not served as a defense against our bombing campaigns. It is operationally meaningless.
I think that is correct, but how can defense against a meaningless campaign be meaningful?
Perhaps you can explain the operational meaning of the bombing campaign.
It's not an adequate defence but you should concede that a serious military do not actually want their best pilots and multilmillion dollar war fighting planes shot down? It is at the very least embarrassing.
OpSec is a "when we feel like it" sorta deal? Vibe national security practices?
> Understand they literally don't care about opsec, nor is there much reason why they should.
yeah no that's not how any of this works. You don't get to chose what's going through official channels and what's going through signal based on how you feel about the target capabilities
I'm evaluating why they don't seem to care, not justifying it.
because they could be held accountable.
because it makes it easy to stovepipe sensitive information to Moscow, Beijing, et al.
because they're lazy and stupid.
and they're not justifying it because they don't have to, since there are not any meaningful consequences -- like jail or dismissal.
Signal is an official channel, and has been since the Biden administration.
Official channel for military operations ? I very much doubt it
You’re welcome to doubt it and the DoD have their own channels for internal communications but the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in 2024 issued guidance suggesting Signal as a “best practice” for highly targeted government officials, so it’s used in situations that cut across many departments as well as external organisations like this.
People mistakenly believing that the issue is using Signal rather than simply accidentally adding a journalist is one of the major hallmarks of this case.
Isn't that recommendation for Signal in cases where they would otherwise use SMS? The aren't saying "use Signal for classified meetings" are they? They have their own apps for that.
It’s used on computers too.
—
“So that we’re clear, one of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe said. “One of the first things that I was briefed on very early, senator, by the CIA Records Management folks was the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the previous administration to the [former President Joe] Biden administration.”
You're continuing to skirt around the substance of the conversation: not for operationally sensitive or classified material.
Signal is used for things like "get to a SCIF to discuss" or "what do you want from Starbucks?"
It is not to be used for any non-public information:
> Unmanaged 'messaging apps,' including any app with a chat feature, regardless of the primary function, are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information. This includes but is not limited to messaging, gaming, and social media apps. (i.e., iMessage, WhatsApps, Signal).
https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Library/Memo-...
To me "permissible work use" at the CIA would be more than "what do you want from Starbucks?".
If you're at CIA, messaging a colleague at all is absolutely work use.
Sorry but it's clear that in addition to — again — skirting the substance of the conversation, your barometer for just how security-conscious these types of organizations are is completely out of whack.
The CISA guidance is advising that people use Signal for their general purpose communications, not for sharing details of military plans ahead of their execution.
You can read it here: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mo...
This kind of thinking is how the US spend a decade in Vietnam only to give up.
But Clinton's email servers. /s
They weren’t an official channel like Signal is.
Will those Signal messages be stored in accordance to the Federal Records Act?
"case closed" == we're not going to talk about it more, and there will be no consequences.
these people are wildly incompetent and are a danger to US and international security. I am utterly shocked the US Army, Feds, or basically anyone hasn't stepped up to displace them.
It feels like we are living in a powder keg, and articles like this just add more fuel to the pile.
I'm so worried that one initial act of violence is going to erupt into something horrific and uncontrollable.
The US has a surprisingly high tolerance for political violence if and only if it's carried out by gun.
only if it's aimed at kids, tho.
pull off a luigi and there is no mercy.
Mission accomplished!®
Idiocracy in action
Maybe they’ll switch their next operation to iMessage.
Can’t wait to see those Memojis issuing kill orders.
Imagine if this had happened under a Harris presidency.
We don't have to? re: "Hillary's Emails"
Seems unlikely
but, their Signal Group.