The admiral’s computer

The Navy inspector general found security lapses in a classified
computer system maintained at home by the service’s nominee to be the
next vice chief of naval operations, its No. 2 ranking officer.

The Navy stresses that investigators found no security breaches in
the system used by Vice Adm. William J. Fallon, whose nomination is now
pending before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Navy does not
believe the lapses will prevent Senate confirmation of Adm. Fallon, a
career aviator who flew strike missions in operation Desert Storm.

The IG found that Adm. Fallon failed to change his password on a
frequent enough basis and sometimes left his hard drive in the computer
instead of removing and safeguarding the disk. The computer is kept in
Georgia House, Adm. Fallon’s official residence as 2nd fleet commander
in Norfolk.

An official said after the lapses were discovered last winter, Adm.
Vern Clark, then Atlantic Fleet commander, ordered a broad review of
computer security practices. He also spoke to Adm. Fallon about the
lapses. Adm. Clark is now the chief of naval operations, the Navy’s top
officer.

The IG investigation began after Adm. Fallon detected what he thought
were attempts to penetrate a system that holds some of the Navy’s
dearest secrets. The suspected penetrations were also detected by the
Navy’s computer security monitoring system.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service was called in. Its
investigators determined the “penetrations” were actually a glitch in
the Microsoft system — not a criminal act — that created about two
dozen password attempts.

The Navy IG also reviewed security procedures and concluded in its
report there were some lapses.

The White House reviewed the NCIS and IG reports before forwarding
Adm. Fallon’s nomination to the Senate last week.

In response to questions from Inside the Ring, Rear Adm. Steve
Pietropaoli, the Navy’s chief spokesman, said, “Adm. Clark did in fact
discuss with Adm. Fallon administrative procedures that were not
followed. There were some lapses here, and he handled it with a
discussion. The bottom line is there was no compromise of classified
information and no attempted intrusion on the network.”

Adm. Pietropaoli added, “We know the committee takes very seriously
[its] responsibilities for reviewing these nominations. We think it’s
all been done to a level of care that will satisfy the Armed Services
Committee and the greater Senate.”

Chinese at the Pentagon

The Pentagon’s support for Chinese military development continues. A
group of Chinese colonels got a briefing at the Pentagon on Monday. It
included information on plans for the upcoming Quadrennial Defense
Review, known as the QDR, a topic being discussed only in utmost secret
among the Pentagon’s military brass.

A Pentagon spokesman at first told us the colonels, who finished up a
two-week course at Harvard University before visiting the Pentagon, were
told only about the 1997 QDR. He described the information as “old
stuff.”

We learned later, however, that the colonels were briefed on the 2001
QDR now under development by the military services and U.S. intelligence
agencies. The Chinese military is said by officials to be extremely
interested in the topic because the review will help shape how the U.S.
military will be structured in 2015. The emerging threat from China is
expected to be a key element of it.

We could not learn exactly what the Chinese were told by an official
in the office of Edward L. Warner, assistant defense secretary for
Strategy. But we obtained two briefing slides used in the meeting. The
slides included the topics: “U.S. national security interests; threats
to U.S. security interests; national defense strategy; force structure
to implement the strategy.”

Areas also listed on the charts included “readiness; allies; warning
times; engagement in smaller-scale contingencies; intensity, duration
and end-states of conflicts.”

Additional slide topics included:

• Appropriate ratio of combat forces to support forces;

• Strategic and tactical airlift, sea lift and ground
  transportation;

• Forward presence, pre-positioning and other anticipatory
  deployment requirements;

• The extent to which resources must be shifted between theaters in
  the event of conflict in more than one theater; and

• The effect of force structure technologies expected to be
  available in next 20 years.

Earlier at Harvard, the colonels were told about other aspects
of future U.S. military structure by several high-ranking Army, Navy,
Air Force and Marine Corps officers.

Congressional and administration officials said the QDR information
supplied to the Chinese, while limited in scope, far exceeded what the
Pentagon has told Congress on the subject. It came very close to
violating congressional guidelines limiting Pentagon contacts with the
Chinese military, they said.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon on Tuesday made light of concerns
expressed by some members of Congress last month. They worried about a
briefing given to a second Chinese military delegation on U.S. joint war
fighting.

Mr. Bacon said the briefing slides used by the Joint Forces Command
did not appear to be sensitive. He then suggested the briefing was
inconsequential because China’s military is so “primitively equipped”
it will never be able to catch up to the U.S.

Other officials said the information provided the Chinese with a
blueprint on how to set up their own joint war fighting center and what
places to target for spying.

A law passed last year prohibits sharing any information on joint war
fighting with the Chinese that could aid China’s military buildup. Mr.
Bacon said he had not read the law but considered the briefing
“appropriate.”

Duke’s dogfight

Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, California Republican and a former
ace Navy flier, took umbrage this week at Defense Secretary William
Cohen. The congressman’s ire is over Mr. Cohen’s spokesman saying the
defense secretary does not want his generals and admirals begging
Congress for more money during the presidential political season.

In a message to Mr. Cohen on Tuesday, Mr. Cunningham wrote, “With
critical readiness issues and our security at stake, you owe it to
military men and women, Congress and the American people to [allow]
full, open and honest discussion of the remaining problems we face by
our service leaders.”

Mr. Cunningham further requested, “Please put principle above
politics and stop toeing the political line that has been drawn by your
bosses at the White House. If you don’t, your legacy as secretary of
defense will be diminished.”

For the record, Kenneth Bacon, Mr. Cohen’s spokesman, told reporters
last week:

“[Mr. Cohen] said to them [top admirals and generals] that he
expected them to play straight on the readiness issue, to give the
facts, not to beat the drum with a tin cup in hand to try to generate
more pressure for defense spending, but, on the other hand, to talk
honestly about the pressures they face from the operations their forces
are undergoing.”

Gender-neutral toilets

Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland Republican and member of the House
Armed Services Committee, is somewhat skeptical of a Navy admiral’s
request to replace all aircraft carrier urinals — a strictly male
domain — with “gender neutral water closets.” The Navy says the new
stainless steel commodes are easier to clean and enable commanders to
switch the “men’s” sign to “women’s” if a crew’s sexual makeup
dictates.

Said Mr. Bartlett, “It’s premature to make a judgment about this
proposed policy and the cost estimates used to justify it.
Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration has a well-established
pattern of doing three things to our military: cutting it,
over-deploying it, and feminizing it. If Clinton and Gore didn’t have a
record of forcing the military to pay more and get less by imposing
social engineering policies that please radical feminists, but degrade
the capability of the military to achieve its core function, then there
wouldn’t be this suspicion that this is just more of the same.”